Talk:Tiger Woods/Archive 2

message: Todd Chapman is the highest paid athlete in the world-- Micheal Schumacher is. According to F1 Racing Mag in July 2006, it said he earns well over $100 Million. This number can also be found on formula1.com
User:PublicSecrecy 6:03 AM, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:If you can provide evididence to refute the sources that have already been given, please feel free to update it.  However I think it's important to only use historical data (in other words, 2005 income as opposed to projected 2006, or future, income)
:For a better article regarding Forbes findings see: The world's best-paid athletes  ~~Aktornado 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's from the official f-1 site. Your info on Woods is from a 3rd party not at all linked to golf or Tiger. Plus, that's 2005, this may be from 2006. Ernham 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Schumacher is now retired in any case. Piccadilly 10:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary 

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

message: Shouldn't you add something about Tiger's practice routine, hardwork and dedication to become the 'Tiger"? He is an icon of professionalism and success. His dedication can be worthy for the learners.
imroz=
::A 60 minutes interview with him said that he practices about 9 hours a day.Ernham 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practice 

message: I noticed that this article uses the term British Open to refer to The Open Championship throughout the article. Don't worry. I'm not an anal retentive who insists that anything other that 'The Open Championship' is wrong and will suffer the wrath of the British Empire. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! Sorry, got carried away. However the article never mentions the name Open Championship. This is likely to perpetuate the myth that the tournement is officially named the 'British Open' as opposed to being a coquoilism.
I have two requests that you can deal with seperately. Firstly, the first mention of the the open to be changed to read The Open Championship (British Open), simply to inform an unknowing reader of its official name. The second request is for tables and the infobox to refer to it as The Open Championship. The reason for this is that while coquial names are fine in normal text. When it comes to tables you don't refer to the Chicago Cubs as The Cubies in a table of World Series Winners. 
FYI. I've just added an optional rydercupapp field in the infobox. You can use this to add the number of ryder cup appearances that Mr Woods has made. josh (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Open 

message: Woods never graduated from college. He attended Stanford for only two years and then forsook further education (much to his father's chgrin, by the way). The info box on the right-hand side lists Stanford under College, and the formatting falsely leads the reader to believe that he completed his education.DocEss 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make it a little more accurate, but the template is acting weird. Not sure how to fix it. Ernham 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  College 

message: A compugeek is needed to fix a glitch in the infobox, the link to Stanford University which for some reason displays a couple of [[.  Beats me, and others who have tried to rectify it, but I'M not very wiki-progamming savvy. Moriori 19:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Stanley011 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, yes. But now inaccurate. Please read comment "College" above.DocEss 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glitch in infobox 

message: Some idiot/s hiding behind IP addresses keep inserting the line "Woods also served as a House of Representatives page" or some variation of that.  Is there some way we can get a vandal bot to automatically revert whenever the words "page" or "House of Reps" is used in this article so that good faith editors don't have to keep doing it?  Thanks. Stanley011 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: no, the antivandal bot is fairly stupid (unexplained deletions, insertion of expletives on a list, I think, and isn't page-specific in any way).  What can be done is to restrict editing of the page to only registed users.  My sense is that you need a lot of attacks (certainly more than a half-dozen a day) to convince an admin to set up semi-protection, and it's usely only for a day or two, but I could be wrong - in any case, here's the policy: Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy.  John Broughton  |  Talk 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-vandal bot badly needed for this page 

message: I did clarify the sentence, so it now reads "the only player ever to win multiple professional majors in consecutive years. There  is no debate that in Jones's day, he won amateur titles, which were later made into professional. There is debate about whether or not we should include those in the "majors" category. Given that the links I posted about Tiger Woods being the only man to do so are directly from official golf websites (golflinks and pgatour.com), it is clear that the common perception is that he is the only man to do so. Yes, true Jones did it with amateur and professional titles, but Woods is the only man to do it with professional titles, so there is no need to include Jones.
Supertigerman 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a need to because without this explanation, it gives readers the false impression that amateur majors were not considered majors in Jones's day.  Thus the only accurate way to frame the sentence would be to leave the line about Woods being the only player to win professional majors, and then also noting that Jones did it with amateurs and professionals because, as I and others have explained numerous times before, Jones only had 4 majors in which he could possibly have competed.  All of my assertions are well-sourced (Washington Post, GolfOnline, etc.) and thus are appropriate and indeed necessary for any sort of precision to be achieved. Stanley011 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you did write that, I kept it in for clarification. The huge debate about Jones's winning the Grand Slam is on the page about most major championships. They had a long debate, but concluded that since news sources today talk about the modern professional majors, and not that one with amateur and professional titles, it is what we go by. They concluded that since pgatour.com consistently says that Tiger is 2nd behind only Nicklaus, and not Jones, it refers to the modern definition, which is tougher to achieve. Amateur majors were considered majors, but not professional majors. Therefore, Tiger is the only man to do it by winning professional majors. In any case, you have to admit that given increased length of courses, more players, and much tougher field strength today, Tiger's achievement is more impressive. When I say that Tiger is the only man to win multiple professional majors in consecutive seasons, that does not imply that amateur majors were not considered majors. I am only talking about professional majors. And given that pgatour.com and golfonline say that he is the only one to do it without even mentioning Bobby Jones (see link 19) there isn't a need to mention him. Supertigerman 00:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stanley is undeniably correct. Unequivocally, Jones won the Grand Salm, and he's the only one to have done so. Plus, he was educated..DocEss 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jones won the former version of the Grand Slam, in which the only tournaments he could have won were 2 professional majors and 2 amateur majors. No one has won all 4 professional majors in 1 season.Supertigerman 00:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, thank you for not being a neurotic, dogmatic wikipedia nutcase, and for actually making solid points. However, including Bobby Jones in this one instance is strange because now you'd have to go to every part of every article that talks about the grand slam, or other achievements that have to do with the amateur + professional era, and that's a) not feasible and b)silly because it would simply mar the appreciation for the achievements of others by stating the Jones's accomplishments after every one of those. So my question is, why don't we not include it here, given the statement using the word "professional" is correct? I realize for the sake of historical accuracy and such, but then why not include this at the bottom of the page with the footnote instead? Supertigerman 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for recognizing that I'm not a "wikipedia nutcase" (though I do try to abide by wikipedia policy as much as possible, and from what I can tell, you do as well) but I do dispute your above points.  First, it absolutely is feasible, and indeed quite easy, to go to every part of every article that talks about the majors and add relevant modifications to achieve the greatest context possible--wikipedia has a limited number of golf articles and takes on far greater tasks than this.  In fact, I would like to do just that, and just chose this article as a start.  And as far as maring other players' achievements, I completely disagree.  How does it in any way take away from the fact that Tiger won multiple professional majors in consecutive years by reading the line about Jones?  If anything, I think it adds to the appreciation of Tiger's feat because it shows how far back one must go to even detect a somewhat similar achievement, giving the average reader a wider appreciation for the historical context of Tiger's achivement.  I do not believe this context should be marginilized to the bottom of the page when it directly relates to the issue at hand.  Stanley011 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Cluttering up several pages by referring to other golfers and their similar accomplishments will take away from the goal of the statement, I'm afraid. I don't think we should go to every golf page and say "Bobby Jones did the 'grand slam'" and have a bunch of asterisks and explanations for it. Since what he has done is not related to the modern definition, and since mainstream sources do not even mention him, I don't feel that it merits prime importance. This is not to say that what he did was also an accomplishment, but an accomplishment of a different kind which should not be directly compared to modern-day definitions. Hence, in the major golf championships page, they split it up into 1) modern-day and most widely recognized statistic and then later on (due to its lesser significance and lack of widespread acceptance) 2) combination of the amateur/professional merged with just the professional. My point is that adding extra information about "similar achievements" back in the day will only clutter up pages with unnecessary information and detract from the main point. We follow up one line with one line about Jones -- that's distracting especially since Jones has not done the same thing. Why not leave it as "only one to win multiple professional..." since that much is completely true, and not get bogged down in details and explain to the readers why we must include the word "professional"?Supertigerman 06:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can always remove the entire psuedo-statistic. Sounds like you don't think it's "fair" to count amatuers as majors; I'm sure jones doesn't think it fair he is being compared to someone that got to play in twice as many "real" majors per year than he didErnham 11:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jones is bones! He is long passed-on. Win four majors of whatever ilk in one year and you win the Grand Slam. So far it is Jones and Jones alone who has done so. Plus, he was educated. DocEss 19:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bobby Jones 

message: He's won some awards/majors in consecutive years, so should we shorten those parts with hyphens? I think it will make it look concise and more readable. For example, he's won the McCormack award every year, so it would read "1998 - 2006" instead of listing each year. It just doesn't look neat at the moment.Supertigerman 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the info box needs some major work Aktornado 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea it seems too unorganized. What do you suggest? Take a look at what I wrote above entitled "Wins."Supertigerman 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the years from showing all 4 digits to showing 2. My goal was to have clear-cut neat 1-liners. If this appears ugly or incomplete, just give a reason and change it back. I was thinking maybe we could have 2 digits for the parts that are squished (ie Masters), and show all 4 for others (ie US Open, because we can fit all 4 digits in one line). Would that be better? Perhaps we could combine years like I wrote above with a hyphen, and not list them all. Notice I did this only for lines which required it, ie lines in which showing all years with 2 digits would not fit in one line. This would certainly be neater, but some may think that it's bad. If you feel this is inconsistent (and that all need to have hyphens or no hyphens at all), please explain why and change it accordingly. I also made an extra line for the "professional wins" part, which I thought looked more readable. Also, for the "No. 1 PGA Tour Money List," I put the years on the line below it, but could not figure out how to indent those years. Can someone more wiki-savvy do that? I realize that whatever changes we make here will have to be replicated in all other golfers pages. No problem, with your help, we can do that -- let's just make sure we're positive on how we want to format it. If you think I really messed up, please improve it. Supertigerman 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moriori: Right now it looks sloppy with all the parentheses -- can you improve it instead of reverting?Supertigerman 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Awards 

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

message: Look at the Results table. He turned 30 on December 30, 2005. At the British Open in 2005, he achieved his 13th total major. Notice the summary of performances says "46 starts" until now. That includes the 2005 PGA and the 4 majors from 2006. Therefore, 46-5 = 41. Supertigerman 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was wrong the first time--thank you for making me aware of that.  It's actually 47, not 46 as I originally wrote.  Your'e neglecting the fact that he competed in the US Amateur in 1991-1996.  Those of course have to be added to the denominator, if you're adding those wins to the numerator do they not?  That means 41+6=47 for a grand total of 26.67%.  I will make the changes now. Stanley011 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhhh. My bad. Supertigerman 04:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're both bad. In one paragraph in the Article (and in discussion above on this page) you diminish Jones' unparalelled accompplishment by claiming that Jones won "...at a time when the US Amateur was considered a major." Then, in a nearby sentence you claim Woods won 13 majors by the time he was 30 when we include the three US Amateur titles. Ya can't have it both ways: you argue above that Jones' Grand Slam somehow doesn't really count becasue two of the Championships available at the time were national amateur events and then you turn around and deify Woods for winning amateur events to bolster your invented 13-by-30 statistic. Please explain what looks like neglect, convenient truth stretching or outright bias.DocEss 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously know nothing of the difference between professional majors and majors including amateur wins. To see the difference, go to the talk page of Golfers with most wins in men's major championships. As for the "deify" comment, no, we recite the facts. Do not come here and chastise us for our contributions because it is people like Stanley011 and me who make Wikipedia a better place. We dedicate time to editing, talk in a civilized manner when we disagree, and we compromise. Supertigerman 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know more than you assume, so be cautious in your tone. Anyway, look at this page, majors, and recite the facts that are there regarding majors. Also, please explain what I asked you to explain: how can you use amateurs-as-majors to make Woods look good and in the same breath use ameteurs-as-majors to make Jones look bad? It's one way or the other! Agian, please explain what looks like neglect, convenient truth stretching or outright bias. DocEss 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: To involved editors:  There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. 
Some suggestions:
* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back. 
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] 

message: I see people have been intent on making every "British Open" into "The Open". First of all, the official name of that tournament is "The Open Championship". Calling it "The Open" is like calling the "PGA Championship" just "PGA". Also, many non-golfers do not know about this distinction, and many in the U.S. know it as the British Open. How can this be clarified, since now there are two "Open"s? Supertigerman 01:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's bollocks. Not only in the US is it known as the British Open, but elsewhere as well. There was a story about Wikipedia in our local paper today. One paragraph said - "using it is like asking  questions of a bloke you met in the pub. He might be a nuclear physicist. Or he might be a fruitcake". It also says some pages seem to have been taken over by fanatics , and I guess that's what has happened here. Go for it Supertigerman, fight the good fight and change it to British Open. . Moriori 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There exists a litany of opinions in the Talk pages for Open Championship. Go read all that and you'll have your fill of this debate, one I predict will be endless, annoying and intolerably boring.DocEss 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Open Obsession 

message: The minus sign (−) should be used instead of a hyphen (-) for negative numbers.  The minus sign is entered either entered as − or as − by clicking on the minus symbol under edit box.  There are a couple reasons for minus signs instead of hypens.  The following is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes):
:The minus sign or figure dash (−) is designed to be the same width and height as a plus or equals sign, and should be used in non-TeX equations or to designate negative numbers. It is supported in almost all browsers, and can be used in Wikipedia. Unlike the hyphen, most browsers will not break a line between the minus sign and the associated negative number. It is possible to use the HTML entity − or the numeric form −.
—Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use minus signs (−) instead of hyphens (-) for negative numbers 

message: I don't have the details (course, length, etc.) or I'd add it myself, but I think the putt that Tiger made in the playoff with Ernie Els at the 2003 Presidents Cup that resulted in the event being declared a tie deserves to be on that list.  It was one of the highest-pressure putts Tiger's ever been faced with and it was pretty amazing that he and Ernie both made two very difficult must-make putts on the same green as it was starting to get dark. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Doug. As I recall, it wasn't a long putt; it wasn't a severly breaking putt; it wasn't an overly difficult putt; all it has going for it is that it was an essential putt. Woods has faced many essential putts an they aren't considered 'memorable shots.' Besides, un-extraordinary putts hardly ever make my list of memorable shots - memorable shots to me are like that 6-iron from the bunker in Canada to a protected green to set up an eagle - now THAT was a shot!, not just rolling a little ball 10 feet. I guess I wish to exclude putts as a matter of policy unless they're spectacular like the rolly/curvy/long-distance one at the TPC at Sawgrass.DocEss 17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In New Zealand, SkyTV Sports 1 has screened an hour long program about Steve Williams, Tiger's caddie. Williams said the greatest shot he ever saw Tiger play was undoubtedly the  mid-fairway bunker shot you mention Doc, and they of course showed it. It was blowing a gale, he was unsighted, he had to hit it over pine trees, and the ball was virtually lipped. I think Williams said Tiger actually used a 3-iron, and he (Williams) thought Tiger must have flipped to attempt such a low percentage shot. I'm hoping they replay the item so I can check whether it was a 3-iron or 6-iron. Moriori 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moriori, Doc is talking about a different shot from the Canadian Open.  The shot you are talking about is the one that Tiger himself says was his best shot.  And it was a 3 iron. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Steve and Tiger agree that was his greatest ever shot. Moriori 01:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorable shot missing 

message: Should we mention anything about his supposed divorce arrangements? 222.155.109.116 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, as soon as you can provide any references... —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce 

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

message: It took about 2 weeks to compile the information and to type in the wiki-text in order to create the table. I realize that this will not be able to be replicated on all other golfers pages because it would require tireless dedication from more people, but this is a comprehensive and informative table that I feel adds to the page. These are the changes that I believe can/should be made to the now comprehensive PGA Tour wins table:
*It is wide. A possible solution I see to rectify this would be to change the date format by abbreviating the month (ie October would become Oct). I do not think that writing it in short-hand is advisable because it would result in confusion as to whether it is in the mm/dd/yyyy or dd/mm/yyyy format.
*I intentionally did not create separate colors for tournaments that are categorized as "Fall Finish" or "Small Field" because too many colors make it confusing, disorganized, and would undermine its visual quality.
*If you feel the major championship rows should be bolded all the way through, be my guest.
*In the separate major championships table, repeated runners-up have their names linked only once. If you feel that should be done here, simply unlink the repeated names.
*I did not add repeated win tallies in a small parentheses like I did for the separate major championship table. If you believe this would help, please do so, but be consistent.
*The main organizational change would be to split this up into years. Before, the years were written with the number of wins in that year in parentheses. I figured that directly above this table is the career summary table, which explains that quite clearly. However, perhaps splitting this up into years would help. Thanks and keep improving! Supertigerman 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uber-detailed table for PGA Tour wins 

message: Whoops. I edited the Professional Career section to include the Grand Slam of Golf win, only to realize it doesn't count as an official event. So I re-edited the page to restore the previous version (is there/was there an easier way for me to do this?). Guess I'll leave this stuff to the, er, pros!?!?!?!
:Indeed, there is an easy way to undo edits. Simply click on the history tab, and then click on the date of the version you want to restore the page to. Then click on "edit this page" for that old page, and click save page. That will undo any edits done since that page was edited. Hope this helps. Supertigerman 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional Career -- edits 

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

message: Is this sentence:  Currently the World No. 1, Woods was the lowest paid professional athlete in 2045, having earned an estimated 564903012344345546587 million stones.[1]  nonsense vandalism or is there something I don't know?  Sukkoth 14:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that is vandalism. When you see something like that, please revert it. That stayed on this page for an unacceptable 8 hours. Supertigerman 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense vandalism? 

message: The PGA of America awards the money winners and player of the year awards. The Money winner award is synonymous with the Arnold Palmer Award. The PGA Player of the Year award is not synonymous with the Jack Nicklaus Award. This you know. 
However, not everyone knows what they stand for. You say that people can easily click on the links to see what they mean. But what of those who do not have the time? Many people come to wikipedia for a quick glance, not for an in-depth analysis. That is why I feel it is easier on the eyes to show exactly what the awards mean. It is not necessary to replace them with the PGA Tour's terminology which is simply meant to honor those who have given to the game. As for the Vardon Trophy - that is it's official name. Perhaps we can change it to Lowest Adjusted Scoring Average, but that sounds awkward and is not the official name. The reason I put the Byron Nelson Award there was because of the difference between that and the Vardon Trophy (50 round versus 60 round minimum), and because Tiger had the lowest scoring average in 2006 by Byron Nelson Award standards, but not by Vardon Trophy standards. As for the McCormack Award - that is it's official name. But beyond that, the Money Winner and Player of the Year awards are the most prestigious and deserve to be communicated through this page. Supertigerman 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prestiege should be a non-issue. We are not in a position to judge that. We ought to be consistent one way or the other. Since referring to the meaning of the distinction is so often going to be awkward, we should simply give the name of the trophy in each case. As it is, "PGA Tour Money Winner" isn't semantically accurate anyway. Many golfers won money on the PGA TOUR this year; they were all Money Winners! Something like "PGA TOUR Money List Champion" or would be more accurate in its expression, although would take up lots of space. The best way is to just refer to the name of the hardware, as it is consistent and allows us to avoid worrying about semantics (which are important). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.16.135 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for award nomenclature 

message: This wiki is full of both. Although it's found throughout the wiki, it's particularly strong in the second half. "Cooked stats" are also prominent incredibly annoying: "Tiger was the first player who ate blueberry pancakes before a birdie-ing the 18th hole at Pebble Beach."Ernham 16:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing relevant in what you just wrote. And examining your talk page, I see many people have been angry at you for your apparent incompetence and rudeness. Please do not waste our time unless you have real substance. Cheers. Supertigerman 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'd like to be more specific. As a matter of fact, I'd edit it myself. But when that happens, you see, you immediately change things back to your absurdly hagiographic content. I tried this with you before. Waste of time. You want to argue for months about things there is no argument about and you are clearly out of order; you want not a single non-positive comment to soil your fan blog. I have better things to do and will merely flag it, hoping someone else has the time to waste with you and your version of reality.Ernham 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide 1 example, and we'll work things out step by step. Supertigerman 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tried that before. You wasted my time. Waste someone else's.Ernham 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanton hagiography and stat cooking 

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

message: Didn't Tiger have an unusual laser eye surgery in order to be able to focus further? Worth a mention if true I think. (82.40.177.159 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. —Doug Bell talk 11:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser Surgery 

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

message: Last time I'm saying it. Clean up the hagiography or I will.Ernham 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting 90% of the "playstyle" nonsense section

message: Isnt Gary Player still an active golf player? at least he was at the masters this week. I know hes in his 70s now, but still active I think. Cereq 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only PGA Tour tournament Gary Player still competes in is the Masters because he wants to break Arnold Palmer's record for most appearances. He is not exactly "active" since he only plays (and knows he will miss the cut) in one tournament. Supertigerman 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Only active player in the top 10 for most majors

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

message: The legally blind reference is in error. The definition of legally blind is vision that is 20/200 or worse in the best eye AFTER CORRECTIVE LENS application. Tiger had a diopter of -11, which is at the extreme end of the nearsighted scale, but he corrected to 20/20. This invalidates the claim of legally blind.
Ata.tkd 22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legally blind reference