Talk:Tiger Woods/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Salary

Todd Chapman is the highest paid athlete in the world-- Micheal Schumacher is. According to F1 Racing Mag in July 2006, it said he earns well over $100 Million. This number can also be found on formula1.com

User:PublicSecrecy 6:03 AM, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide evididence to refute the sources that have already been given, please feel free to update it. However I think it's important to only use historical data (in other words, 2005 income as opposed to projected 2006, or future, income)

For a better article regarding Forbes findings see: The world's best-paid athletes ~~Aktornado 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's from the official f-1 site. Your info on Woods is from a 3rd party not at all linked to golf or Tiger. Plus, that's 2005, this may be from 2006. Ernham 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And Schumacher is now retired in any case. Piccadilly 10:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dublin Newspaper

Personaly, I don't feel this incident is noteworthy enough to be included in the article. Anyone opposed to removing it? Aktornado 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Practice

Shouldn't you add something about Tiger's practice routine, hardwork and dedication to become the 'Tiger"? He is an icon of professionalism and success. His dedication can be worthy for the learners. imroz=

A 60 minutes interview with him said that he practices about 9 hours a day.Ernham 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

British Open

I noticed that this article uses the term British Open to refer to The Open Championship throughout the article. Don't worry. I'm not an anal retentive who insists that anything other that 'The Open Championship' is wrong and will suffer the wrath of the British Empire. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! Sorry, got carried away. However the article never mentions the name Open Championship. This is likely to perpetuate the myth that the tournement is officially named the 'British Open' as opposed to being a coquoilism.

I have two requests that you can deal with seperately. Firstly, the first mention of the the open to be changed to read The Open Championship (British Open), simply to inform an unknowing reader of its official name. The second request is for tables and the infobox to refer to it as The Open Championship. The reason for this is that while coquial names are fine in normal text. When it comes to tables you don't refer to the Chicago Cubs as The Cubies in a table of World Series Winners.

FYI. I've just added an optional rydercupapp field in the infobox. You can use this to add the number of ryder cup appearances that Mr Woods has made. josh (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wins

For people who come to wikipedia for a quick snapshot of the golfer, do you think that there should be the number in parenthesis next to the category like "PGA Tour Wins (53)," so that people can quickly see how many wins he has without looking at the messy profile section? And next to "Other" Make it "Other (18)" so that people can quickly see how many wins he has. Do you think this would make it easier to read, because otherwise people see the section labeled "PGA Tour Wins" and only the number next to each year - perhaps we should add the number next to the title. What do you think?

Money

We don't need to say that he's the second highest paid athlete, because that looks dumb as the second sentence of an encyclopedia entry. One of the highest paid makes him look better. And if the former is true, post a link.

As I pointed out earlier, the sourced info states him as being the highest paid golfer, not second highest, or one of the highest. So I revised it back to what the sourced information says. Aktornado 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

College

Woods never graduated from college. He attended Stanford for only two years and then forsook further education (much to his father's chgrin, by the way). The info box on the right-hand side lists Stanford under College, and the formatting falsely leads the reader to believe that he completed his education.DocEss 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make it a little more accurate, but the template is acting weird. Not sure how to fix it. Ernham 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Career section/profile needs some work

There should be the number of wins he has had for both major and non majors since turning pro, as well as how many he played in, both seperately.

There were several articles written in 1996 – 1997 saying that Tiger was going to win everything, and people were only going to be playing for second. The reason there weren’t links there before was because this is so obvious, and we can’t provide links for every single obvious word written on the page. If you knew what went on during “Tigermania” you would be aware of this. People were going nuts thinking he’d win everything. But since you wanted sources, and I put them there. The “from then on” refers to after the 1997 Masters. Common sense. You added “one of” in the sentence: “beginning of perhaps ‘one of’ the greatest sustained period of dominance in the history of men's golf.” “perhaps” and “one of” are both qualifying statements that undermine his achievements. Only one is necessary. --Supertigerman

Sorry, this isn't a Tiger Woods fan site. Get the speculation and editorlizing nonsense out, or I take it out. Being living persons biography, anything less is slander/vandalismErnham 22:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

also, make your changes more piecemeal and make sure they actually substantiate what you claim they do. Ernham 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I think listing all the wins in the profile template should be done away with and numerical "PGA events played in, PGA events won, Majors played in; majors won". Mainly because the wins are so well documented towards in the article already. Usually the profiles do not have stats setup like that.Ernham 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to argue with a Tiger-hater right now, I'll show you why my sources were correct tomorrow. Please not that I didn't spend all that time searching for sites to back up what I said for nothing. Look at those sites again. By the way, you still have some spelling errors. We don't need you messing up his page. Look at how unorganized it currently looks. At the very least, make some readable paragraphs out of your edits.

You need to learn how to write encyclopedic. Do not speculate. Also, SHOW/demonstrate things. Do not just spin things to sound good. If Tiger had a dominant spell, then explain what he did exactly without dressing it up with "greatest" rhetoric. My favorite was where it said "perhaps the greatest ever period of dominance" and then in the same breath say "[that same kind of dominance]... is something that hasn't been rivaled in decades". well, it's obviously not "perhaps" the greastest, then, it's "one of the greatest", if that. And the reality is, if it truly was so great, you don't even need to dress it up as such. And if you are shedding tears over what I did already, wait 'till I get to the rest of the article. Ernham 04:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From 1999-2002, it was "perhaps the greatest ever period of dominance" AND "something that hasn't been rivaled in decades". In other words, it was not only "one of the best" but also "perhaps the greatest ever". They can co-exist.

And your last line is rather rude, as it implies that you intend to downplay all of his achievements.

The citing needs major, major work

Almost nothing is cited in this wiki. And since many of comments involve living persons, it is vital that they are given.

I added quite a few. --Supertigerman

Glitch in infobox

A compugeek is needed to fix a glitch in the infobox, the link to Stanford University which for some reason displays a couple of [[. Beats me, and others who have tried to rectify it, but I'M not very wiki-progamming savvy. Moriori 19:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Stanley011 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, yes. But now inaccurate. Please read comment "College" above.DocEss 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vandal bot badly needed for this page

Some idiot/s hiding behind IP addresses keep inserting the line "Woods also served as a House of Representatives page" or some variation of that. Is there some way we can get a vandal bot to automatically revert whenever the words "page" or "House of Reps" is used in this article so that good faith editors don't have to keep doing it? Thanks. Stanley011 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: no, the antivandal bot is fairly stupid (unexplained deletions, insertion of expletives on a list, I think, and isn't page-specific in any way). What can be done is to restrict editing of the page to only registed users. My sense is that you need a lot of attacks (certainly more than a half-dozen a day) to convince an admin to set up semi-protection, and it's usely only for a day or two, but I could be wrong - in any case, here's the policy: Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. John Broughton | Talk 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Jones

I did clarify the sentence, so it now reads "the only player ever to win multiple professional majors in consecutive years. There is no debate that in Jones's day, he won amateur titles, which were later made into professional. There is debate about whether or not we should include those in the "majors" category. Given that the links I posted about Tiger Woods being the only man to do so are directly from official golf websites (golflinks and pgatour.com), it is clear that the common perception is that he is the only man to do so. Yes, true Jones did it with amateur and professional titles, but Woods is the only man to do it with professional titles, so there is no need to include Jones. Supertigerman 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a need to because without this explanation, it gives readers the false impression that amateur majors were not considered majors in Jones's day. Thus the only accurate way to frame the sentence would be to leave the line about Woods being the only player to win professional majors, and then also noting that Jones did it with amateurs and professionals because, as I and others have explained numerous times before, Jones only had 4 majors in which he could possibly have competed. All of my assertions are well-sourced (Washington Post, GolfOnline, etc.) and thus are appropriate and indeed necessary for any sort of precision to be achieved. Stanley011 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And I should remind you that you did NOT "clarify the sentence" with "professional majors." I did that--it's only fair to give credit where credit is due. Stanley011 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did write that, I kept it in for clarification. The huge debate about Jones's winning the Grand Slam is on the page about most major championships. They had a long debate, but concluded that since news sources today talk about the modern professional majors, and not that one with amateur and professional titles, it is what we go by. They concluded that since pgatour.com consistently says that Tiger is 2nd behind only Nicklaus, and not Jones, it refers to the modern definition, which is tougher to achieve. Amateur majors were considered majors, but not professional majors. Therefore, Tiger is the only man to do it by winning professional majors. In any case, you have to admit that given increased length of courses, more players, and much tougher field strength today, Tiger's achievement is more impressive. When I say that Tiger is the only man to win multiple professional majors in consecutive seasons, that does not imply that amateur majors were not considered majors. I am only talking about professional majors. And given that pgatour.com and golfonline say that he is the only one to do it without even mentioning Bobby Jones (see link 19) there isn't a need to mention him. Supertigerman 00:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Stanley is undeniably correct. Unequivocally, Jones won the Grand Salm, and he's the only one to have done so. Plus, he was educated..DocEss 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jones won the former version of the Grand Slam, in which the only tournaments he could have won were 2 professional majors and 2 amateur majors. No one has won all 4 professional majors in 1 season.Supertigerman 00:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the achivement is no "tougher" today than it was in Jones's day when the equipment was far most primitive which meant that the guys actually had to have genuine talent rather than just bombing it down the fairway. But that's for another debate. What's relevant here is the following: notice how I did not remove the line about Tiger winning professional majors--I left that in tact and do not dispute your citations. I simply added a relevant historical detail so that viewers can gain an idea of the context of that achivement in golf history. My belief is that an encylopedia article, unlike a PGA Tour or ESPN article, should strive to present the greatest historical context of such achivements as possible, provided that they are well-sourced. I have done exactly that here. Stanley011 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for not being a neurotic, dogmatic wikipedia nutcase, and for actually making solid points. However, including Bobby Jones in this one instance is strange because now you'd have to go to every part of every article that talks about the grand slam, or other achievements that have to do with the amateur + professional era, and that's a) not feasible and b)silly because it would simply mar the appreciation for the achievements of others by stating the Jones's accomplishments after every one of those. So my question is, why don't we not include it here, given the statement using the word "professional" is correct? I realize for the sake of historical accuracy and such, but then why not include this at the bottom of the page with the footnote instead? Supertigerman 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for recognizing that I'm not a "wikipedia nutcase" (though I do try to abide by wikipedia policy as much as possible, and from what I can tell, you do as well) but I do dispute your above points. First, it absolutely is feasible, and indeed quite easy, to go to every part of every article that talks about the majors and add relevant modifications to achieve the greatest context possible--wikipedia has a limited number of golf articles and takes on far greater tasks than this. In fact, I would like to do just that, and just chose this article as a start. And as far as maring other players' achievements, I completely disagree. How does it in any way take away from the fact that Tiger won multiple professional majors in consecutive years by reading the line about Jones? If anything, I think it adds to the appreciation of Tiger's feat because it shows how far back one must go to even detect a somewhat similar achievement, giving the average reader a wider appreciation for the historical context of Tiger's achivement. I do not believe this context should be marginilized to the bottom of the page when it directly relates to the issue at hand. Stanley011 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cluttering up several pages by referring to other golfers and their similar accomplishments will take away from the goal of the statement, I'm afraid. I don't think we should go to every golf page and say "Bobby Jones did the 'grand slam'" and have a bunch of asterisks and explanations for it. Since what he has done is not related to the modern definition, and since mainstream sources do not even mention him, I don't feel that it merits prime importance. This is not to say that what he did was also an accomplishment, but an accomplishment of a different kind which should not be directly compared to modern-day definitions. Hence, in the major golf championships page, they split it up into 1) modern-day and most widely recognized statistic and then later on (due to its lesser significance and lack of widespread acceptance) 2) combination of the amateur/professional merged with just the professional. My point is that adding extra information about "similar achievements" back in the day will only clutter up pages with unnecessary information and detract from the main point. We follow up one line with one line about Jones -- that's distracting especially since Jones has not done the same thing. Why not leave it as "only one to win multiple professional..." since that much is completely true, and not get bogged down in details and explain to the readers why we must include the word "professional"?Supertigerman 06:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can always remove the entire psuedo-statistic. Sounds like you don't think it's "fair" to count amatuers as majors; I'm sure jones doesn't think it fair he is being compared to someone that got to play in twice as many "real" majors per year than he didErnham 11:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Jones is bones! He is long passed-on. Win four majors of whatever ilk in one year and you win the Grand Slam. So far it is Jones and Jones alone who has done so. Plus, he was educated. DocEss 19:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Awards

He's won some awards/majors in consecutive years, so should we shorten those parts with hyphens? I think it will make it look concise and more readable. For example, he's won the McCormack award every year, so it would read "1998 - 2006" instead of listing each year. It just doesn't look neat at the moment.Supertigerman 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the info box needs some major work Aktornado 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea it seems too unorganized. What do you suggest? Take a look at what I wrote above entitled "Wins."Supertigerman 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the years from showing all 4 digits to showing 2. My goal was to have clear-cut neat 1-liners. If this appears ugly or incomplete, just give a reason and change it back. I was thinking maybe we could have 2 digits for the parts that are squished (ie Masters), and show all 4 for others (ie US Open, because we can fit all 4 digits in one line). Would that be better? Perhaps we could combine years like I wrote above with a hyphen, and not list them all. Notice I did this only for lines which required it, ie lines in which showing all years with 2 digits would not fit in one line. This would certainly be neater, but some may think that it's bad. If you feel this is inconsistent (and that all need to have hyphens or no hyphens at all), please explain why and change it accordingly. I also made an extra line for the "professional wins" part, which I thought looked more readable. Also, for the "No. 1 PGA Tour Money List," I put the years on the line below it, but could not figure out how to indent those years. Can someone more wiki-savvy do that? I realize that whatever changes we make here will have to be replicated in all other golfers pages. No problem, with your help, we can do that -- let's just make sure we're positive on how we want to format it. If you think I really messed up, please improve it. Supertigerman 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Moriori: Right now it looks sloppy with all the parentheses -- can you improve it instead of reverting?Supertigerman 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Stronger Fields than Nelson's Day

ESPN golf: Woods himself says "In this day and age, with this competition, to win 11 in a row would be almost unheard of." "The rampant Woods, who has won against much better fields in terms of strength in depth..." I quote: "The competition is so much deeper now," he said. "Back in his day, and I actually talked to him about this, he said he had to beat four or five guys every week. When you’re hot, that’s not that hard to do. That’s not the case anymore. It’s 40 or 50 now, so it’s a lot different." Even in Jack Nicklaus's day, there were 40 club pros at the PGA, and about 70 at the Masters. Nowadays that number is closer to ninety. The PGA has 140 people or so who could win and the two Opens have about 130 of the top players. Fields today have more people - people who are stronger, as the lengths of courses have increased. This is slightly offset by better equipment, but people work out more, and as the sport has evolved, it has come to require a certain degree of athleticism. Supertigerman 15:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut Streak

I took out "commentators" because not only commentators, but many others consider it to be an amazing feat. I quote Allenby: ``It was always going to come to an end eventually, wasn't it? Robert Allenby said. ``Obviously, it was a hell of a feat. That record will never be broken. GolfDigest called it "a streak for the ages." Golf Magazine said "it exemplified his endurance throughout his PGA Tour career..." Given the tremendous amount of publicity and plethora of articles and news reports about it (it was on the front page of Yahoo!'s Associated Press top stories that day), and since it had worldwide impact (note 1 source is from India!) it is clear that many consider it to be one of the greatest golf achievements of all time. Supertigerman 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Stanley011, you often commented on the modern definition of the cut, versus the cut in Nelson's day: Both in Nelson's day and today, the cut is defined as receiving a paycheck - not as qualifying for the final 36 holes. Tiger qualified for the final round of the 1998 AT&T Pebble Beach tournament, but withdrew. This was counted as a missed cut even though he was eligible to finish the tournament because he did not receive his paycheck. Evidence for this is in a source which you posted in the article: "The PGA Tour instituted a policy whereby a player must receive a check to make the cut.” (http://www.golftodaymagazine.com/0507Jul/tigercut.htm) In Nelson's day, the cut was not defined as the top-20 finishers, rather, approximately the top-20 finishers were the only ones who received money (keep in mind purses then were much smaller). The source says that "at least ten", not "although ten" of the tournaments in which Nelson competed did not have cuts. You rephrased it in a way that went in Nelson's favor. Evidence: You emphatically say that Tiger participated in 31 no-cut events, but include the "although" when I mention that at least ten of Nelson's events also had no cut. Supertigerman 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)]

In the first sentence you write: "Both in Nelson's day and today, the cut is defined as receiving a paycheck - not as qualifying for the final 36 holes." I couldn't agree with you more. But then further down you write: "In Nelson's day, the cut was not defined as the top-20 finishers, rather, approximately the top-20 finishers were the only ones who received money" So if the cut is only defined as receiving money, as you correctly noted in the first sentence, then how is it that the top-20 finishers were not the only ones to "make the cut?" My point is the following: although the cut in both eras was defined as receiving a paycheck, in Nelson's day, only the top 20 received a paycheck, regardless of whether there was 36 hole elimination. All of the tournaments in Nelson's day, with the exception of the Masters, PGA, and the 3 other obscure tournaments, had 36 hole elimination--but these were not "cuts" because a player who qualified to play past 36 holes was not guaranteed to win a paycheck. In the ten, or I will grant you, 13 "no-cut" tournaments in which Nelson competed, it was still the case that only the top 20 received paychecks, as the pgatour.com article, and your correct assertion that the purses were much smaller in Nelson's era, make clear. Hence these tournaments were not really "no cut events"--it's just that they did not have 36 hole elimination. The "cut" in these events was rather everyone outside the top 20. Contrast that to the 31 "no cut" events in which Woods played--all the players received a paycheck, regardless of whether they placed in the top 20. In all the tournaments in which Nelson competed, minus the 13 "no cut" ones, not only did a player have to qualify to play past 36 holes, but then from there, the player had to still place in the top 20 to receive a paycheck. So in these tournaments, there were "2 cuts", as it were, that a player had to make to qualify to receive a paycheck, and hence make the cut. Stanley011 03:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that approximately the top 20 received paychecks because that's all the money they had. It could have been 19 or 21 in some tournaments. My point is that it's not strictly the top 20, but some number around that which is dependent upon the purse.

I think this is what you're saying:

In Nelson's day, when there was no "cut" in stroke play events ie the Masters, he still had to be in the top 20 to get money. In the match play events, ie Miami Fourball and PGA Championships, he didn't have to work to get money because even if he was last, he'd still get paid.

In Tiger's day, when he has no "cut", he doesn't have to work at all to get paid. He can finish last and still get some money.

I agree.

Bottom line: Nelson played in 5 Masters during his streak. Therefore, adding those to the 103 or less, it's 108 or less.

Yes? Supertigerman 03:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Stanley011 03:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the tenure of this discussion. Help me? Super, are you saying that we should alter some definitions so that Woods receives more favourable treatment from history? Concurrently, are you saying we should alter some definitions so that Nelson's acheivements are diminished? In short, should we just have a policy of revising a whole bunch of things so that Woods always looks better?DocEss 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Given Stanley agreed, no. I do not alter any definitions. Supertigerman 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Who is your favourite golfer, Super?DocEss 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tries to 13 total majors

Look at the Results table. He turned 30 on December 30, 2005. At the British Open in 2005, he achieved his 13th total major. Notice the summary of performances says "46 starts" until now. That includes the 2005 PGA and the 4 majors from 2006. Therefore, 46-5 = 41. Supertigerman 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong the first time--thank you for making me aware of that. It's actually 47, not 46 as I originally wrote. Your'e neglecting the fact that he competed in the US Amateur in 1991-1996. Those of course have to be added to the denominator, if you're adding those wins to the numerator do they not? That means 41+6=47 for a grand total of 26.67%. I will make the changes now. Stanley011 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh. My bad. Supertigerman 04:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're both bad. In one paragraph in the Article (and in discussion above on this page) you diminish Jones' unparalelled accompplishment by claiming that Jones won "...at a time when the US Amateur was considered a major." Then, in a nearby sentence you claim Woods won 13 majors by the time he was 30 when we include the three US Amateur titles. Ya can't have it both ways: you argue above that Jones' Grand Slam somehow doesn't really count becasue two of the Championships available at the time were national amateur events and then you turn around and deify Woods for winning amateur events to bolster your invented 13-by-30 statistic. Please explain what looks like neglect, convenient truth stretching or outright bias.DocEss 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)PS On top of that, you fail to mention that Jones was fully educated while winning the Grand Slam.

You obviously know nothing of the difference between professional majors and majors including amateur wins. To see the difference, go to the talk page of Golfers with most wins in men's major championships. As for the "deify" comment, no, we recite the facts. Do not come here and chastise us for our contributions because it is people like Stanley011 and me who make Wikipedia a better place. We dedicate time to editing, talk in a civilized manner when we disagree, and we compromise. Supertigerman 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know more than you assume, so be cautious in your tone. Anyway, look at this page, majors, and recite the facts that are there regarding majors. Also, please explain what I asked you to explain: how can you use amateurs-as-majors to make Woods look good and in the same breath use ameteurs-as-majors to make Jones look bad? It's one way or the other! Agian, please explain what looks like neglect, convenient truth stretching or outright bias. DocEss 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

May I advise DocEss to cool down a bit, and assume good faith? Much more is accomplished when being civil to your fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes,dear. I did assume good faith; then, I also see that these two editors are displaying a bias in their writings and I wonder whether their bias is perhaps an oversight. And I am cool - I would like a proper, logical concise and well-rreasoned response to my queery.DocEss 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc--how is it that I am being biased? How is it that noting that Jones won "at a time when the amateurs were regarded as majors" diminishes his achivement? It's simply clarifying what could be a confusing situation for the modern golf fan not aware of the fact that the amateurs were once regarded as majors. Of course Jones won a true grand slam--but a true grand slam at his time happened to have included two amateur tournaments and it in no way displays bias against him/for Tiger to state that fact. Prior to the introduction of the winning statistics, which I added, it was biased to state the amateur+professional majors count for Woods before 30, and then compare that to Jones's thirteen majors before 30, because that's giving Tiger, who had five tournaments in which to compete, an unfair advantage over Jones, who had four to pull off the same feat. But I think this problem was solved by noting the winning percentages--they eliminate the bias that was previously reflected in this portion. Do you agree? Stanley011 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this response adequately covers it. First, you commented in the past on Jones's accomplishment in a discrediting way, with "ya but...amateurs-as-majors" kinda tone. Jones' accomplishment was an astoundingly difficult feat and nobody else has ever acheived it. He won all four majors in a season, not just at a time. No one else has done so and trying to bend facts & force statistics around Wood's "almost" is offensive to Jones (and me as a golf fanatic and a truth fan!). Second, Jones won everything he could have before 30, including those 13 majors --- and they were majors, majors by any definition. Woods did not win 13 majors by the time he was 30. [I do note that those 3 US Amateurs and the 3 Jr. US Amateurs (that makes 6) is also an astoundingly difficult and eminently admirable accomplishment. And, by the way, I watched them all, gawking in awe.] Too bad those 6 don't count as majors, though. Third, adding the winning percentage doesn't get you off the biased hook --- it's certainly neat-o math, but it doesn't turn Woods' 10-by-30 into 13-by-30. And lastly, I suggest (without meaning to offend) that your passions for one of the world's greatest-ever athletes might be controlled in Wiki world by tempering the awe with an insatiable hunger for accuracy. But please don't stop writing - you're doin a great job.DocEss 21:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Open Obsession

I see people have been intent on making every "British Open" into "The Open". First of all, the official name of that tournament is "The Open Championship". Calling it "The Open" is like calling the "PGA Championship" just "PGA". Also, many non-golfers do not know about this distinction, and many in the U.S. know it as the British Open. How can this be clarified, since now there are two "Open"s? Supertigerman 01:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's bollocks. Not only in the US is it known as the British Open, but elsewhere as well. There was a story about Wikipedia in our local paper today. One paragraph said - "using it is like asking questions of a bloke you met in the pub. He might be a nuclear physicist. Or he might be a fruitcake". It also says some pages seem to have been taken over by fanatics , and I guess that's what has happened here. Go for it Supertigerman, fight the good fight and change it to British Open. . Moriori 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There exists a litany of opinions in the Talk pages for Open Championship. Go read all that and you'll have your fill of this debate, one I predict will be endless, annoying and intolerably boring.DocEss 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)==

Use minus signs (−) instead of hyphens (-) for negative numbers

The minus sign (−) should be used instead of a hyphen (-) for negative numbers. The minus sign is entered either entered as − or as − by clicking on the minus symbol under edit box. There are a couple reasons for minus signs instead of hypens. The following is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes):

The minus sign or figure dash (−) is designed to be the same width and height as a plus or equals sign, and should be used in non-TeX equations or to designate negative numbers. It is supported in almost all browsers, and can be used in Wikipedia. Unlike the hyphen, most browsers will not break a line between the minus sign and the associated negative number. It is possible to use the HTML entity − or the numeric form −.

—Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Memorable shot missing

I don't have the details (course, length, etc.) or I'd add it myself, but I think the putt that Tiger made in the playoff with Ernie Els at the 2003 Presidents Cup that resulted in the event being declared a tie deserves to be on that list. It was one of the highest-pressure putts Tiger's ever been faced with and it was pretty amazing that he and Ernie both made two very difficult must-make putts on the same green as it was starting to get dark. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Doug. As I recall, it wasn't a long putt; it wasn't a severly breaking putt; it wasn't an overly difficult putt; all it has going for it is that it was an essential putt. Woods has faced many essential putts an they aren't considered 'memorable shots.' Besides, un-extraordinary putts hardly ever make my list of memorable shots - memorable shots to me are like that 6-iron from the bunker in Canada to a protected green to set up an eagle - now THAT was a shot!, not just rolling a little ball 10 feet. I guess I wish to exclude putts as a matter of policy unless they're spectacular like the rolly/curvy/long-distance one at the TPC at Sawgrass.DocEss 17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In New Zealand, SkyTV Sports 1 has screened an hour long program about Steve Williams, Tiger's caddie. Williams said the greatest shot he ever saw Tiger play was undoubtedly the mid-fairway bunker shot you mention Doc, and they of course showed it. It was blowing a gale, he was unsighted, he had to hit it over pine trees, and the ball was virtually lipped. I think Williams said Tiger actually used a 3-iron, and he (Williams) thought Tiger must have flipped to attempt such a low percentage shot. I'm hoping they replay the item so I can check whether it was a 3-iron or 6-iron. Moriori 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Moriori, Doc is talking about a different shot from the Canadian Open. The shot you are talking about is the one that Tiger himself says was his best shot. And it was a 3 iron. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and Steve and Tiger agree that was his greatest ever shot. Moriori 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Divorce

Should we mention anything about his supposed divorce arrangements? 222.155.109.116 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as you can provide any references... —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

He isn't divorcing.

Professional Performance Section

The "PGA Tour career summary," "PGA Tour wins," "Other wins," and "United States national team appearances" all deserve their own heading. All other golfers' pages have their own headings for these important sections, so I think these four should have their own. Also, we can make one heading (which would go before the four headings listed above) to include both "Memorable shots," and "In the bag." Do you agree?
Also, please see my edit on the talk page for the template: infobox golfer because I recommended some changes. Supertigerman 02:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Uber-detailed table for PGA Tour wins

It took about 2 weeks to compile the information and to type in the wiki-text in order to create the table. I realize that this will not be able to be replicated on all other golfers pages because it would require tireless dedication from more people, but this is a comprehensive and informative table that I feel adds to the page.
These are the changes that I believe can/should be made to the now comprehensive PGA Tour wins table:

• It is wide. A possible solution I see to rectify this would be to change the date format by abbreviating the month (ie October would become Oct). I do not think that writing it in short-hand is advisable because it would result in confusion as to whether it is in the mm/dd/yyyy or dd/mm/yyyy format.
• I intentionally did not create separate colors for tournaments that are categorized as "Fall Finish" or "Small Field" because too many colors make it confusing, disorganized, and would undermine its visual quality.
• If you feel the major championship rows should be bolded all the way through, be my guest.
• In the separate major championships table, repeated runners-up have their names linked only once. If you feel that should be done here, simply unlink the repeated names.
• I did not add repeated win tallies in a small parentheses like I did for the separate major championship table. If you believe this would help, please do so, but be consistent.
• The main organizational change would be to split this up into years. Before, the years were written with the number of wins in that year in parentheses. I figured that directly above this table is the career summary table, which explains that quite clearly. However, perhaps splitting this up into years would help.
  Thanks and keep improving! Supertigerman 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Professional Career -- edits

Whoops. I edited the Professional Career section to include the Grand Slam of Golf win, only to realize it doesn't count as an official event. So I re-edited the page to restore the previous version (is there/was there an easier way for me to do this?). Guess I'll leave this stuff to the, er, pros!?!?!?!

Indeed, there is an easy way to undo edits. Simply click on the history tab, and then click on the date of the version you want to restore the page to. Then click on "edit this page" for that old page, and click save page. That will undo any edits done since that page was edited. Hope this helps. Supertigerman 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox replacement

I made this change in response to the numerous editors who have expressed disconcertment with regard to the Golfer Infobox. It appears disorganized, and often appears crowded on the right side. The major championship and awards sections now are split on the left and right sides, which I feel is easier on the eyes if one wants a quick snapshot of the player's accomplishments. I also did this because the tennis infobox has a somewhat similar format and is more visually appealing. The "weight" category was under much debate, however, all other sports templates include the weight, so I did here. This "infobox" is actually shorter in length than the previous one, and as a result does not crowd into the "Background" section as much as it did before. The font size is also smaller, but apparently the wikipedia administrators favor this because it appears more organized -- and many Featured Articles, ie Wayne Gretzky -- have this smaller font.
If you do not like this format, please try to improve upon it rather than reverting back to the old infobox, because I believe I speak for many editors when I say that the Golfer Infobox is subpar. Supertigerman 05:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures

How do you upload pictures onto wikipedia? Is there some process through wikimedia and getting the "ok" for copyrighted images and such? This article needs many more given its length, and I believe the feature image should be of him playing golf. Supertigerman 21:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A good way to find pictures that are allowed to be used is to go to flickr click on advanced search then click search for creative commons pictures allowed to be modified and used commercially. You will have to click on the the three boxes on the bottom. Once you find a picture click on the All Sizes button find the highest resolution photo then right click on it and click "Save Target as" and save it into your pictures folder. You should upload these photos to Commons so you'll have to start an account there. Once you have the account there and the photo you can look at a photo somebody else put up that was accepted and copy what they did by clicking edit and seeing everything they did. This is how I learned to upload pics. Here's one I uploaded that was recently approved.:[1] When you upload the photo Put this tag on it is it's creative commons attribution and sharealike:

or this if it's just attribution:

You'll be able to find that out by looking at the picture's flickr page, it's listed on the right side right below where it says, Additional Information. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me.

Quadzilla99 11:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I found and uploaded a couple of pics for you guys that way a while back (the ne of him on the green at the Masters and the commercial shoot one). Quadzilla99 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense vandalism?

Is this sentence: Currently the World No. 1, Woods was the lowest paid professional athlete in 2045, having earned an estimated 564903012344345546587 million stones.[1] nonsense vandalism or is there something I don't know? Sukkoth 14:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course that is vandalism. When you see something like that, please revert it. That stayed on this page for an unacceptable 8 hours. Supertigerman 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for award nomenclature

The PGA of America awards the money winners and player of the year awards. The Money winner award is synonymous with the Arnold Palmer Award. The PGA Player of the Year award is not synonymous with the Jack Nicklaus Award. This you know. However, not everyone knows what they stand for. You say that people can easily click on the links to see what they mean. But what of those who do not have the time? Many people come to wikipedia for a quick glance, not for an in-depth analysis. That is why I feel it is easier on the eyes to show exactly what the awards mean. It is not necessary to replace them with the PGA Tour's terminology which is simply meant to honor those who have given to the game. As for the Vardon Trophy - that is it's official name. Perhaps we can change it to Lowest Adjusted Scoring Average, but that sounds awkward and is not the official name. The reason I put the Byron Nelson Award there was because of the difference between that and the Vardon Trophy (50 round versus 60 round minimum), and because Tiger had the lowest scoring average in 2006 by Byron Nelson Award standards, but not by Vardon Trophy standards. As for the McCormack Award - that is it's official name. But beyond that, the Money Winner and Player of the Year awards are the most prestigious and deserve to be communicated through this page. Supertigerman 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Prestiege should be a non-issue. We are not in a position to judge that. We ought to be consistent one way or the other. Since referring to the meaning of the distinction is so often going to be awkward, we should simply give the name of the trophy in each case. As it is, "PGA Tour Money Winner" isn't semantically accurate anyway. Many golfers won money on the PGA TOUR this year; they were all Money Winners! Something like "PGA TOUR Money List Champion" or would be more accurate in its expression, although would take up lots of space. The best way is to just refer to the name of the hardware, as it is consistent and allows us to avoid worrying about semantics (which are important). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.16.135 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Clubs

In the article it says that Tiger uses the Nike Ignite T60 woods. In his recent win at the Buick Invitational he used the Nike SQ2 new fairway wood. This can be found at nikegolf.com. If it is possible i would change it. Drewza 00:38 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wanton hagiography and stat cooking

This wiki is full of both. Although it's found throughout the wiki, it's particularly strong in the second half. "Cooked stats" are also prominent incredibly annoying: "Tiger was the first player who ate blueberry pancakes before a birdie-ing the 18th hole at Pebble Beach."Ernham 16:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing relevant in what you just wrote. And examining your talk page, I see many people have been angry at you for your apparent incompetence and rudeness. Please do not waste our time unless you have real substance. Cheers. Supertigerman 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to be more specific. As a matter of fact, I'd edit it myself. But when that happens, you see, you immediately change things back to your absurdly hagiographic content. I tried this with you before. Waste of time. You want to argue for months about things there is no argument about and you are clearly out of order; you want not a single non-positive comment to soil your fan blog. I have better things to do and will merely flag it, hoping someone else has the time to waste with you and your version of reality.Ernham 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide 1 example, and we'll work things out step by step. Supertigerman 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tried that before. You wasted my time. Waste someone else's.Ernham 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Request to add article link

Dear Wikipedia,

I am the Golf Feature Writer for Suite101.com and I would like to request that my article, Tiger Woods Most Intimidating be added to the Tiger Woods Wikipedia entry for Tiger Woods. Sincerely, Alan L. Hammond —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.27.111.125 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Laser Surgery

Didn't Tiger have an unusual laser eye surgery in order to be able to focus further? Worth a mention if true I think. (82.40.177.159 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Not true. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually partially true--he underwent Lasik eye surgery [[2]] I will add it to the article forthwith Stanley011 04:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

crowd member hit

Hadn't Tiger Woods hit a person in the crowd by accident in a tournament or something? shouldnt't you include that in the article?Peacemaker456 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That has happened to countless golfers many times. It would be impossible to account for every single one of those occurrences. Moreover, minor details like that do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Supertigerman 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting 90% of the "playstyle" nonsense section

Last time I'm saying it. Clean up the hagiography or I will.Ernham 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Only active player in the top 10 for most majors

Isnt Gary Player still an active golf player? at least he was at the masters this week. I know hes in his 70s now, but still active I think. Cereq 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The only PGA Tour tournament Gary Player still competes in is the Masters because he wants to break Arnold Palmer's record for most appearances. He is not exactly "active" since he only plays (and knows he will miss the cut) in one tournament. Supertigerman 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Red shirt

The article says, under "Records and Trivia," that "Woods always wears a red (or, more recently, red-pink) shirt on the final round (usually on Sundays) of every tournament in which he plays, as he believes the color red symbolizes aggression and assertiveness." I have heard from the Golf Channel or some commentator that observed that Tiger wears red because his mother had told him that it was his "power color" or something of the sort. Can someone find a source for this? (The only reason I'm bringing this to the attention is because the trivia fact in question wholly ignores his mother's influence...if I am correct in saying so.)--Blingice 23:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Legally blind reference

The legally blind reference is in error. The definition of legally blind is vision that is 20/200 or worse in the best eye AFTER CORRECTIVE LENS application. Tiger had a diopter of -11, which is at the extreme end of the nearsighted scale, but he corrected to 20/20. This invalidates the claim of legally blind.

Ata.tkd 22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the sentence. It says he was "legally blind WITHOUT contacts or glasses." If you have a problem with it, take it up with the source. Stanley011 13:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)