Ken's not going to like this
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Support Sharon Angle
Next: Hey democrats
From: zox625 on 16 Jul 2010 09:25 On Jul 15 2010 11:25 AM, Moderate wrote: > "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message > news:2010071509202212389-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... > > On 2010-07-15 08:15:33 -0400, Vandar said: > > > >> kenpitts wrote: > >>> On Jul 14, 5:22 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> That is, unless he reverses his position and comes out in favor of > >>>> freedom of speech. > >>>> > >>>> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-indecency-20100714,0,599591... > >>>> > >>>> Randy > >>> > >>> > >>> Don't know why you would misrepresent my positions. I am a staunch > >>> defender of the Bill of Rights. > >>> > >>> My position on Tiger and his inappropriate outbursts has always been > >>> that (for the good of the game) he should be able to edit himself. You > >>> would never see this stuff from the great champions of the past like > >>> Jack Nicklaus, Gene Sarazen, Byron Nelson. > >> It never bothers me much that Tiger uses profanity, it is just that he ALWAYS seemed to have to have SOME kind of tantrum when he hit a bad shot. It's golf.... you are ALWAYS going to hit some bad shots every round. Every one doesn't require a big groan, dropped club, making the face and blurting out some stupid remark. All that being said, he has been MUCH more controlled in this area since his 'comeback', (how many tournaments did he miss that he would have played?? 3?? Not really a 'comeback', IMHO.) He has been much more under control with his mouth and recently with his driver/3-wood. It was good to see him not spraying it around on Thursday. Hit almost all the fairways. ______________________________________________________________________� : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
From: kenpitts on 17 Jul 2010 16:54 On Jul 15, 8:20 am, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-15 08:15:33 -0400, Vandar said: > > > > > > > kenpitts wrote: > >> On Jul 14, 5:22 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: > > >>> That is, unless he reverses his position and comes out in favor of > >>> freedom of speech. > > >>>http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-indecency-20100714,0,599591.... > > >>> Randy > > >> Don't know why you would misrepresent my positions. I am a staunch > >> defender of the Bill of Rights. > > >> My position on Tiger and his inappropriate outbursts has always been > >> that (for the good of the game) he should be able to edit himself. You > >> would never see this stuff from the great champions of the past like > >> Jack Nicklaus, Gene Sarazen, Byron Nelson. > > > Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot > > either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key > > moment in a round. > > Although we do have a pretty good idea, based on all accounts, of the > colorful language used by one Bobby Jones, who was a known hot-head > until the final couple of years of his golfing career. > > Of course today he's viewed -- and justifiably so -- as one of the > game's greatest ambassadors of all time. > > Randy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Jones ultimately showed contrition for his hot temper and became one of the great genltmen of the came. Tiger has noever shown one bit of cntrition forhis behavior on the course. Ken
From: kenpitts on 17 Jul 2010 16:57 On Jul 15, 2:30 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:24:13 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> > wrote: > > >> Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot > >> either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key > >> moment in a round. > > >I think that is the point. Today's players know there is a microphone > >pointed at them. > > The question to ask people who object to such language: Do they > object that the stars use that language, or do they object that that > language is broadcast? > > If the language itself is some kind of sin or something, then it > doesn't matter whether the microphone is there. It's still a sin. > But how many people object when their playing companions drop an > f-bomb? Or reading about other celebrities doing it (at least when > they are the celebrities that they like)? If someone you don't like > uses that kind of language, it's an excuse to continue to not like > them. > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison I object to both. Tiger always gathers huge galleries. What a dis- service he does to the game that has given him so much. He could learn much about how he should carry himself from Phil Mickelson. Ken
From: R&B on 17 Jul 2010 17:14 On 2010-07-17 16:57:43 -0400, kenpitts said: > On Jul 15, 2:30�pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:24:13 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot >>>> either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key >>>> moment in a round. >> >>> I think that is the point. �Today's players know there is a microphone >>> pointed at them. >> >> The question to ask people who object to such language: � Do they >> object that the stars use that language, or do they object that that >> language is broadcast? >> >> If the language itself is some kind of sin or something, then it >> doesn't matter whether the microphone is there. � It's still a sin. >> But how many people object when their playing companions drop an >> f-bomb? � �Or reading about other celebrities doing it (at least when >> they are the celebrities that they like)? � �If someone you don't like >> uses that kind of language, it's an excuse to continue to not like >> them. >> >> -- >> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, >> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace >> to the legislature, and not to the executive department." >> >> - James Madison > > I object to both. Tiger always gathers huge galleries. What a dis- > service he does to the game that has given him so much. He could learn > much about how he should carry himself from Phil Mickelson. > > Ken On balance, even with the fallout of his now well-known indiscretions that came to light last Winter, it's plain to most everyone but a few (including you) that Tiger's overall affect on the game has been far more positive than negative. To most any knowledgeable follower of the game, that's not even in dispute. That you would hold a different view just speaks volumes about your own cynicism relative to Tiger, that's all. He's brought millions into the game. Of course you would argue that he's brought the wrong people to the game. But of course that says more about you than it does about Tiger. He said when he turned pro in '96 that he intended to help "make golf look more like America." You know -- more black. And we all know how you feel about THAT. Your comments in the years after Tiger turned pro about all the new golfers and their "ghetto blasters" told us all we needed to know to clarify your motives. During the height of his career (like in 2000, for instance), he also brought golf to the front pages of newspapers and major magazines with a level of consistency that golf has never witnessed -- not from Jack, or Arnie or even Bobby Jones. Not merely the front pages of the sports section, but the front pages, period. He also single-handedly rescued professional golf's television ratings from the toilet when he burst on the scene in '96 at a time when golf was in desperate need of a superstar to emerge just to make the game interesting -- even to golf fans. To this day, golf tournament viewership levels are always highest when he's in contention. And ticket sales at PGA TOUR events reached record levels whenever Tiger announced he'd be entering the local tournaments -- something that helps fund charities in record numbers. You watch. When the viewership numbers come out for this year's British Open, they'll be the lowest they've been in years in America -- largely because the leaderboard is comprised of a bunch of people nobody here in the USA have ever heard of. Randy
From: kenpitts on 17 Jul 2010 17:44
On Jul 17, 4:14 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-17 16:57:43 -0400, kenpitts said: > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 2:30 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:24:13 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> > >> wrote: > > >>>> Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot > >>>> either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key > >>>> moment in a round. > > >>> I think that is the point. Today's players know there is a microphone > >>> pointed at them. > > >> The question to ask people who object to such language: Do they > >> object that the stars use that language, or do they object that that > >> language is broadcast? > > >> If the language itself is some kind of sin or something, then it > >> doesn't matter whether the microphone is there. It's still a sin. > >> But how many people object when their playing companions drop an > >> f-bomb? Or reading about other celebrities doing it (at least when > >> they are the celebrities that they like)? If someone you don't like > >> uses that kind of language, it's an excuse to continue to not like > >> them. > > >> -- > >> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > >> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > >> to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > >> - James Madison > > > I object to both. Tiger always gathers huge galleries. What a dis- > > service he does to the game that has given him so much. He could learn > > much about how he should carry himself from Phil Mickelson. > > > Ken > > On balance, even with the fallout of his now well-known indiscretions > that came to light last Winter, it's plain to most everyone but a few > (including you) that Tiger's overall affect on the game has been far > more positive than negative. To most any knowledgeable follower of the > game, that's not even in dispute. That you would hold a different view > just speaks volumes about your own cynicism relative to Tiger, that's > all. > > He's brought millions into the game. Of course you would argue that > he's brought the wrong people to the game. But of course that says > more about you than it does about Tiger. He said when he turned pro in > '96 that he intended to help "make golf look more like America." You > know -- more black. And we all know how you feel about THAT. Your > comments in the years after Tiger turned pro about all the new golfers > and their "ghetto blasters" told us all we needed to know to clarify > your motives. > > During the height of his career (like in 2000, for instance), he also > brought golf to the front pages of newspapers and major magazines with > a level of consistency that golf has never witnessed -- not from Jack, > or Arnie or even Bobby Jones. Not merely the front pages of the sports > section, but the front pages, period. > > He also single-handedly rescued professional golf's television ratings > from the toilet when he burst on the scene in '96 at a time when golf > was in desperate need of a superstar to emerge just to make the game > interesting -- even to golf fans. To this day, golf tournament > viewership levels are always highest when he's in contention. And > ticket sales at PGA TOUR events reached record levels whenever Tiger > announced he'd be entering the local tournaments -- something that > helps fund charities in record numbers. > > You watch. When the viewership numbers come out for this year's > British Open, they'll be the lowest they've been in years in America -- > largely because the leaderboard is comprised of a bunch of people > nobody here in the USA have ever heard of. > > Randy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I will dig this up if you force me to do so. I recently read that the growth in purses on the tour has been nearly the same in the years since Tiger arrived as for the same number of years prior to his arrival. Are you saying that golf would have gone the way of tennis without Tiger? I think not. Ticket sales reach record levels because golf has been a growth industry for about 50 years. Give the credit where it belongs. To Arnold Palmer. The only sport I know about that grows at a higher right is NASCAR. Colonial and the Nelson have been jam packed for the last 20 years. I know because I go. Tiger hardly plays either one ever. Guess who the fan favorite at Colonial is. Phil! Who cares about the millions that have been drawn to the game? None of them play. YMMV Ken |