Charles Murray jumps into the golf stat discussion by pointing out how individual skills tend to be distributed along bell curves, but extreme accomplishments follow L shaped power curves with only a tiny number at the far right edge. Just counting the four professional majors, Nicklaus is first with 18 wins, Woods second with 14, and two 1920s golfers, Bobby Jones (13, including Amateur titles, which aren't counted anymore) and Walter Hagen (11) are next, followed by Ben Hogan with 9. In contrast, 124 players have won one.
Murray says:
But to predict that Woods can win five majors between now and the end of his career—something that only 17 other golfers have done in their entire careers—assumes that nothing in the last year has significantly degraded the freakish combination required for extreme accomplishment. I find that assumption untenable.
The door can shut on great golfers in the Majors before anybody expects it to. Tom Watson won eight majors between age 25 and 34, but none after his 35th birthday. Arnold Palmer won seven between 28 and 34, but none after his 35th birthday. Woods will turn 35 at the end of the year.
Five more is a lot these days. Phil Mickelson, aged 40, has won four in his entire career, even though he got off to an early start as a star, winning a regular tour event as an amateur in 1991.
On the other hand, Ben Hogan won one before his 35th birthday and eight afterwards. Nicklaus himself won twelve before his 35th birthday and six afterwards, so, assuming Nicklaus is the best comparable for Woods, that would project Woods out to about 21 major championships in his career. But after the 2008 U.S. Open when he won his 14th, he was projecting out to around 26. So time is passing.
Posts
53 comments:
FYI - I updated Murrays' major-winners chart thru today - shockingly, it doesn't look much different:)
Tiger won mostly by juicing if you believe the rumors, which is well known now, and too much of a risk. He's also breaking down like Barry Bonds. So, no, I don't expect him to win another major.
Murray's doubts sound a lot like baseless speculation. If he is even identifying Woods' key strengths correctly, he knows absolutely nothing about what makes them tick.
Golf is another sports I hate, but being a iSteve groupie I guess I need to have an opinion. Woods seems to have taken a hit with his romantics. Apparently the Europeans are catching up. I was reading about a Scotsman and a German who are planning to shut Woods down. Oosthuizen from South Africa is also doing well.
Of course the media was hyping Woods beyond repair on acount of his dark skin colour. So we never would know how good he really was/is.
I hope that Chuck's projection turns out to be right. I can't stand Tiger. If he were juicing, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. What a jerk. The arrogance of Barry Bonds and the smarminess of OJ Simpson together in one complete crap package. Marketing gold.
Risto
Statistically, the greatest stick-and-ball player ever was Don Bradman, the Australian cricketer. He was so far superior to every other batsman that there's ever been that it's nigh impossible to imagine that his figures could ever be matched, even with the whole subContinent trying like mad.
What Charles Murray is observing in the L shaped graph likely results from the product of a number of factors. That's multiplicative product rather than an additive sum. Think of it this way, roll 6 dice, say like in Yahtzee and add up the total. Do this a lot of times and you get about 3.5 with a roughly bell shaped distribution.
Sum 5 and multiply by the 6th, and you will get a distribution that skews large. Multiply all 6 and it will have a very large tail. The right hand side will look a lot like that L.
A lot of distributions can look pretty Normal (Gaussian) in the middle but will deviate in the tail. A multiplicative rather than additive component is one reason this can happen.
Is Woods really okay now that he is no longer so beloved by the public?
I remember a story from the author of the Joy Luck Club. In the story, the girl played chess very well and her mother always bragged to everyone who would listen. Then the girl got older and snotty and angrily told the mom she was embarrassing her with all the cheerleading. The mom very curtly told her fine. Ever after, the mom gave her the non stop cold shoulder and told her she didn't care how she played or even if she played. That broke the girl's concentration to the point of losing her edge. Now, that is just a story, but it reminds me of Tiger. Without the adoration of the public, the wind may no longer be at his back. That, and cutting the juice.
Can you still be a conservative if you don't care about sports?
That would make you very happy, wouldn't it Steve?
White-man keeps record! yay.
lol.
When Charles Murray makes a prediction, you can almost always take it to the bank.
A juiced robot is coming apart at the seams emotionally and losing his putting touch as well as his endorsements. (How many important people has he failed to alienate? A few, but not many.) Unless Woods rejuices and starts using one of those nerd putters, he's sunk.
What I don't get is this: there seems to be a lot points at both tails of this so-called bell curve distribution. Instances at both tails are supposed to rare, right?
Now, I don't claim to be smarter than Murray, but I did slog my way through all of those statistics courses that I needed to get my worthless B.A. degree in Psychology/Sociology. I must be missing something. What is it, my fellow iSteve readers?
Whiskey said...
Tiger won mostly by juicing if you believe the rumors
You don't know anything about Golf, do you?
Has there been a good hbd take on Tiger? I would suggest that if a large amount of intelligence genes ride on the X chromosome http://www.independent.co.uk/news/brainy-sons-owe-intelligence-to-their-mothers-1339099.html (1996) then you have a guy with East Asian visual-spacial intelligence; East Asian genes that play into hard work and good decision making; and a mix of black genes that boost confidence (see Rushton on this) and black genes that boost muscle development. Sounds like the optimum player. Plus height from the black side. I know that he's got some other races in there, that's why I'm just asking if a good HBD discussion has been given to the subject. He apparently got the black women chasing genes which could easily ride on the Y.
In his heyday Woods was the greatest golfer ever. The mess in his personal life has certainly affected his game, but I wouldn't put much money on hime not eventually breaking the record. It would only take two more good seasons, and he has ~20 years to do it.
I don't want him to break the record, but he probably will. What he needs to do is find a hot young blonde to marry so he can start cheating on her again. That's when he was at his best. This time, though, I'd suggest a better pre-nup.
I know that juicing shrinks the testicles, but does it have an effect on the sex drive? If he were juicing, would he have been so driven sexually?
Statistically, the greatest stick-and-ball player ever was Don Bradman, the Australian cricketer.
I'm always amazed at the breadth of knowledge among Steve's readers. I had to look this one up:
Bradman's stats in context of other sports
Re the "juicing" allegation:Everybody commenting on Tiger in the media explains his bad performance on the "emotional" issues around losing his dear man-chinned harridan,Elin.Its been my contention that he is assiduously avoiding PE drugs until the FBI goes away.I love seeing him struggle! On the plus side,being a juicer,he may have a chance to get into Snookie's pants!
Juicing? Is there any evidence that anabolic steroids or HGH improve your golf game? I mean at the professional level.
At the amateur level there can be no doubt about steroid use. There are ads on national TV encouraging older men to ask their doctors for a testosterone test. In these ads they show a man playing golf with great enthusiasm after he has gotten his hormone boost. I'm sure the older up scale income men who play golf constitute a major locus of androgenic hormone use. But this juicing is compensatory. It restores T to former levels not boosts it to some new un-natural level.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that having hypertrophied muscles would help you win golf tournaments. On those rare occasions that I watch golf on TV I notice that the players don't look like Schwarzenegger. In baseball Canseco, McGuire, Bonds and the other juicers looked different. Jose Canseco was kind enough to show us what he would have looked like had he not taken steroids in the form of his twin brother - you know the skinny one.
You Steve are about the same size as Canseco or McGuire were before they juiced up. So why aren't you a famous home run hitter? Afraid of needles?
No, like 99% of all people you probably can't hit a major league fast ball (or curve, or slider, etc.). Every man in the Mr. Olympia contest has huge muscles gained through hormone injections but none of them can hit a fast ball either.
Testosterone and HGH don't do anything for your eyesight, depth perception, focused attention or reflexes. These are factors that are important in hitting a baseball. Similar factors - not big muscles - are important in hitting a golf ball.
Or maybe I'm wrong?
Albertosaurus
Off-topic, but I think people ought to see this.
http://www.stonybrook.edu/simons/NYT_mentor.pdf
The Intel Science Talent competition is about being at the right place at the right time.
It's not an objective estimate of a student's talent.
Note: This is not true of the USAMO and IMO kids who completely kick ass without any adult supervision *during* the process. Also note that NE Asians tend to do much much better in such contests than Asian Indians who manage to perform well only when things are a function of effort, not smarts.
This prediction is meaningless. I don't like Tiger but it is clearly his mental game that is causing his relative failure now.
Only three people shot better scores than he did in the US open. Tiger was three shots behind the leader. As any competitive golfer knows a three shot difference on a championship course over four games can easily come down to luck.
Tiger being 35 means nothing. Tom Watson missed a put to come second in the British Open last year. He is using a 60 year old body that is not particularly youthful - you can find more athletic 60 year olds on almost any golf course.
The juicing accusations in the comments are similarly meaningless (and I believe it is likely he did use illegal performance boosters). Juicing would allow you to practice for longer but how much relevance do steroids really have for golf? It is more an ego boost. People get fixated that Tiger can hit the ball a long way but anyone that thinks this is because he is muscular has no idea how to swing a club. Whippet thin 15 year olds can easily hit Tiger distance. The world long drive champ weighs 165 pounds and is less than 6 feet tall.
Tiger will beat the record if he finds a way to get excited about the game again. Up till now he has rewarded himself with drug fueled parties with multiple hookers. If this was a necessary mental boost to be number one and he stops doing it entirely he wont beat the record. If he decides to win to cement a legacy, for his kids or some other mental hook he can do it.
Talent at that level does not melt. Mental desire definitely can.
I can't for the life of me understand why these guys make so much money and why society makes such a big deal out of them.
", the greatest stick-and-ball player ever was Don Bradman, the Australian cricketer. He was so far superior to every other batsman.."
Wrong. Sachin Tendulkar
In a game like golf, the psychological "benefits" of juicing - intellectual focus, tunnel-vision, simmering competitive rage - might be as important as the physical benefits.
[And it's also possible that Tiger could have been mixing something like amphetamines into the cocktail.]
Yes, the investigation into that Canadian juicing doctor who treated Woods might be a major distraction.
That said, I think it's quite plausible that even without the juice, he gets back to a level where he can win one major every two years for the next decade, which puts him at 19.
I've read that men supposedly inherit their intelligence from their mothers, but I look at my own family, and I really don't see that being true.
"Tiger being 35 means nothing. Tom Watson missed a put to come second in the British Open last year. He is using a 60 year old body that is not particularly youthful - you can find more athletic 60 year olds on almost any golf course."
How many people in their 50's have won a major? None, Nobody since 1990 has won a major over 43. He doesn't have 20 years and there are many good young players now. He could do it,but it's no sure thing. I think the putting goes first.
"Talent at that level does not melt"
I think it does.There is a fine line to win one of those tournaments and you lose something as you get older.
"Tiger won mostly by juicing if you believe the rumors"
Yeah the D-ball did wonders for his putting.
"I've read that men supposedly inherit their intelligence from their mothers, but I look at my own family, and I really don't see that being true."
Is your mom that brilliant?
First, the chart is little misleading as it severly understates the achievements of golfers in the 30s-40s-50s. Not only did WW II lead to the cancellation of 16 majors but the PGA was matchplay till '58 and US Pros (for a whole Bunch of reasons) didn't play en masse in the British Open till the early 60s. Hogan from 1940 to 1955 only played in 29 majors (1 British, 5 PGA, 11 US Opens, 12 Masters).
Snead played - and won - in 1946, Hogan did the same in 1953. Palmer played his first British Open in 1960 at the age of 31.
Secondly, there's every reason to believe Tiger will emulate Nicklaus and win another 5 or 6 majors in the next 10 years. Jack not only won 6, he easily could have won 2 or 3 others except for Tom Watson including the '77 British Open and the '82 US Open.
BTW, I heard the same comments about juicing in BB that I'm hearinga about TIger. "Oh, what difference does it make?" they said (and say). Well it obviously made quite a bit of difference in BB and probably does in golf. Juicing not only helps make you stronger and able to recover faster, it also helps in other ways. Even if juicing means 1 stroke a round, thats 4 strokes a tournament and can mean the difference between 1st and 2nd.
Juicing helped Tiger Woods hit the ball further, and "stronger" i.e. with more control than other players. Guys like John Daly could hit the ball a ton, but it was always a crap shoot where the ball would land, in the rough, the fairway, a bunker, the water, etc.
Other guys had short games as good as Woods, but where Woods had a consistent advantage that helped him win was making a shot in one that required power lacking in other players. You've seen the cover of some magazine he did, shirtless. Guy was yoked. The power+control came from juicing I bet.
Just like the FBI is in touch with Lance Armstrong over blood doping allegations (fraud) after the Landis accusations. Armstrong has hired a lawyer. He remains "the most tested athlete" ... but any test can be beat. Greg LeMond openly scoffs at the idea that Armstrong won clean.
If Woods no longer has the edge of power+control, that will affect his short game (he has less margin there, because now he has to lay up rather than let it fly, on approach shots). He may have "one less stroke" to give because of it -- more pressure.
FWIW, its alleged that testosterone/HGH/Roids can result in a massive sex drive. Arnold certainly copped to it in his book.
The evidence for large scale juicing by Woods is only strong in the second half of his career. One of my readers wrote, " I’ve stood next to him a number of times (1998, 1999, 2002, 2007). ... Also, back in 1998 and 99 and 2002, Woods was very wiry. In 2007, he was huge. He looked a lot bigger than the 185 lbs. stated in the article."
Woods was the greatest player of all time from late 1999 through 2002, when he won seven major championships, including four in a row. Then in 2003, he didn't win any majors, and in 2004 he had a genuinely bad year, winning no majors and only one regular PGA tournament, and losing his #1 ranking to Vijay Singh.
Then in 2005-2008, he came back very strong winning six majors. The notorious picture of Woods flexing from Men's Fitness, which we know now he was blackmailed into doing by sister journal National Enquirer in return for spiking a story about a waitress, is from 2007.
So, there was a big change in his massiveness in the mid-years of the last decade, probably related to his bad year of 2004.
We know that Barry Bonds didn't use steroids until 1999, after McGwire and Sosa got all that publicity in 1998 and nobody paid attention to Barry having his usual superlative year. I wouldn't be surprised if the story wasn't similar here.
I'm rootin for Tiger not to break the record, and I always hated him, regardless of his skin color or sexual life. Now, I'm finally thinking he will not break the record.
What's amazing is that Watson didn't win after 35, but came within a playoff of winning one at 59.
We know that Barry Bonds didn't use steroids until 1999, after McGwire and Sosa
We do?
>Testosterone and HGH don't do anything for your eyesight, depth perception, focused attention or reflexes. These are factors that are important in hitting a baseball. Similar factors - not big muscles - are important in hitting a golf ball.
Or maybe I'm wrong?<
You're wrong. For an example of just how utterly and completely wrong, Google "hgh" and "eyesight."
The idea that roids wouldn't help in golf is pretty dumb. Of course strength isn't everything in golf, it's only a factor. But a factor it is.
It's hilarious reading all the slicers commenting here. Distance is about lag and the whip you get as the club comes through.
Big steroid muscles does not equal distance. Being athletic is hugely important but muscle size has zero predictive powers as to how far someone can hit a golf ball.
If Tiger's distance had improved since he bulked up some of the comments would make sense. The fact that his distance is exactly the same as a decade ago makes the whole argument ridiculous.
I've no idea if Tiger will or won't break Jack's record, but it's clear that what he has lost is his ability to intimidate. When it's only one stroke that separates a winner from a loser, that's a huge thing.
Tiger has been great at many things, but he seemed best at taking a mid to late round Saturday lead, then allowing demoralization to set in in those close to him on the leaderboard. A one, two, three stroke disadvantage that would be viewed as surmountable on Sunday by those vets behind him were someone else in the lead, was viewed as insurmountable if it was Tiger in the lead.
He didn't have to play aggressively on Sunday. Like Jack, he knew that others would self-destruct, either by going for broke and making the mistakes that come with that mentality, or more commonly that they'd play not to win but to hold onto second, third, or fourth place to be assured of the great prize money that go with those finishes and to earn places in the rankings that earned them invitations to certain tournaments.
All champions get into the heads of others. Jack was great at this. He's talked at length about allowing the other guy to fold, and it's clear that Jack knew his opponents well. He knew Trevino wouldn't fold; he learned that Watson wouldn't fold; he knew Palmer would go for broke at the wrong time. Knowing his opponents had a great deal to do with what club he pulled from his bag and when.
Tiger used to be able to let others self-destruct. No longer.
I agree that his motivation will be the key, and I too wonder if the adulation he once inspired and which now is missing is something that will adversely affect his motivation.
While there are still huge numbers of Tiger supporters and while the cheers for him when he does win will be huge, I suspect that Tiger knows he will never again be viewed in the same light as he was was--as not just a golf superhero, but as a cultural superhero, and that may be just enough to diminish his perception of himself, and that might be just enough to cause a drop in the same committment that drove him to his earlier excellence.
"slicers...same distance..."
Factor in the that woods changed his swing to take pressure off his knee following surgery. Also strength isn't only about hitting it further, but it also helps with accuracy. The luxury of being able to swing easily helps one hit it well. Moreover, if musculation isn't important, then why did Tiger bulk up so much? Vanity? Possible, but unlikely. Woods seems to think muscle would help his game. Would he have cheated to enhance. We already know that he thought that he could get away with quite a bit with various women, I see no reason that he would have a different attitude about taking drugs.
A lot of people here seem not to understand what steroids are. Steroids are synthetic testosterone. Building muscle mass is only one the many, many things they do. Everything that make men different from women, steroids will give you. They will cause a strong increase in competitiveness, endurance and confidence that will help in ANY sport, even sports in which strength plays little or no role.
I notice the same ol' tired characters are making the same ol' tired arguements. "Oh, juicing don't make no difference in hitting a BB or golf ball, I'ze an expert"
Well, Juicing DID make a differnce in BB, the players thought so, and the records show they were right. As for golf, why do you think Old golfers don't hit the ball as far?
Jeez, what a bunch of dummies.
As for Tiger and headgames. The most interesting stat about Tiger is that he's never come from behind & won in his 14 Major championship wins. In every win he's been the leader or co-leader at the end of the 3rd round. Does that mean he pysched everyone out, or it is that he can't come from behind and win unless he's leading after 3 rounds?
Donald Bradman took up golf after retiring from cricket and played off scratch at Royal Adelaide GC - a tough, wind swept track designed by the great Alister MacKenzie.
HGH definitely improves vision and probably coordination to a least some degree. Since both of these things are important to golfing they could theoretically help a golfer even if the increased muscle mass doesn't help driving distance. I don't know if Woods was juicing, it's possible I guess, but remember the guy was only 26 in 2002 (His birthday is on December 30, right before the new year). So it is possible he just got bigger as he got older, like a lot of skinny guys do as they age and especially if they are paid tens of millions of dollars to win with their body through just working out.
It's hard to tell in his case because he already had an unusual physique, probably because of his somewhat unique ancestry. I've seen him both in person and standing next to other pro athletes in photos. In neither case would I say he looked incredibly muscular. The one thing I think that contributes to the perception of him having huge muscles is that he has a very narrow waist for a relatively tall guy, which might make him appear bigger up top than he actually is by giving him more a V-shaped appearance.
Regarding Murray's analysis, I think he is probably right, simply because pro golfers generally don't dominate for unusually long stretches, as was pointed out last week after the British Open by a Sports Illustrated writer named Joe Posnaski. He pointed that only Nicklaus and Player were outstanding players for more than decade in the modern era and that he thought Woods was already showing signs of decline that other great golfers had shown when they reached their mid to late 30's, namely the putting is the first thing to go.
Tiger's greatest and most overpowering years were when he was young (early-mid 20s) and skinny. Not the typical steroid bio at all.
Mike said
>Juicing would allow you to practice for longer but how much relevance do steroids really have for golf?<
Read your own stuff! You answer your own question.
Anonymous said...
"I notice the same ol' tired characters are making the same ol' tired arguements. "Oh, juicing don't make no difference in hitting a BB or golf ball, I'ze an expert"
Well, Juicing DID make a differnce in BB, the players thought so, and the records show they were right. As for golf, why do you think Old golfers don't hit the ball as far?
Jeez, what a bunch of dummies."
I train between 15-20 hours per week on a championship course, but yeah, I'm just guessing as to the relationship between strength and distance. Every weekend hacker thinks strength equals distance. Golf and baseball swings could not be more different. It doesn't get much dumber than comparing strength effects between the two.
David said...
"Mike said
>Juicing would allow you to practice for longer but how much relevance do steroids really have for golf?<
Read your own stuff! You answer your own question."
One sentence out of context. Really, we're doing that?
Seeing as how my rational comments regarding golf have no weight I'll try this one: you are an idiot if you think juicing will make you a better golfer. Tiger's distance hasn't changed as he has got bigger. How dense do you have to be to think he is hitting it further since he got bigger when every stat of his is public information?
One of the longest hitters on tour is Rory McIlroy. Its got to be his huge muscles propelling that driver right?!
Mike:
What is your theory as to why Tiger bulked up? Is it just vanity, or just maybe does Tiger think it will help his game? I think the assumption is that if Tiger, the world's greatest golfer, has decided to bulk up, he must have done it for good reason.
For what it's worth, here is an article from the 90's about the weight-lifting trend in golfers. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1012954/index.htm
I'm sure that I should believe you since you train and all of that, but do you have any literature to point to that suggests that strength is not an asset in golf? I haven't put a lot of study into the matter, but if I had to bet, my money would be with Tiger.
Don't just call us slicers idiots by the way:
"24% of golfers believe Tiger Woods used "HGH or other performance-enhancing drugs," according to a poll of 71 professional golfers. Sports Illustrated and Golf.com published a survey of players on a battery of issues, many of which were related to Woods, and nearly a quarter of respondents believe the world's preeminent golfer is chemically enhancing his performance."
""24% of golfers believe Tiger Woods used "HGH or other performance-enhancing drugs,"
OOOOh twenty-four whole percent huh?
I guess it's settled then.
Now I don't know weather Tiger Woods is, or isn't on steroids, but some of you guys must be complete pencilnecks if you don't think a 6'2 guy can bulk up to a whopping 190 pounds naturally.
Get a Charles Atlas course from the back of one of your comic books or something.
Truth:
I love these personal attacks because they make you sound smart. Your use of "weather" takes away from that though, and so you might want to step up the personal attacks. (I make my fair share of typos, but weather/whether comes off as remedial).
How much does that pencil-neck Lance Armstrong weigh? Then it's impossible that he's doping right? Same thing for any light weight boxers.
1. Does strength help golfers?
2. Has Woods gotten stronger?
3. Are there drugs that would help golfers perform better?
4. Has Woods used drugs to help his performance?
Arguing against 4 by answering no to 1, 2, or 3 leaves me really unconvinced.
Attempts to argue no to 1 are pretty dumb. We can argue about degree, but no commenter has really supported his assertions.
I think Steve asserted yes to number 2. Again, we can argue degrees, but it seems like the assumption has been
If 1 is yes, then 3 must be. In addition, some have reported benefits besides strength itself. Drugs can help on everything from the 100 meter dash to academic tests, golf seems to fall in there somewhere.
I am not certain about 4. Before the sex scandal, I doubted it. I thought Woods was too smart and was too protective of his very valuable image. Now, I see that Woods is capable of very unwise decisions. So I am in the maybe column.
Too bad Tiger's wife didn't break his neck.
"(I make my fair share of typos, but weather/whether comes off as remedial).
Aren't all "typos" remedial? and isn't any unsupported attack on someone whom you don't know's reputation?
I "attack" you, you "attack" Tiger Woods. none of us knows each other so the use of "personal" in this case is highly dubious.
"How much does that pencil-neck Lance Armstrong weigh? Then it's impossible that he's doping right? Same thing for any light weight boxers."
Yes, it possible, it is also possible that Tiger Woods is juicing. If you'll re-read my post you'll see this.
It is, as I said possible that he was NOT juicing, and as I have no insider information, I will not mount "personal attacks" that he was.
"1. Does strength help golfers?"
Yes
"2. Has Woods gotten stronger?"
Yes
"3. Are there drugs that would help golfers perform better?"
I'm not a Doctor, but I would say, probably.
"4. Has Woods used drugs to help his performance?"
I don't, fucking know!
Following you logic to the extreme, it would be the logical case that EVERY golfer on the PGA tour who has "gotten stronger" is juicing, right?
Do you belive that ALL of these men are on steroids?
Do you believe that ALL football, basketball, hockey and baseball players are on juice? Why not, logically it:
1) will help them with their sports
2) many of them are stronger at 28 then they were at 18
3) the drugs would make them perform better
4 have all professional athletes used drugs to help their performance?
There are certain athletes who are CERTAINLY on steroids Brock Lesnar, Evander Holyfield, Dana Torres, etc. one knows that at their age, and what they looked like earlier, it is physically impossible to look like they look without taking testosterone enhancers.
I did not say that Tiger Woods was on steroids, what I said was that it is quite possible, and not particularly unlikely to build a body on Tiger's level without them. I am 10 years older than he is and according to what he looked like in Vanity Fair, even now I have a superior body.
5) I've never taken steroids.
"Too bad Tiger's wife didn't break his neck"
So you're pro felony and domestic violence?
Remedial is the new SWPL word for retarded, as I the remedial math class. See the Urban Dictionary. Basically a nice way to say retarded for teachers. I'm sure they will have to switc words soon.
My point about 1,2, and 3 isn't that 4 is a certainty. My point is people should stop confusing the argument. The logic only leads to the conclusion that drugs would help athletes in any sport not that every athlete uses them.
Post a Comment