Jump to content

Talk:Tiger Woods/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

What is this?

Career Turned Pro 1981 Current tour PGA Tour (joined 1976) Professional wins 89 (PGA Tour: 32, Other individual: 14, 2-man team: 7)

This info is listed in the box in the right upper corner of the article. I don't know the correct information to put in there to fix it, but I don't think what is written is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.55.113 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

and fixed. nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.55.113 (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

IP user: 72.25.16.65 changed a bunch of info in the box (vandalism), but instead of reverting the entire edit, individual users within 5 minutes kept changing the information back making it difficult to figure out what was left to revert. Everything should be accurate now, and I think the page might be protected against non-registered users. Kman543210 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Turned Pro 1996 Current tour PGA Tour (joined 1996) Professional wins 89 (PGA Tour: 32, Other individual: 14, 2-man team: 7)

Doesn't Tiger now have 65 PGA Tour wins? Are the win totals for the other categories correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.55.113 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the controversy section

--Bottre73 23:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC) As someone who follows golf journalism quite attentively, I feel the "controversy" section here is completely unnecessary. What often occurs in a major athlete's career is that small controversies do develop from time to time, with few if any worthy of mention beyond a few weeks after their occurance. It's silly to keep these events attached to the article, as if their memory dogs or somehow taints the overall image of Mr. Woods in the minds of objective readers.

I think there is probably a way to touch on some of the supposed racial controversies within different sections of this article. The tournament withdrawal is a ridiculous non-issue at this point and the nude pictures should be delegated to his wife's entry and removed from here.

I recognize that this is a major deletion, so please add your name below if you agree with this request. If enough names appear, the change would seem a good idea, and we'll go through with it.

Jeff Bottrell, Billings, MT

I agree. Supertigerman 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

One week later and we have another addition to the now eight-part "controversy" section - and this time with something noncontroversial. At this rate it will soon usurp the professional career section in total length. I would remind writers, as well-intentioned as you may be, that a good article "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details." I fear we're losing the substantive quality of the article as we veer off into trivial observations. Bottre73 16:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Ranger Rick section (the newest addition). I feel that the cut streak and Tiger-proofing sections are the only important elements of the controversy section. Supertigerman 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. The uncited controversy sections should be removed. Mudforce 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of it: This section has become a dumping ground for "unnecessary details". Don't mistake verbosity for encyclopedic relevance. Its a long section with very little usable content. --Eqdoktor 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I put back the two important sections - Cut streak and Tiger-proofing because they are extremely important issues in his life. In addition, an innumerable number of hours were spent finding sources for and arguing about these controversies. Thank you. Supertigerman 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

it has unrelevent info, delete it Coolgyingman (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - Splitting the Tiger Woods article

I am proposing that the Tiger Woods article be split into a second article as suggested in the Wikipedia:Article size guideline. As it is, the article is estimated to be about 88kb (less 100kb when I removed the 'Controversy' section - some referenced bits of it may be re-inserted back in). Which is entirely too long for 'easy' reading.

What to split: The best candidate sections to split out is all the Championship wins/tables and tournament wins etc. to be put into a new article Career achievements of Tiger Woods. I have conducted a test run of such a split and splitting off a career achievement article will save at least 40kb article length leaving the main article at a more manageable 50kb.

The best example for such a split is Michael Jordan (a FA status article) and its related split Career achievements of Michael Jordan.

I really think such a split will help the article clarity wise, bring it back in line with WP:LENGTH and improve the quality for WP:FA status. Post here for consensus and concerns. If there is agreement consensus - I will go ahead and do the split. --Eqdoktor 10:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Split is done (97kb to 61kb size). I have transferred all the career wins/awards tables and lists to Career achievements of Tiger Woods. Some further improvements can be done to both articles - at least a better career achievements summary can be done in the Tiger Woods article. Refer to the FA status Michael Jordan and related Career achievements of Michael Jordan articles. --Eqdoktor 14:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Woods split

For reasons beyond me, Wikipedia wants articles to remain a certain size, and the splitting of 36 kb of information magically makes this article cleaner. Do you really think it does? It simply makes it tougher to find pertinent information. People interested in those details might not find the little link that leads to the new page, and the replacement summary looks rather sad even after I tried to add some summary-style information. Can we bring back the 36 kb of information back into this 63 kb article? All other golfers have the PGA Tour career summary and the table of major wins (which I made) nicely laid out. This article seems incomplete without it. At the moment, the summary underneath it looks amateur and not A-level. Thanks. Supertigerman 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a viable compromise.

What to include: The Major championships table, the Results timeline, the PGA Tour career summary, PGA Tour wins list (not the table), the Other wins, and the US Team appearances (which is about 6 lines). This is how the list of PGA Tour wins would look (this is what all other golfers have):

Notice this is a lot shorter than the detailed table and is what all other golfers have.

What not to include in the main article (since it is in the detailed new article)

  • The records and trivia for the major championships
  • Anything about the World Golf Championships because the wins are already mentioned
  • The extra columns in the PGA Tour professional career summary (notice there are 4 currently in the main article but 10 in the detailed one in the new article)
  • The playoff record
  • Awards

I believe this is much shorter than the 36 kb which was removed and would make the article look complete enough without excess information. Thanks for your input and time. Supertigerman 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this discussion over (from my talk page) to the Tiger Woods talk area as its more relevant there (here).
I personally think that a lot of Wikipedia articles need to pay more attention to Wikipedia:Article size as a lot of people seem to equate excessive verbosity for quality writing. The problem I have with the previous "all-in-one-page" approach is that my eyes glazed looking through all his achievements - which are numerous indeed. In other words, 'you can't see the forest for the trees' [1]. IMO, The salient details of his career was lost amongst the info dump of colorful tables and extensive lists. The thing is with Woods (like Michael Jordan), his career achievements are so numerous as to overwhelm and unbalance the entire article unlike other golfers (it took up more than 30% of the article size - more if you factor in the flag cruft).
What we need in the main article is just a good summary of the major achievements of his career. What you have put up now on the present revision [2] looks perfectly acceptable to me. Leave it as it is, perhaps bold a few lines. I'm thinking a list of PGA tour wins is really not necessary (even the infobox duplicates a lot of the info). I'm using as an example Michael_Jordan#Career_achievements as what I think is a good example of a FA status summary. --Eqdoktor 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Woods

Is he Asian or African American...

He's both. JavaTenor 17:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Read the article! :) --Eqdoktor 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually he's more Asian(50%) than African American(25%), so don't start claiming him yet Al Sharpton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo4eyes (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hobbies section?

Why does this article need such a section? Yes, its sourced but why is it even relevant to be in an encyclopedia?

Woods enjoys working out, boating, water sports, fishing, cooking and car racing. He has never owned an airplane, with his sponsor NetJets providing that as part of his sponsorship package.

....

The article is missing his favorite color, what he ate for breakfast last week and the fact that he wears the Masters Green jacket when he does his gardening (because its comfy). He has also never flown the space shuttle but NASA will loan him one if asked...

I'm being facetious here :)

All the stuff in the "Hobbies" section may be sourced but so is a million other inconsequential 'puff' trivia articles. Some editorial discretion is needed here. How Woods spends his money and the millionaire toys he owns has no place in a Wikipedia article. The inclusion of such an inconsequential 'puff' item section borders upon unencyclopedic hagiography.--Eqdoktor 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally, think it is important to add breadth to an article that will naturally be laden with Golf statistics. I disagree with this edit. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TonytheTiger. Athletes' articles should contain information other than sports statistics. The Hobbies section adds a more well-rounded perspective of Tiger and makes him seem much more human than a simple golf biography would. Supertigerman 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for a 'well rounded perspective' in the article and yes, the article does not need to be overladen with golf statistics. On the other hand, I find it a bit ironic (and more than a little unbalancing) that the section dealing with hobbies trivia and his millionaire toys has a bigger word count and has better sources than the 'Equipment' section (which IMO, a lot more interesting to me than his Yachts). The only thing in the 'Equipment' section that actually has a reference source is oddly enough, "Frank" the Golf Cover. (room for improvement there...) --Eqdoktor 16:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Majors table

I don't know what the fuss was about, or about any table, or even if it was about this table I've changed, but I've made some adjustment to his Grand Slam table. It was divided over two lines, which made it ugly and hard to read. There was no reason for splitting it like it was, not even a century split reason, since the split was at the year 2000, which is still in the 20th century. People should be able to view a table containing 13 columns, and not be confused by it. Especially if it's not even covering the entire width of the page. --CrashTestSmartie (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the decade on 1999 and 2000 offends my mathematical sense. Nobody starts counting at zero, but at one (1). Therefor, any decade split should be at 2000 and 2001. Just because that mistake is repeated, doesn't make it right. Besides, decade splitting makes it less readable, and isn't applied consistently, there's tables in there that aren'd split on decade.--CrashTestSmartie (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Where did the color coded chart with major finishes go?

The chart is at Career achievements of Tiger Woods. It was moved to a new page because according to Wikipedia, the article was "too long". I disagree with the move and it is sad that you were unable to find that table. The article appears incomplete without it, and finding the link to the new page takes time. Supertigerman 18:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the article! :) --Eqdoktor 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't count tables in with the size of the wikipedia article, Supertigerman. The current table is terribly ugly and drab compared to the colored tables. It sounds like you don't want the table in there for some other reasn.
Which current table are you referring to? The career summary table which all golfers have? Or the majors table that I created on the new page? It is silly to suggest that I do not want the table there; I simply don't think there should be 2 articles for 1 person. Regardless, I created the majors table and have added it to several golfers' pages, and certainly want to keep it. Supertigerman 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

This article should be using Template:Infobox golfer. ClintonKu 09:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is being revamped. See the discussion here. Supertigerman 22:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Filipino?

In Earl Woods, it sates he is part Chinese not Filipino, making Tiger 1/4 Chinese?

Article size creep and article quality

Redundant information is inflating the article and affecting the quality.

Its creeping back up to 70K+ with the inclusion of redundant information. There is a triple redundancy in the article. The large custom infobox has a summary and the overly expanded wins section has more redundant information covered elsewhere - mainly Career achievements of Tiger Woods where most of the information should be put in. Not to be a RTFM jerk over this, but there is only so much redundancies the article can accommodate for people who cannot be bothered to read the article before it affects the quality. As it is, the colorful table of major championship wins thats left in the main article should be sufficient for the cursory glancers (thats all they really want if they can't be bothered to read the article). As it is the table has unncessary WP:FLAGs all over it but thats a necessary concession I would think.

While we are at it, the editorial shortcut of stuffing the page with golf statistics to inflate it is not helping the page keep its 'A' status. We can't see the forest for the trees - its information overload. Wikipedia:Article size is part of the manual of style of a good wikipedia article - Brevity is the soul of wit... (and of quality :) ).

PS: I have edited the redundant info out - I think there is more than sufficient pointers to Career achievements of Tiger Woods at this point. --Eqdoktor 10:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no redundancy with the infobox and the majors table. Many golfers have these (as do hockey and tennis players). The flags are simply the format of the wins table (notice the tennis players have much more) and I do not think they are excessive as they used to be in golf tournament infoboxes. The majors wins table, results timeline, and the minimized PGA Tour career summary are on every golfer's pages and should be kept on this page. That's only 3 things - we're leaving all wins, records, trivia, and awards out. I think this works as a compromise, as it is far from 70K now.
As for retaining the A status, clearly the admins disagreed with you since the full expanded list of PGA Tour wins, playoff records, team appearances, along with the full trivia section of the major championship section were present when it was granted that status. The golf statistics are and important part of the page, and often what most people will want to read as it is well laid out. Cheers. Supertigerman 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see why the majors table is in there (colorful table for the cursory glancers) and the PGA tour career summary. Why is the results timeline included with the colorful yet cypherlike encodement? A casual glancer would have no use for it and a serious reader/researcher would be better served with the main career achievement page with the info in the proper context. Not to be chasing kilobytes here, but a well done précis is better than hieroglyphic infodumps.
As for the quality status of the article, my mistake - the Tiger Woods article is just a GA Wikipedia article, not 'A' status (its only 'A' status in the various Wiki projects). This should change for the better as we work on it - FA status being the goal. Consensus can change, as the overall article quality level of the Wikipedia improves, older articles must keep up. It is the nature of the wiki to be ever-changing. New people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we did not have previously. --Eqdoktor 08:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The majors table and results timeline go hand-in-hand as the full timeline is more descriptive and on every golfer's page. In that sense, the timeline is probably more important than the major wins table as that is only for victories. A casual glancer probably would have use for it as it lays out his entire career, as opposed to only his wins. Indeed, the article is a GA status wikipedia article, but is "A" status in the two most important wikiprojects for him: WP:Biography and WP:Golf. Moreover, it was granted that status with many more tables than it currently has -- the full length wins table, WGC information and awards. I agree that the article is ever-changing, but I think leaving the 3 most important elements of golf statistics - major wins, overall major performance, and the career summary do not clutter the page. Supertigerman 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Someone is defacing his biography. I had to go back and make a few changes.

"Other ventures" needs more references and sources

Needs a whole lot more references and sources than it presently has now.

  • Charity and youth projects - one ref only. The variuos assertions need to be cited (Wood's beliefs etc.)
  • Golf course design - no refs. (fixed Eqdoktor 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Endorsements - one ref only (I added the watch endorsement cite). Need sources and refs to show that the commercials listed are notable (golf tricks, father's day etc.) If none, its all just WP:OR.

This section needs a lot of tightening up (removal of unsupported OR and such) hence the tag. --Eqdoktor 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out the first billionare athelete fact. "In 2005 Eurobusiness magazine identified Schumacher as the world's first billionaire athlete." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schumacher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.242.34 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Over the last few days, I added enough references to fully cite the charity section. The other two already had enough references. I did leave a fact tag in Writings, but overall the section seems sufficiently sourced to remove the tag. Giants2008 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Real First Name"

Apparently, when Tiger turned 21, he changed his legal name to Tiger woods. Here is some evidence: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/04/11/tiger.masters/index.html http://www.answers.com/topic/tiger-woods ("In August of 1996, Woods decided to quit college in order to play professional golf.

Four months later in December, Woods celebrated his twenty-first birthday. He marked the occasion with a legal name change, from Eldrick to Tiger.")

Unfortunately, I do not know how to add footnotes to the main page, so I did not want to put this information on there. Can someone do this?

I edited the info you provided in. Used the CNN cite as the Answers.com site is usually not as reliable (they take their info from Wikipedia). Tiger Woods' name he was born under is really Eldrick Tonter Woods. Can someone with access to any one of the numerous print autobiographies of Tiger Woods provide a page number and ISBN # so that a proper reference footnote be put in? (It can be done easily). I predict a lot of requests for cites on that name :P :P :P. --Eqdoktor 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
C'mon somebody, visit a library, crack open a print biography and verify/ref cite his middle name. This I guess is the downfall of Wikipedia, the over-reliance of google for online citations... --Eqdoktor 13:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm the downfall of wikipedia! Ok, seriously, I added a ref to his middle name from a Larry King interview. It's a reliable source, and it goes into detail about 'Tiger' being his middle name, and why. the_undertow talk 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, I'll see what I can do to scrounge up a real print biography to verify the middle name once and for all. :) :) --Eqdoktor 14:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since his legal name is now Tiger, is the way his name is listed still appropriate? Maybe a reference to his 'birth' or 'given' name is in order. In any case, his name is no longer Eldrick. Whorchatasoto (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed Tiger's name to his legal name. I found the necessary citation in a recently published book (see Sounes, Howard (2004)) that cites his birth certificate. It currently reads "born on...as," and this may not be the best. If anyone can think of anything else, please do change it. These changes should effectively end this topic.Erkenbrack (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

His name is not "Eldrick Tont 'Tiger' Woods.' His name is 'Tiger Woods.' It is legally so. Given that changing one's name is legal, I think we should refer to those people as they want to be referred to. Does anyone know who Norma Jeane Mortenson is? Or how about Norma Jeane Baker? Probably not. Those people refer to Marilyn Monroe. We know her today as she wanted to be known. It is and will be the same for Tiger. Changing it once again. 98.216.39.44 (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, in a lawsuit in 2004, well after the supposed name change, he was using the name Eldrick 'Tiger' Woods in the legal documents. See http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1103041tigerwoods1.html and the links therein to a sworn statement from his wife. I think that, unless someone can come up with something official in support of the truth of the name change, or some definitive statement from Tiger on it, we should remove that part of the article; it appears to be an urban legend of sorts. Doug (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

EL Section

I was looking through the ELs and I'm inclined to remove some of them. The Learning center and such are great things, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see how they enhance the reader's understanding of Tiger woods. Although I have not read this entire article, i would say that some mention of his work in these areas would be great and you can use the sites as references. Thoughts? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Updating for Major Championships

Woods has not officially won until he has signed his card. I'm not going to bother unediting it b/c people will just re-add it, but until he has signed his card, he is not champion. Bsd987 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorsements

The value of some endorsement deals is provided, however, the contract value for Tiger's first Nike deal and his 2007 deal are not. For completeness the value of all these deals should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Typo in the 'Endorsement' section

Typo in the 'Endorsement' section:

"Woods have been described as the "ultimate endorser" for Nike Golf"

'have' should be changed to 'has' as Woods is a singular name not a plural noun.

Gramatical Error

It is not viewed as as a true Grand Slam, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do we always talk about obvious gramatical mistakes on the talk page? :P12.192.132.130 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes just fix those darn grammar errors w/o discussion !  ;-P Bsharkey (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism tag

Can we remove it? I don't think it is needed.

michfan2123 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Infant birth date and age templates

When I inquire about the youth of an infant the information I typically pursue is "How old is it?" not "When was it born?" for some time we had a {{birth date and age}} template that read as age 0. Then I started trying to switch to {{birth date}} with a separate {{age in months}} template. However, at age 3 months and 16 days this switched to age 4 months. I thought that was a bit goofy. So at WP:RT I asked for the creation of an {{age for infant}} template. This template has a parameter that you can either have the template read as age x months y days or age x years y months. I switched this in. However, since it is new there was some ongoing tinkering that made it look terrible because it had a return character that caused (age 3 months 17 days) to read funny because the closing parenthesis goes to a separate line. I think User:Supertigerman reverted the tempate at this time. This kink is now fixed. I think only the age is necessary because I think that is the encyclopedic information that is more important and having both makes the box look to big. I will watch for opinions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I will make the edit and await responses since no one has responded here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Major succession boxes

They are not needed at all, the templates below show who won after and before him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michfan2123 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but often both types of templates are used. I think you may be right. I think what I have seen may have been examples where both remained by oversight. E.g., when I created {{Tour de France Yellow Jersey}} and {{Tour de France Green Jersey}}, I just slapped them on all the pages of past winners regardless of whether they had succession boxes. I think few pages have editors as alert as you to this type of problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I removed all the succession boxes from other golfers as well. It didn't take long because they only went back to like 1995. That is another reason they were not needed. They only went back to 1995 when the majors have been around for much longer and putting them on every winner's page would be a waste of time. michfan2123 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryder Cup Involvement

There's no discussion in this article about his Ryder Cup/President's Cup involvement! I'm going to put something in under criticism, since he's an infamously difficult partner and mediocre performer, but I figure that there are other more positive things to include about his international team playing experience, so feel free to add.

Samois98 06:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:BLP, WP:OR, and make sure to use inline citations. Finding third-party reliable sources that conclude he is infamously difficult as well as mediocre will be necessary for inclusion. the_undertow talk 06:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Stanford Alumni

Does he belong in the Stanford Alumni category if he didn't graduate?

Samois98 06:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No. An alumni is a graduate. the_undertow talk 07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the American Heritage Dictionary defines alumnus as "male graduate or former student". Woods satisfies the "former student" clause. JavaTenor (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Merriam-webster agrees but I have never heard that denotation in an educational sense. If categories are based on our own articles, then Java would be correct (but I still wouldn't use it that way). the_undertow talk 07:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wood's daughter

His daughter Sam isn't 5 months and 12 days old anymore. Stupid to put such info that is incorrect the next day... --88.114.30.60 16:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fitness

I feel there should be some sort of mention in the article about Tiger's dedication to physical fitness and the effect it has had on the sport. I actually don't think there is enough in here about his impact to the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.99.185 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

2005-08: Resurgence

Under the sub-heading, 2005-08: Resurgence, it states the following:

"Woods started the 2008 season with a 7 stroke victory at the Buick Invitational. The win marked his 62nd PGA Tour victory, tying him with Arnold Palmer for fourth on the all time list. This marked his sixth victory at the event, the sixth time he has begun the PGA Tour season with a victory, and his third PGA Tour win in a row. The following week, Woods was trailing by four strokes going into the final round of the Dubai Desert Classic, but made seven birdies on the back nine for a dramatic one-stroke victory. It marked his fourth straight official win, and his second win at the event."

Rather than seven birdies, the correct number should be six birdies (10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 17th, 18th). [3]

ForEvaUrz (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

European Achievements ?

Should the fact that Tiger may become the European Tour victory leader be mentioned?-----Adimovk5 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Technically, Woods now owns 34 career European Tour victories … despite never having been an official member of the tour. That number places him third on the all-time list, behind Seve Ballesteros (50 wins) and Bernhard Langer (42), but if it seems a bit elevated, here's why: Majors and WGC events count as official events on both the PGA and Euro tours. Woods owns 13 major victories and 13 more in WGCs. Add in his eight wins at "regular" European Tour events and it explains how Woods has reached such a mark."[4] Even Woods' future results are totally unpredictable, By Jason Sobel, ESPN.com, 2008-02-04-----Adimovk5 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Tilghman

I find it surprising that this page has no mention whatsoever of the controversy that came from Kelly Tilghman's comments. Many African Americans were upset that Woods did not take a more firm stance on it, and I believe it warrants at least mention in the article. Tithonfury (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's already almost forgotten and while he was being discussed when it happened he was not central in creating the controversy. If she has a page, perhaps there, but not here. Just_Mikala (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Name in Introduction

Since Woods has legally changed his first name to "Tiger," shouldn't the first line of this entry omit "Eldrick"? It should be listed in the background and family section, of course. But to say "Eldrick 'Tiger' Woods is a professional golfer..." is incorrect, since technically speaking Eldrick Woods no longer exists. sæ (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Woods ... a US House Page?

I just ran into a claim on United States House of Representatives Page that Tiger Woods was a US House page. The claim was cited to Lawrence Londino's 2006 biography of Tiger, Tiger Woods A Biography, but that source does not confirm the claim, quite the opposite it claims Tiger spent all four years of high school in Anaheim. On this basis I deleted this claim from United States House of Representatives Page. Just in case I'm wrong about this, if someone here who knows more about Tiger's biography than I do can confirm this claim is true, perhaps you could go to that page and add the claim back with a reliable source. Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Well done, folks

This would be the first time I've posted without correcting anything in an entry. It's just to say that this entry is an example of Wikipedia at its best. I doubt you could finally any encyclopedic entry to match it -- anywhere. A great job to all contributors. Jrshooter (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


"Rang in the new millennium"

The first sentence in the second paragraph under "1999-2002: Domination and the Tiger Slam" states "Woods rang in the new millennium with ...". However, this is talking about the year 2000, which was not the start of the new millennium. 2001, of course, started the new millennium. This should be changed to get rid of the reference to millennium, so it's clear that the year 2000 is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.37.138 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At some point when this article was unlocked, I made a change to remove "millenium". However, someone reverted my change, claiming that the millenium does begin in the year 2000. The wikipedia article on millenium notes the two different interpretations of when a millenium begins. I don't understand the desire to put ambiguity back into the article with the word "millenium". I have no desire to start an edit war, and no intentions to change this back myself. But I'm disappointed with the decision to revert the article to maintain the ambiguity and confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.37.138 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling if it should or shouldn't say "millennium," but I have not really heard this interpretation. It seems like it's just arguing scientific semantics, but everyone I know when speaking of the new millennium is speaking of the year 2000, not 2001 (as well as all the news broadcasts). Kman543210 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to "began 2000" - the previous version was much to flowery, and not the proper tone for an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Injuries and knee surgeries

I am not entirely sure about the details, so I am just adding this here to start, but there is a story on the wire services about having a second knee surgery done on one knee because of pain. This is kind of significant because this operation which is fairly new is exploding in popularity. Tiger Woods is known for fitness apart from golfing, but at the same time reconstructive surgeries on the knees is more common for players of sports that are physically more demanding than golf. It is also the case that such knee work was in the past more common for older men of at least 40 to 45 years of age if not older, so having this work done at a much younger age is significant and may be a factor in his career. -- M0llusk (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Surgery to End Tiger 08 Season

announced 6 18 08 that Tiger season for 08 is over with news of more extensive knee damage and other tibula stress fractures never before mentioned causing need for more surgery and indicating that the relatively minor previously reported knee injury was significantly worse than had been reported...

  • see this link to AP article :

Tiger 08 Seasons Ends Due to Needed More Knee Surgery

/s/ ninny monitor sr 99.130.118.92 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (writer had dbl knee , dbl shoulder injuries played football, baseball and basketball with , w/o complaining and grunting about

footnote- this writer has made NO remarks / submissions ab jeff ott which the wiki lists as a contribution by me , a 100 % lie, the usual wiki weird, weird disfunctioning - AS USUAL, seemoan de caputa, sr 99.130.118.92 (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dope scandal

It is widely known that Tiger Woods has doped himself with pills to gain his power. As Golf has never taken a dope test of course he escapes the life ban that is used in all serious sports like cycling. Can someone please add the section on his illegal use of substances. Just google "Tiger doped" for source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.73.154 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


1) If it is so easy to cite, you should do so 2) Any source you cite will surely not meet any sort of journalistic standard and will be deleted Whorchatasoto (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Real Name?

Okay, so this is actually something I'm not sure about. I just happened across this page while watching ESPN and noticed that his name was listed on here as Eldrick "Tiger" Woods. I removed the quotes, because I have always heard from reputable news sources (ESPN, CBS, and anyone else who covers golf) that his actual legal name is Eldrick Tiger Woods. I continue to hear this, as recently as ten minutes ago on Mike and Mike in the Morning, which like any ESPN program is backed by ESPN's famously stalwart research department. A user reverted my edit and put a comment on my talk page (which belonged on the article’s talk page and not mine) that his given middle name is not Tiger. So I tried to do some independent research and I cannot find a reliable citation. I’ve found three fairly common recurrences:

1. The story I’ve always heard: That his legal given name is Eldrick Tiger Woods.

2. That his name is was Eldrick Woods, and it was legally changed to Tiger Woods on his 21st birthday.

3. That his name is Eldrick Woods, and his father gave him the nickname “Tiger” in honor of a man he’d served in the military with.

So, reliably, which is correct and verifiable. ESPN is more than content to let its on-air personalities report that the man’s name is Eldrick Tiger Woods, and since it’s their job to be right in matters of sports, I personally trust their word more than “some guy on wikipedia”. So, I will watch this page, and continue to remove quotes around “Tiger” until someone can find a more reliable source than ESPN to refute that this is his actual name. --Steeldragon1981 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His own web site lists his name as "Eldrick (Tiger) Woods", which, to me, implies that Tiger is a nickname, not a middle name. (negates option 1)
If you search the California Birth records at http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/calbirths, his name is listed as Eldrick T. Woods. "The Smoking Gun" has a court document from his lawsuit over his yacht with his name stated as Eldrick "Tiger" Woods [5]. The articles I've seen stated that he was going to legally change his name from Eldrick to Tiger but don't state that he in fact did it. (negates option 2)
Option 3 is the story stated in his PGA Tour profile.
There are websites that list his name as "Eldrick Tonter Woods" but the sources seem to be dubious astrology sites.
I think the most accurate statement of his name is Eldrick T. "Tiger" Woods and will change the article to reflect this.Tewapack (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Eldrick T. "Tiger" Woods seems to make little sense, given that implies he has some other middle name that starts with the letter T, which he does not. At this point, it makes the most sense to write Tiger Woods, since that is his legal name, and then in parentheses write "born Eldrick Woods". "Tiger" was given as a nickname, and was never his actual middle name. Supertigerman (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, his birth name was "Eldrick T. Woods". In California, birth records are public records [6]. California at one time provided indexes of birth (and death) records in electronic format that genealogy sites used (1905 to 1995). The site above [7] is one that still allows free access - just type in last name "Woods" and year "1975", month "Dec" and voila - there he is. As to what the "T." stands for, I don't know, could be "Tont" or "Tonter" or "Tiger". If you really want to know, order a certified informational copy of his birth certificate for $14 from California [8].
About his legally changing his name - from The Palm Beach Post - October 20, 1996 "A larger personal decision, though, will probably be made sometime after Woods celebrates his 21st birthday in December - he plans to legally change his name (it's Eldrick ) to Tiger ." - he planned to do it. But - from Chicago Sun-Times - January 9, 1997 "In rapid-fire succession, Woods won his third consecutive U.S. Amateur, signed endorsement deals worth $60 million, moved to Florida, won two tournaments, created a stir when he backed out of a dinner in his honor, decided against changing his name legally from Eldrick to Tiger , considered hiring a bodyguard and spent a lot of time wondering about his rightful place in the world of sports." and from The Fresno (CA) Bee - January 9, 1997 " "No, I'm not going to do that." - on reports Woods, whose given name is Eldrick, will legally change his name to Tiger" (All from www.newsbank.com newspaper archives through my local library.) Contemporaneous corroboration that he thought about changing his name but didn't, hence the legal document [9] with his name as Eldrick "Tiger" Woods.
Since standard format on Wikipedia is to start the article with the full name, with nickname included if appropriate, I'm chaning it back to Eldrick T. "Tiger" Woods. Tewapack (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, Tewapack. Supertigerman (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
On Larry King Live, Tiger said his middle name at birth was "Tiger".

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0104/15/lklw.00.html

KING: How did Eldrick become Tiger? WOODS: Both names were given to me when I was born. KING: Your middle name was Tiger? WOODS: Yeah. My dad gave that to me, and my mom gave me Eldrick, which is a combination of my mom's name and my dad's name.

Mr900 (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiger and Nicklaus

It should be noted that Tiger Woods won all four majors that Nicklaus played in last. 2000 U.S. Open 2000 P.G.A. 2005 Masters 2005 British Open —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.119.251 (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Bobby Jones won them all in the SAME year not spread out over two years or over a decade !! and later Bobby Jones had polio and couldn't play any more ; AND Nicklaus had a bad back affecting his ability entirely not a 'ninny knee' that has no impact; there is no comparison by the Tiger to these two true champions, 1 a ninny, other 2 champions - /s reel champeen willy sr 21:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.199.117 (talk)
You're barking up the wrong tree. All the attention that Woods gets, that's on the media, not on him. They sensationalize everything that happens with him, and just about every other sports star for that matter. But don't complain here, it makes no sense. Go bitch to the networks. J-Dog (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Minor Injuries vs Others

Ben Hogan had a head on collision with bus giving him pelvis double fracture etc, Bobby Jones was permanently paralized by spinal cord infection and Jack Nicklaus had a hip replacement and has a bad back; and Tiger has what in most sports would be considered a minor knee issue ...that he mushroomed into quitting this season ???? See following:

/s/ MD Jonez jr 76.202.165.13 (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hockey news story

On June 7, User:Smuckers added the following:

  • Controversy arose when Woods, while promoting August's PGA Championship at Oakland Hills, said "People don't really watch hockey anymore", referring to the recent Stanley Cup finals against the Detroit Red Wings and Pittsburgh Penguins, after being asked who he was rooting for. His statements caused some criticism, leading to NHL spokesman Frank Brown to release a statement.

I removed the edit, but was reverted. I still believe it should not be included because the event is not notable. Additionally, the section contains original research: were the remarks really "controversial?" What "criticism" was caused? Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:OR.

I concur and removed it again - this is not encyclopedic. Sure, some are upset by the comment. Sure, some citations can be found. But this biographical article is not meant to cover every single possible detail of the subject's life.--ZimZalaBim talk 02:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Have a question..I deleted a meaningless quote from Phil Mickelson and was accused of vandalism..if a small quip from Mickelson is notable/encyclopedic then why wouldn't a quote from Tiger, that caused controversy and hundreds of publications to write about be?

Smuckers (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Playing style

The playing style section was decent some time ago, but the quality has gone down significantly. Candidate for a complete re-vamp Metallion (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Name again

There has been several discussions about whether "Tiger" is his real name or not. The recent conclusions seems to be that he never did change his name, and that "Tiger" remains his nickname.

I have no idea about what is correct in this question, I only note that the discussion has left the article somewhat inconsistent, as the heading lists "Tiger" as a nickname, while the text still contains the information that he made "Tiger" his legal name when he turned 21. JR 62.16.239.120 (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

I think this article could use more about Tiger's personal, nongolfing life. Bradenkeith (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.151.115 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Tiger (as all athletes are) is a whole person, and I think the article should strive to be more than just a sterile list of accomplishments. If he is indeed the greatest golfer of all time, then I think it's necessary. And justified, article size be damned. HardwareLust (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Article Related....But Interesting

Did anyone notice the Nike commercial on Sunday, during the end of 2008 U.S. open, emphasizing Tiger's immense mental fortitude. The commercial had video segments of Tiger playing golf with his father and etc. The commercial continuously pounded the viewer with phrases and images that represented Tiger as mentally indestructible. Immediately after the airing of the commercial Tiger hit his second shot on the 18 into the sand bunker. Tiger's reaction: He threw his club down twice and exhibited some very immature behavior. It reminded me of how my father would spank me for throwing baseball equipment when I was 9 years old.

Great spot there Nike; Was this Tiger's mental fortitude? Or a revelation of a spoiled Brat? Apologies for the POV.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here and this is just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure the above editor should have read the very first sentence displayed on this page (within a template) before posting this comment. – ICDaniel (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well then explain how your opinion, coupled with information about your newbie status, serves to improve the article page.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I could say the very same thing to you regarding your own "not article related" comments. But no worries, I'm sure we could both do without a pointless online argument. See you around sometime! – ICDaniel (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Career Victories on One Course

The "Career Achievements" section of the Tiger article now includes the following statement: "In winning the 2008 US Open, Woods became only the sixth person to win it 3 or more times, and the first person to win a PGA tournament at Torre Pines Golf Course 7 Times."

The last half of this sentence, while technically accurate, is incomplete and misleading. In winning the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines, Tiger became the first person to win 7 professional tournaments at a single course, with Torrey Pines being that course. It is true that he is the first player to win 7 professional tournaments at Torrey Pines, but his accomplishment is much more significant and interesting than that -- on no other course has any single player ever won so many tournaments. Jdcowart (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct, improve it. Supertigerman (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't yet. I'm too new a user. Jdcowart (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries at all, I changed it. Thank you for pointing it out. Supertigerman (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Comment

A few weeks back, Tiger made a contreversal comment saying ".....no one watches hockey anymore". I know North of the border, hear in Canada, all over the news he was critiued on the comment. Now I didnt read over the article througly, but I dont belive it is mentioned. Is this revelent?Fedarated AK74-u (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed, and we reached a consensus that it was not significant enough to warrant being mentioned in the article. That information was not deemed encyclopedic, as the article does not need to include every detail. Thanks for the comment. Supertigerman (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Plus, nobody cares about hockey. Damn Canadians... TripOnMyShip (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
And youre a racist fuckin redneck who knows less about his country than fuckin flys. Go back to your shack in the hills and dont ever go visit the real world you fuckin redneck. Im assuming you like baseball? Well, if a baseball player fought a Hockey player than you would no who won. Im from Detroit and we take fuckin offesne to that shit. You fuckin racist redneck72.138.216.89 (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not defending Trip's comments, but I don't understand something. How can he be a racist redneck (which are typically white) because he doesn't enjoy hockey, (which is typically white)? Some unusual logic there.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hes a Redneck because he doesnt know what Ice is more less what Hockey is.72.138.216.89 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, sir, you seem to have forgotten the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. If you don't have a useful contribution then please refrain from posting useless, vulgar comments. I was merely making a constructive suggestion that I hoped would fuel the creative process of all Wikipedia contributors. The fact that hockey is utterly useless to mankind may be grim to some, but it is relevant to this article and that is the bottom line. We're all in this together. Plus, Detroit blows. TripOnMyShip (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC
Wanna come to Detroit and say that? Youd get yourself shot the minute you walked in you. And you think saying Hockey is useless is revelent to the article? Are you stupid? You wernt making a constructive comment idiot. You say something than do another, thats Hypocritc. Read what you writed before you post. Just cause you dont have the ballz to get on the Ice and fight a 6'6 man doesnt mean Hockey that no one cares. Cities like Dallas (In the Southern states) are hockey fanatics. More north cities like Detroit and New York sell out every day. Now tell me that no one cares. Dont be ignorant.72.138.216.89 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right - hockey rocks! But Motown music sucks. TripOnMyShip (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it all now. An argument about hockey on the TW discussion page. That's classic. Such a shame too, when people give hockey a bad name. Last thing the sport needs is some angry person that attacks another person's level of intelligence while saying things like "Read what you writed before you post." Writed. Awesome. I popped in here to perhaps add a topic discussing how and when to add the fact that Tiger's out for the year with knee trouble, and then I stumbled upon this. Man, what a mess. Then it occurred to me, so many people on Wikipedia are so obsessed with screaming at the top of their lungs and demanding to be heard. For what? I don't want to be that person. It looks totally ridiculous, and it must be so frustrating to be on that quest. So, to hell with it. You all fight and argue about what deserves to be in here, who's a redneck, who's ignorant, who should've read what they "writed" beforehand, blah, blah, blah. I'll just sit back and watch the show. J-Dog (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Screw this. I'm going to hockey practice. TripOnMyShip (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Repetition

  • Mentioning how many times Woods has won the Buick or the Masters is one thing but listing how he's won X Tour events Y many times gets overly repetitious. e.g. At the 2008 Arnold Palmer Invitational, Woods became the first golfer to win four PGA Tour events five or more times.
  • There's a lot of reference overkill. Why does Tiger Woods need two refs for his name? This sentence: "Woods went on to win the Junior World Championships six times, including four consecutive wins from 1988 to 1991.[20][21][22][23][24]" And this one: "Many consider this to be one of the most remarkable golf accomplishments of all time, given the margin by which he broke the old record (and against stronger fields in terms of depth than those in Nelson's day) and given that during the streak, the next longest streak by any other player was usually only in the 10s or 20s.[75][76][77][78]" Mrshaba (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The first statement, I admit, does have extra references, but the second was highly debated. I put those sources there in order to create a consensus for why the streak is considered much more impressive than Nelson's. Thanks for the comment. Supertigerman (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough... There's still the matter of the three references for his name. Those should at least be pulled from the lead down into the Background and Family section and I would think the book (which seems to be the only one to indicate that T. stands for Tont) should be a strong enough reference. Is his name given name really that controversial? Good page though... As I said above the "he's won X Tour events Y many times" got to be tiring but I enjoyed the page overall. Mrshaba (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Amusing edit

I checked the Tiger Woods page a few months ago. At that time, I saw a passage bout his Buddhist beliefs. A Slate article was cited as the supporting source (http://www.slate.com/id/86898/%7Caccessdate=2007-08-13). In the article, he's quoted as saying that he believes in Buddhism. I checked the article again today and that entire passage has been deleted without any reason being provided by someone called 'Bobthebuilderbuildsagain'. I'm not sure if this user has found a new source that contradicts what Woods stated in the Slate article, but if that is the case, that source has not been provided. I'm not sure how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.233.22 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

section title issues

I haven't read this entire article yet but there are already some issues here. Some section titles seem POV. I could argue that his performance over the course of the 2005-2008 period is declining, not resurging. Especially since he just cancelled the rest of the 2008 season. I'm also a bit concerned about the use of the word domination as one of the section titles. I'm not saying that Tiger didn't outplay his competition during this period, but that "domination" seems a bit subjective. Some may assume that "domination" means a completely unblemished streak. If he lost one match during this period he certainly didn't "dominate." --Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The title "Resurgence" is more factual than POV. In 2003-2004 he won zero majors, lost his #1 ranking, was not player of the year in 2004, and was not the money leader in either year for the first time since 1998. From 2005 until now, he has won all of those back. Over these years, he has won 6 major championships compared to the zero from the previous 2 years, so he did indeed surge back. He also has won 25 times on the PGA Tour since 2005. As far the 2008 season goes, he will likely end the season with more wins than any other individual golfer, so it is still not a career downturn.
2. You also raise concerns about the word "domination". As you see by the references, there are countless news sources which say just that. The unprecedented 4 majors, by record victory margins, along with all the other achievements speak for themselves. It is clear that his performance from 1999-2002 was dominant, especially since winning 7 out of 11 majors was also unheard of before this time.
3. As for the "incomplete sentence," it is not a fragment since those words are simply following a colon.
Thanks for the comment. Supertigerman (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Injury section

Since he now out for a year - and has been injured numerous times in the past, wouldn't it be wise to create a separate injuries section for tiger? —Sag969 (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC) comment added by Sag969 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

He has never had any injuries as serious as this one, as he has never missed a major in the past. His knee has bothered him for some time, but i don't think it warrants a new section. Cheers. Supertigerman (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering that he will be out of golf for a year - regardless of how serious his injuries were in the past - I think this is important info that needs to stand apart and be obvious. People will go to this page looking for more info about his injury, having it buried under the "resurgence" section doesn't seem too smart to me. Sag969 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking about the injury topic. It is a little hard to follow his health history in the article as currently organized. It's also starting to become clearer that Tiger's physical durability has been more of an issue for his career than we have perhaps previously understood. It accounted, evidently, for his decision to reconfigure his swing at the cost of two years of relatively poor play (by his exalted standards). Now it's a commonplace in the sports media that the one thing that might keep Tiger from breaking Jack's record, and Sam Snead's, is the same question of durability. I mean, how many 32-year-olds in non-contact sports have had multiple knee operations? Anyway, maybe it would be appropriate to add a part 6.4 under "Critiques" regarding "Injury concerns," or "Doubts about durability", or something like that, with cites to appropriate highly-regarded commentators? Arxiloxos (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fake Knee Injury?

Should there be any reference to accusations of Tiger faking the knee injury? The only reference in the article that I found to support the veracity of this injury comes from the Tiger Woods Website. After all, Retief Goosen made the following comments in relation to the knee injury:

"I think so," Goosen said Tuesday when asked if Woods was exaggerating the severity of the injury, according to a report on the Web site of The London Times. "It just seemed that when he hit a bad shot his knee was in pain and on his good shots he wasn't in pain. You see when he made the putts and he went down on his knees and was shouting, 'Yeah,' his knee wasn't sore.

"Nobody really knows if he was just showing off or if he was really injured. I believe if he was really injured, he would not have played."

Since some believe that Tiger is in the midst of a resurgence, is it possible he may be quitting while he's ahead in the 2008 season? What other facts are there that support the existence knee injury? There is certainly some controversy surrounding this topic.

Finally, the last sentence in the 2005-2008 resurgence says: "That he was able to win the U.S. Open while needing this surgery makes the feat all the more remarkable." First off, there is no evidence that says he needed knee surgery during the U.S. Open. Second, this is biased towards glorifying Tiger Woods. Third, there is no independent evidence that supports the existence of another knee injury during the U.S. Open. And finally, needing a knee surgery while playing golf may or may not be "remarkable." --Edwin Larkin (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The knee injury is legitimate, as proved in this article, among many others: http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=3450453
This world-class athlete has no reason to fake anything, especially an injury. We have no reliable knowledge pointing to the contrary therefore we must report the most reliable facts, which state that he is soon having season-ending surgery. TripOnMyShip (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me guess. You're the same dude that started the rumor that the moon landing was fake, right? You've got to be kidding me. Just so you know, you're 78 days late on this preposterous April Fool's joke, not to mention that it's in extremely bad taste to begin with. Wake up and join reality please. To Wikify my answer: You say that there is no evidence of this and no evidence of that. There is also no evidence that Tiger Woods is a liar. So my question to you is, what makes you think when it's never happened before with him, that he would fake it and quit the '08 season while he's ahead? Especially when that would mean missing two more majors this year, when he's said time and time again that ever since he was a child, his goal was to pass Nicklaus' record of 18 majors. Ignorant philosophy. And as far as Goosen's quote goes, what knee injury has he ever had to be credible at all? There are many sources that confirm his injury and none to support your theory that he's full of it. J-Dog (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm only raising the question so relax. Sometimes people fall so in love with their idols that they dare not to question their motives. I know the faking of the injury is not probable but it is possible. Retief Goosen, a reknowned professional golfer, rasied the question about the faking of the injury. Goosen put his neck on the line here. Should this suspicion be a part of the article surrounding his knee injury??? Maybe not quite yet, but if more allegations surface then we have a legitimate topic to include in the article. Also you ask what makes me think that he would quit this season early if he didn't have a knee injury? Did you see Tiger pick up his kid after the tourney? (Which by the way was her first birthday yesterday 6-18-2008) Now I know that this is not evidence of a fake knee injury but it is evidence of a possible motive for spending less time pursuing "Nicklaus"(which by the way if he was so hell bent on passing Nicklaus he would play the last two majors with the injury) or more money that he doesn't even care about. There is a possibility here right? Goosen is only the first to question the injury. If there are more allegations, then I believe that we can make a section in the article about allegations surrounding the extent or truth about his knee injury. All the news sources are running with the story because it was made public via TigerWoods.com. The article that is cited above only refers to what Tiger says, not doctors, x-rays, or any other physical, incontrovertible evidence. You're right there isn't evidence of Tiger making lies in the past, but that does not exclude the possibility of making a lie now. I would like to see some independent evidence that supports this claim of a season ending knee injury. Otherwise I side with Goosen for now............ Finally, on another note, I will take your guys' lack of supporting the "remarkable" quote as evidence that the last sentence in resurgence 2005-2008 should be rewritten or erased. Tell me what you think. Tomorrow I will erase it if no one argues to the contrary.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
What I think, is this. I think that you are creating more drama than there actually is. So far, the only two people that I've heard question the legitimacy of this injury are you and Goosen, and as far as I know, and I am assuming, neither of you are doctors. Secondly, medical records are not required to be made public, nor are they seemingly ever. If you want to question the legitimacy of this injury, then you had better go back in time and question every single injury that has ever occurred where there was no public release of the x-rays, doctor's official press conference, etc. If you want to set a precedent, than you had better be willing to go all the way, including retroactively. Are you willing and/or prepared to do that? Not to mention the fact that, as mentioned above, would either you or Goosen even know what to look for in an x-ray if it was made available to the public? Additionally, a torn ACL, which is what the surgery is all about, does not show up on an x-ray, only an MRI will show that. I suppose you want copies of those too, right? Lastly, is faking an injury possible? Yes. Can you confirm it? Not unless he confesses to it, no. Some other source such as Goosen is not a reliable source as to Woods' health, or level of honesty about said health. What medical records, physical evidence or lie-detector test results has he ever seen to base his opinion on?
Bottom line, I think it's absolutely asinine to put any stock whatsoever into your argument. It looks like nothing more than some conspiracy theory. I'm sorry, but it does. All you have is some other golfer saying that he didn't think that he was injured. That's your case? That's it? That's horrible. Goosen as an expert medical witness? That's classic! Using "reasonable doubt" (even though it defies all logic and sane reasoning) as the backbone of the argument? Doesn't hold water. If this was a courtroom, you'd be overruled, the case would be thrown out, and the judge would publicly chide you for wasting his/her and the court’s time.
Look, Wikipedia is in the business of making available documented, reliable, notable facts. Not theories. This is not a blog or gossip section. The fact remains that there is WAAAAAAAAY more evidence to suggest that this injury is legitimate than there is to suggest that it isn't. I think you're taking way too much of a pessimistic and cynical approach to this thing, and quite honestly, I don't get why. You seem that you are trying to make sure that the "Tiger Worshipers" don't engage of some kind of idol glorification in this article. That's nice. But what you're doing makes you look like a "Tiger Hater" by injecting the possibility that he's full of shit. Did you ever stop to consider that at all? J-Dog (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Can the facts answer these questions: If Tiger can be so headstrong to play through the U.S. Open, with a knee injury, in his Captain Ahab quest to overtake Nicklaus, then why would he stay away from the last two majors? He won a major golf championship with what is claimed to be a knee injury. Why not another? How in the heck can he play 91 holes on a knee injury? Was it Cortisone? A cloned body double with similar golf skills? Or maybe a fabricated knee injury? I believe Goosen is onto something. Goosen said that Tiger looked like his knee hurt when he hit bad shots. But his knee was fine when he hit good shots. This opinion is from a professional golfer. He may not be a doctor, but he is qualified to make an allegation in relationship to the physical requirements that are necessary to win a major golf championship. I reiterate that it may not be probable, but it is possible. Again, if more evidence surfaces to suggest that Tiger is faking, for whatever reason, then I am creating a section on allegations of faking the knee injury.
You speak of evidence in opposition to my theory. Where is this mountain of cold, hard, undeniable, physical facts? All we know are a few things: 1) Tiger Woods.com released this information, in relation to his supposed knee injury. 2) Tiger Woods talked about his knee injury to the press. 3) Tiger Woods made faces to suggest pain during a few of his swings during the U.S. Open. Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods, and Tiger Woods is the one responsible for feeding us this information. At least give me this: Is it a possibility that Tiger Woods does not want to finish the 2008 season because of something other than a knee injury? Yes. Which would be the best way for Tiger Woods to manufacture an excuse for quitting on the remaining tourneys? A knee injury.
Finally, I know this is not a blog, but it is a discussion forum for impoving the article. If allegations are made about the falsification of the knee injury, whether they be true or false, it is indeed a significant and recordable event in the story of Tiger Woods. Retief Goosen is a notable PGA player that made this one allegation. If other members of the athletic, press, or medical community make an allegation about the severity of the knee injury, then it should be recorded in the encyclopedia under its own section. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is anyone alive today to quantify what it takes to win a major with some sort of “expertise knowledge” as I would like to put it, it’s two people: Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. Between them they have won 32 majors. Goosen has one a total of two. His expertise therefore is trumped by the other two. Besides, of the 154 other players besides Goosen (and obviously Woods) that played in the tournament, I haven’t heard or seen any other competitors question the legitimacy of the injury. Assuming that is correct, that means that less than 1% of the golfers involved in the tournament publicly questioned the injury. Are you trying to tell me that you think that is an acceptable percentage of opinion to include a “fake knee injury controversy” section anywhere in Wikipedia? That’s simply not good enough.
Go back and look at the tape. On Sunday, Woods hit a 5-wood from the 18th fairway and landed on the green in two shots. I think it’s safe to say that it was a “good shot.” I think even Goosen would agree. (Especially since Goosen played the 18th at even par for the tournament while Woods played it at -3.) Woods was in obvious pain. So much so, that he looked down and winced in pain, not even seeing the end result of the shot. So wincing on “only bad shots” is proven false, just by this one example alone. That, by the way, is just one example, I’m sure that there are more.
How can Goosen attest to Woods’ reaction to any shot? Was he playing with him on any day of the tournament? No, he was not.
You can argue this point as much as you like. The fact remains that the majority of the public (and that’s putting it lightly) do indeed believe that this injury is legitimate and that Woods is not tanking the rest of the season for any reason whatsoever.
Lastly, I will ask you this. What will you say and do when Woods actually goes through with the surgery? Will you still say that he was faking it then? That should be very interesting… J-Dog (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Edwin Larkin. I don't have the citations on hand, nor do I really care to find them to argue with your stupid little theory, but Tiger's doctors instructed him to NOT play in the US open. Tiger's swing coach said (and you can dig up the quote), that Tiger decided to ignore his doctor's instructions and play in the US open. So, his doctors + coaches are in on this to?
Also, IF you had watched the entire US open, you would know that Tiger did not only make faces when he had bad drives. Several times his drive would be decent and he would grimace. I remember distinctly at least one time when he made a pained face after a drive and the announcer quickly cut in saying that that face did not mean that the shot was bad - just that he was in pain from the drive.
What about when he made that putt and ecstatically went down on his knees? He wasn't in pain then? You would think that bending your knee at a 90 degree angle and landing directly on it, with the purported ACL damage and stress fractures, would cause some pain and a "grimace." I'm not sure if I side with Goosen on the bad shot/good shot thing. But I am still attempting to make the arguement that it is possible that Tiger may not have that severe of a knee injury, if it all.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Lets see what else. Oh yeah. Tiger had surgery on his knee a month ago (was that a conspiracy too??). What about all those other knee surgeries? Also, J-Dog is correct - he is going to have surgery on his knee probably within a few weeks if not earlier, are you going to call that surgery a conspiracy too?Sag969 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Then how is it that a man gets a knee sugery but after words still suffers from the same ailment? One of two things: Crappy doctors or fake injury. Don't tell me he retore an ACL and caused stress fractures during the U.S. Open after the surgery.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Word. J-Dog (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I’d like to add the following: There is the possibility (how likely or unlikely I am not sure, but it has been mentioned nonetheless) that this injury may be career threatening. And since that possibility did not come from Mr. Woods (in fact he has said the complete opposite), I’m curious to know how this little tid-bit fits into your “fake knee injury” theory. Care to comment? J-Dog (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak, typical sensationalism in the media. Remember when Deon Sanders turf-toe might have been "career ending." Tiger could break a nail and some sports pundit would say it could be "career ending."--Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to retract my prior suggestion that Mr. Woods was faking his injury and that if he was actually hurt that he would not have played. I realize now that I was actually just pissing and moaning and being a sore loser. My jealousy got the better of me, and I never should have made such outrageous accusations. I sincerely regret any harm or insult I may have wrought upon Mr. Woods or his fans, and I vigorously hope that no one clings to my out of line comments or takes them seriously from this point forward. I am open to suggestions as to how to make reparations for my foolhardy and imprudent comments and suggestions. Mr. Reteif Goosen (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's Real Funny. Especially since you can't spell your own name Retief!!!!--Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion is over. Edwin Larkin's argument is poor at best. It is pure theory and full of "what if's" and that is not what this site is about. Wikipedia is about what you can document, what's notable, and what you can cite, and you can't cite "what if's", "how come's" or theories. Enough. Not to mention that a consensus has been reached, and it clearly states that your addition is flat-out ridiculous. End of story. Now, unless something new pops up to support your theory, leave it alone and let this discussion die right here, right now. J-Dog (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed we will wait and see if more evidence pops-up. Retief's comments alone are not enough. Yet let me say again for a third time, if there are other accusations made that the injury is anything less than it is currently purported to be, then the discussion goes on. Thanks guys, you clearly are the tough crowd. It has been interesting. signing off on this argument as defeated for now.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, seriously fake injury, retiring from the rest of the season is obviously some devious and malicious plan! 85.81.126.123 (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

In case this article is going to be protected for a while, here's a version of the end of the introduction that I think is enough of an improvement that I hope someone is willing to introduce it for me.

Replace this:

Woods, who is multiracial, is credited with prompting a major surge of interest in the game of golf. Woods dramatically increased attendance and TV ratings and generated interest among a multicultural audience in a game that used to be considered insular and elitist.[2][3]

with this:

Woods, who is multiracial, has generated interest among a broader audience in a game that is often considered insular and elitist.[2][4]
After winning the 2008 U.S. Open, Woods is sitting out the rest of the 2008 PGA Tour, missing two major championships and the 2008 Ryder Cup, in order to concentrate on the rehabilitation his injured left knee.[5]

Of course feel free to use this as the basis for your own improvements. Thanks. 68.167.191.208 (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

Frankly, I am unhappy with the use of 'insular' and 'elitist' right at the outset of the article. This is wikipedia, not redneckipedia. Where and when I grew up, golf was neither insular nor elitist, and I disagree with this point of view. I think it sets a poor tone for the entire article right from the start, and it puts a subtle spin on the article that doesn't deserve to be there. Yes, Tiger has caused a surge of interest in both playing and watching golf, I'm not disputing that. I just think disparaging the game right off the bat doesn't set the proper tone for what is supposedly an article about Tiger, not about someone's opinion of the game of golf. I'd also like to note that neither of those words is used anywhere in the main Golf article, so why are they used here? HardwareLust (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm even more displeased that someone has taken it upon himself to proclaim Tiger as "African American". This is confusing, and is purely mis-information, almost to the point of vandalism. HardwareLust (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Main image

I think image #1 is a better main image than #2 because it helps to identify him as a golfer. Does anyone else agree? I even prefer #3 and #4.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the main image in the article should show his face. If it's just a picture of him golfing in the background, you can't really see what he looks like. Kman543210 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with TonyTheTiger. It makes sense that his main image be of him golfing. I like #1 and #3 the best. I think it should be changed ASAP, and will do so by tomorrow if no one else disagrees. Supertigerman (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with TonyTheTiger. For the reasons stated by Supertigerman. With one caveat: an even better picture would be one of Tiger in his trademark Sunday red and black--this is the iconic Tiger that people really think of. (So much so that when Rocco had the nerve to wear red and black at the US Open, it got a lot of comment.) But until then, I agree #1 is the best of the offered choices.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with TonyTheTiger. Hate to play Devil’s advocate here, but… Couple of reasons. First of all, the article does have some pictures in it of him golfing; in my opinion I don’t think it needs another of the same at the top. Variety is always nice. Secondly, the article is about Tiger Woods the person, not just Tiger Woods the golfer. Granted, he has made his name via the game of golf, I get that. But, there is more to the man than just golf. For example, he has said in interviews that his life-goal is not golf achievements, it’s the success of his charity. His family probably trumps both golf and charity. Anyway, ya catch my drift. Just trying to keep the argument balanced. J-Dog (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds to me like 3 votes for #1 and 2 votes for #2--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, sure does. The only thing I would add is that if an "action photo" is desired, #3 might be the better way to go, as Woods is wearing a more "common" hat. Can't tell what kind he's wearing in #1. In #3 he's wearing his trademark "TW" logo hat that he wears for nearly every single tourney. Just a thought. J-Dog (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would crop #3 a little more to get rid of the stuff on the right. This would allow for the rest of the picture to be blown up a little more to fit in the standard width for the info box. I am going to go crop it a bit right now. Notice, however, that the club head is clearer in #1. I like the shoes better in #3.
I have cropped #3 25% which will enable it to be 33% larger in an infobox. #3 is better for the hat, shoes, and lack of teeth now that I look at it. Feedback appreciated. Maybe I should crop #4 as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I have cropped #4 now too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I do like the one that is up now, that's for sure. It's what, #3? I do like. Great work. J-Dog (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with TonyTheTiger. The image shows more of the head, while the golfer picture doesn't really show so much of his head. We want a headshot most of the time. So I'm for image #2 --Kanonkas :  Talk  09:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Equipment section

I retrieved, updated and edited the equipment section with some cleanup and found cites for most of the info. It was removed in August of 2007 without any discussion, much less concensus, that I could find. It had apparently been tagged for lacking citations.... but just days before deletion.

I for one find the equipment sections one of the most valuable in golfer articles. Some of the comments above support this. Silly as it is, duffers anxiously seek the tiniest bits of information on the equpipment used by these star golfers.

The tigerwoods.com site has much of the same info as the GolfChannel cite(but also some added info), but it's a Flash site, so i have no clue how to cite directly to the page. If someone has a better method than my "click here and here" listed in the footnote, please fix.

I also left in some of the uncited info on the irons. It would not surprise me that the best golfer in the world ain't playing with "off-the-shelf" irons, but it looks unsubstantiated.TjoeC (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Tiger has stated he is a supporter of [traditional equipment rules] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovegolf4life (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Williams-Caddie

I think that there should be a section devoted to the involvement and relationship between Tiger Woods and his caddie Steve Williams. A caddie is able to have a dramatic impact upon a player and i think that their friendship is worth commenting upon. Steve Williams is also currently the highest paid sportsman in New Zealand, which is pretty amazing! (Jrgt1 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)).

See Steve Williams (caddy). --ZimZalaBim talk 18:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thrust of this article is Entirely wrong

Tiger Woods is a fantastic, lovable human being. He plays golf amazingly well. These are the things that interest most people. Who GIVES A SQUAT about 55,000 trophies, awards, inductions, etc. etc. etc. Put 'em in a list with their dates and BE DONE WITH IT already. Tell the world what amazing shots he did - holes in one, long putts, trick shots, coming from behind. Who wants an encyclopedia that just lists PGA Tour championships?Friendly Person (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia reader, that's who. Nice to know, however, that you are personal friends with Tiger Woods, and can attest to his personal demeanor. ReignMan (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved 'Controversy' section into the talk page

I've just gone ahead and moved the "Controversy" section into the talk page. Consensus appears to be "remove". The referenced "Cut streak" and "Tiger proofing" sub-sections can be saved and incorporated back into the main article. I kind of doubt the encyclopedic relevance of those parts myself but I defer to the other editors on the matter - its in here and can be moved back easily enough. Unreferenced stuff is unusable per WP:BLP especially labeled as controversy (eg: Fuzzy Zoeller is still alive - and has sued people who posted untrue stuffs of him on Wikipedia = check out his article). I also noticed that the article length was reduced by about 20kb (from around 100kb) when this section was removed - so some judgement needs to be done on whether the items here is really important enough to be included in an already lengthy article. --Eqdoktor 09:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Snip - removed old controversy section from talk page as it has served its purpose. WP:BLP also applies to talk pages and unsourced stuff needs to be removed. Vandalism edits were also happening on the section. --Eqdoktor 08:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page itself has become unmanageable in length, with too many subheadings, many of which are now defunct subjects. I'd like to see a number of these headings removed that distract from the work of maintaining a credible entry. Bottre73 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the "critiques" section again tonight, and I have to say that as years pass, these three issues offer less and less to the entry. Does Tiger proofing work as a critique, or does it seem to go along with general trends in increased golfer fitness and more advanced equipment? The cut streak article is very poorly structured and seems very much a side issue. And Mr. Woods performance in the Ryder Cup hardly merits its own section. Bottre73 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ [http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hPuabYvDiDWueCDOns9r7AE_yo5g afp.google.com,
    • Tiger Woods undergoes knee surgery]
  2. ^ a b Rick Reilly (1996-12-23). "1996: Tiger Woods". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
  3. ^ Rick Reilly, John Garrity, and Jaime Diaz (1997-04-01). "Tiger 1997: The buzz that rocked the cradle". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2007-08-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Rick Reilly, John Garrity, and Jaime Diaz (1997-04-01). "Tiger 1997: The buzz that rocked the cradle". Golf Magazine. Retrieved 2007-08-26. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Cameron Morfit (2008-06-18). "Woods out for rest of '08". Golf Magazine. Retrieved 2008-06-18. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiger_Woods/Archive_3&oldid=1137253028"