Forza 2 is one of the most overrated games of this generation. Yes, it was fun to drive and had lots of cars and auction houses but that was literally all it had. There was a terrible dearth of tracks and the career mode was so boring. Car painting and auction houses are a fine way to differentiate your game from the pack, but that's not why I play these games. The reason why I do, and the reason why I liked Gran Turismo 4, was because there was a feeling of progression not just in the cars you have but the quality of your racing. I never really got this feeling in Forza 2.
This is not the case in Forza 3. It's only been about 2.5 years, but Forza 3 is so much better than Forza 2 it's almost hard to believe. There's more tracks, a better career structure, more cars, a better interface - better everything. There's some things I still like more on the five year old Gran Turismo 4, but this game is good enough to maybe, maybe, put that one away for good.
Let me start with the career mode. Forza 3 gives you a calendar, similar to Project Gotham 4's in theory but very different in practice. In PGR4, events repeated themselves on a yearly basis, and the game tracked your performance over time. Here, the events are selected semi-randomly based on the cars and events you chose before. In PGR4, the seasons were built around "majors", the big time events. Here, there are big time events, but only one per season.
I wish the game veered off a bit more into gamey territory by giving you events like the ones in Project Gotham 4 or Need For Speed Shift, but this is a good way to progress through the ranks. You gain a decent amount of money and can try out lots of cars and tracks. It's a good system. Of course, you can always go behind the scenes and see all the events at any time in a Forza 2-like grid. It's boring, just like Forza 2, but I like bouncing back and forth between the grid and calendar view.
Forza 3's leaderboard system is really well done. In fact, I probably like it more than the career mode. There's also an extensive time trial mode, where you run hot laps in specific cars around each track. For example, a Bugatti Veyron in the high speed ring. There's also an overall time for all your races and rankings and percentiles for every track as well as overall.
Forza 3, like the earlier games, has a Performance Index system, where cars are assigned numbers based on their performance, with rating bands indicating overall classes (F class is under 200, etc.). Ratings are adjusted every time an upgrade is made, and cars can move up and down classes. To make things easier, Microsoft has programmed a "quick upgrade" system that buys and installs good upgrades automatically. It's an efficient, tidy system, but one that, in my opinion, makes things a bit too orderly and mathematical.
It's a tough balance when you have a game which essentially allows you to twink out any car to dominate, so I appeciate Turn 10's apprach here. For reference, though I actually prefer the A-Spec system of GT4 as a way to "monitor" difficulty", though even then it could have been more transparent.
The racing feels great, as it did from Forza 2. There are a couple big additions though. One is cockpit view. I'm a big fan of cockpit view, when it's done well. It was done well in Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. It was done relaly well in Need For Speed Shift. It was not done well in Project Gotham 4. Here, it's not great. Better than PGR4 but not as good as GT5P or Need For Speed Shift. The FOV is narrow and the interiors look a bit simple. Still, it's better than nothing.
The other big addition is rewind. There's absolutely no limit to using it and there is no punishment for using it in races. On the leaderboards, using rewind dings the lap as "dirty", but that is to be expected. Honestly I love this feature. It actually makes me more willing to turn off assists, run harder races, etc., because I feel like I won't waste time if I fuck something up. It's not a carebear feature - you still have to run the race. And the fact is, sometimes there are races you're just not gonna win. But, for those races where you take a bad turn on the last corner of the last lap, this feature is a godsend.
Multiplayer is just not my thing. I can't comment on it. I'll leave that for other people. Ditto with car painting. Even not using those features, though, the online system is extensive. You can set up a storefront with your designs and car tuning. Turn 10 has set up a system which could potentially shape an amazing community where people could express their love of cars and Forza in a way they see fit. The tuners can tune, the painters can paint, the hot lap folks can jostle for rankings. It's beautiful. We will see how it plays out - but the potential is there.
As one final point, possibly the most surprising thing about Forza 3 is the way it looks. The tracks don't look realistic. The cars don't look nearly as good as Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. But the game's colors pop, everything is really bright and colorful, and the lighting is great. It's all extremely cool. The game looks great.
So, Forza 3 is an incredibly impressive package. Turn 10 expanded everything that needed to be expanded, tweaked the things they needed to tweak, added the features they needed to add. And then a few more. The end result is just a great, comprehensive racing game. I love it.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
First Impressions: Gran Turismo PSP
I don't need to get into the story of Gran Turismo PSP. We all know it. However, the announcement at E3 along with a hard launch date was a big surprise. Now that it's here, how is it?
Before I start, let me just say I am really happy with the course Sony is charting with the PSP now. I'm not a big fan of digital distribution everywhere but UMD has to go. It's an awful format. Slow, fragile, flimsy, large size for transport, its just bad. So naturally I bought Gran Turismo PSP over PSN, it was right off my PSP and very simple.
Now, on to the game. I am going to be honest, Gran Turismo PSP is disappointing. The lack of a career mode and car tuning instantly turns this game into something less than Gran Turismo. The career mode of this game is what drew me into the series. It's always been excellent. It's not just about turning that crappy Suzuki Cappucino into a stable of high end race cars, it's about the growth of the driver, gaining the skills to tackle the courses and tweak the cars properly. It's not easy, but it's very rewarding. You get what you put in.
Not so much here on the PSP. On the PSP, you can get your kicks by doing a long string of what are essentially license tests (I believe its about 102 - by comparison, GT4 had 85) or by doing time trial/drift/single race for any car on any track. You have to pave your own way, lay down your own benchmarks, set your own course.
Initially, this is pretty shocking for a Gran Turismo game. Hell the Gran Turismo games practically invented the career mode as it exists in many games now. I remember Ridge Racer's singleplayer was like this, and Ridge Racer was cool. But Ridge Racer came out before Gran Turismo. Yes, you could say GT PSP is operating in a pre GT mindset.
To add insult to injury though, Polyphony didn't even bother to add online leaderboards to this game. Come on, if you're gonna make time trial a gigantic part of your game at least take advantage of 2003 level technology (2003 because PGR2 did it) and let us compare our times to other people!
But, take it for what it is, and it's pretty cool. I think it will play well to the hardcore GT fans. A lot of hardcore GT fans just love to run time trial over and over, and this game certainly makes that possible. Even without online leaderboards, it's pretty fun to best your old times.
The physics and track designs are right on the money. Just as a test, I did a time trial with a certain car on GT4, then loaded up the same track and same car on the PSP game. The times were within a single second. That's pretty impressive. As a portable practice unit for the "real" GT games, I gotta say GT PSP is pretty damn good. Especially if Polyphony stays true to their word and allows for car importing to GT5 (though, if you can import hundreds of cars, that sort of defeats the purpose of GT5's career mode).
Before I start, let me just say I am really happy with the course Sony is charting with the PSP now. I'm not a big fan of digital distribution everywhere but UMD has to go. It's an awful format. Slow, fragile, flimsy, large size for transport, its just bad. So naturally I bought Gran Turismo PSP over PSN, it was right off my PSP and very simple.
Now, on to the game. I am going to be honest, Gran Turismo PSP is disappointing. The lack of a career mode and car tuning instantly turns this game into something less than Gran Turismo. The career mode of this game is what drew me into the series. It's always been excellent. It's not just about turning that crappy Suzuki Cappucino into a stable of high end race cars, it's about the growth of the driver, gaining the skills to tackle the courses and tweak the cars properly. It's not easy, but it's very rewarding. You get what you put in.
Not so much here on the PSP. On the PSP, you can get your kicks by doing a long string of what are essentially license tests (I believe its about 102 - by comparison, GT4 had 85) or by doing time trial/drift/single race for any car on any track. You have to pave your own way, lay down your own benchmarks, set your own course.
Initially, this is pretty shocking for a Gran Turismo game. Hell the Gran Turismo games practically invented the career mode as it exists in many games now. I remember Ridge Racer's singleplayer was like this, and Ridge Racer was cool. But Ridge Racer came out before Gran Turismo. Yes, you could say GT PSP is operating in a pre GT mindset.
To add insult to injury though, Polyphony didn't even bother to add online leaderboards to this game. Come on, if you're gonna make time trial a gigantic part of your game at least take advantage of 2003 level technology (2003 because PGR2 did it) and let us compare our times to other people!
But, take it for what it is, and it's pretty cool. I think it will play well to the hardcore GT fans. A lot of hardcore GT fans just love to run time trial over and over, and this game certainly makes that possible. Even without online leaderboards, it's pretty fun to best your old times.
The physics and track designs are right on the money. Just as a test, I did a time trial with a certain car on GT4, then loaded up the same track and same car on the PSP game. The times were within a single second. That's pretty impressive. As a portable practice unit for the "real" GT games, I gotta say GT PSP is pretty damn good. Especially if Polyphony stays true to their word and allows for car importing to GT5 (though, if you can import hundreds of cars, that sort of defeats the purpose of GT5's career mode).
And that's really it. If Polyphony would've added a bit more substance to this game, it could've been amazing. Unfortunately, it's not. Now, getting the cars and tracks on the PSP, running at 60fps, is quite an achievement in its own right. But the game isn't what it should be. But, once I accepted the game for what it is, I found myself having a lot of fun. It's a disappointment, for sure, but it's something I'll be playing for a long time.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
First Impressions: Need For Speed Shift
I tried the demo for Forza 3 and really liked it. But the damn game is a month away! What do play in the meantime?
Imagine my surprise when Best Buy is already offering up Need For Speed Shift on sale for $39.99! God bless the modern videogame market. I fully expect every big game of this season (even Modern Warfare 2) to be on sale between Thanksgiving and Christmas at some point.
So I bought it.
It's really good. Need For Speed has turned into a clearinghouse where EA could make it whatever type of game they felt would sell that year. When Fast & the Furious was hot, it became a tuner game. When open world racing was hot, NFS became an open world game. The brand has just been a mess. Finally, with last year's Undercover, it all fell apart, with a muddled, incoherent game design that picked and chose from the series' history.
So, enter the developers of some very hardcore and awesome sim games, and what we have here is is the type of game that EA should be making. It marries a very demanding and intense
driving model with an in-depth career mode.
The career mode is excellent. I love good career modes in racing games. To start off with, you race one lap in a car and the game adjusts the difficulty based on your performance. Once you start up, you get points based on whether you drive aggressively or exactly. With those points, you level up, gaining more tuning abilities along the way. There are a ton of tracks and a decent amount of cars (I think it's 60 or so). Starting with a Ford Escort (an Escort was my first car, what can I say), I won a few races, leveled up to 3, gained some points in both precision and aggression, and unlocked more events. There are hot laps and eliminators to show off in your style. There are a ton of "badges", in effect achievements without being achievements (very common in games nowadays), so you get rewards after virtually every race. I like it.
The racing engine is demanding, requiring lots of attention to stay on the track and avoid playing bumper cars. AI is very good, making mistakes, racing dynamically, pulling off the line when appropriate, and taking risks.
The cars feel very different from each other and the sensation of speed is terrific. It really feels like the developers put a lot of work into building a realistic driving experience on the track. Coming off the Forza 3 demo, the Shift mechanics hold their own.
Of note is the cockpit view. Usually, the cockpit view is pretty junky. I haven't tried out cars with cockpits that didn't work in other games (Ford GT in GT5P, for example). But the cars I have used have used have an excellent and workable cockpit mode. It's very well done, with fully working dashboards, well done mirrors (it'd be even better with GT5-style head tracking), and a clever use of blur and depth of field. AI seems solid and tracks look good.
All in all, this looks like a great reboot to the Need For Speed franchise. I know there's a bunch of games on the way, and so it seems likely EA will continue to slap the NFS label on as many racing games as it can. I guess the most we can hope for is they are as good as possible.
Imagine my surprise when Best Buy is already offering up Need For Speed Shift on sale for $39.99! God bless the modern videogame market. I fully expect every big game of this season (even Modern Warfare 2) to be on sale between Thanksgiving and Christmas at some point.
So I bought it.
It's really good. Need For Speed has turned into a clearinghouse where EA could make it whatever type of game they felt would sell that year. When Fast & the Furious was hot, it became a tuner game. When open world racing was hot, NFS became an open world game. The brand has just been a mess. Finally, with last year's Undercover, it all fell apart, with a muddled, incoherent game design that picked and chose from the series' history.
So, enter the developers of some very hardcore and awesome sim games, and what we have here is is the type of game that EA should be making. It marries a very demanding and intense
driving model with an in-depth career mode.
The career mode is excellent. I love good career modes in racing games. To start off with, you race one lap in a car and the game adjusts the difficulty based on your performance. Once you start up, you get points based on whether you drive aggressively or exactly. With those points, you level up, gaining more tuning abilities along the way. There are a ton of tracks and a decent amount of cars (I think it's 60 or so). Starting with a Ford Escort (an Escort was my first car, what can I say), I won a few races, leveled up to 3, gained some points in both precision and aggression, and unlocked more events. There are hot laps and eliminators to show off in your style. There are a ton of "badges", in effect achievements without being achievements (very common in games nowadays), so you get rewards after virtually every race. I like it.
The racing engine is demanding, requiring lots of attention to stay on the track and avoid playing bumper cars. AI is very good, making mistakes, racing dynamically, pulling off the line when appropriate, and taking risks.
The cars feel very different from each other and the sensation of speed is terrific. It really feels like the developers put a lot of work into building a realistic driving experience on the track. Coming off the Forza 3 demo, the Shift mechanics hold their own.
Of note is the cockpit view. Usually, the cockpit view is pretty junky. I haven't tried out cars with cockpits that didn't work in other games (Ford GT in GT5P, for example). But the cars I have used have used have an excellent and workable cockpit mode. It's very well done, with fully working dashboards, well done mirrors (it'd be even better with GT5-style head tracking), and a clever use of blur and depth of field. AI seems solid and tracks look good.
All in all, this looks like a great reboot to the Need For Speed franchise. I know there's a bunch of games on the way, and so it seems likely EA will continue to slap the NFS label on as many racing games as it can. I guess the most we can hope for is they are as good as possible.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
soccer passion
I wonder if the passion that soccer fans have for the game comes from the dedication it takes to watch it. Unlike American sports, its impossible to watch soccer by keeping "one eye on the game. " With baseball, I can surf the internet or read a book or whatever and look up when a pitch is delivered. With football, the endless stoppages and 40 second play clock allow for ample time not paying attention. Basketball's the closest to soccer in pace, but it has more than its share of stoppages, what with fouls/free throws, TV time outs, a game split into quarters, and especially in the college game, the excruciating fouling strategy in the final minutes. Soccer, though, is such a fluid, fast paced game, and events unfold literally in the blink of an eye. Not just that, but without keeping a keen eye on the game, its simply impossible to get the flow of what is going on.
Allow me to explain. Lets say a game is in its 60th minute and it is 0-0. On first glance this is the sort of game that soccer "haters" love to decry as useless and boring. And, of course, watching the game with half an eye or more turned to a computer screen or cell phone or writing pad or whatever will likely produce the feeling that this is a masturbatory exercise of passing and stealing the ball over and over. But by paying close attention, one can see the rhythm and flow of the game, the chances that got away, the especially valiant defenders, and so forth. Indeed, what made the Burnley-Manchester United game so captivating was not the fact that there was one (excellent) goal, it was that Burnley seemed perfectly willing to cede the possession battle to Man U and rely on their defense to carry them through (Man U had 63% possession, 18 shots vs. 8, 9 vs. 2 on target). And it worked, and it was amazing sports television.
It seems, then, that one has to watch soccer with such detail to really appreciate it. An entire country of fans paying such close attention must lead to an unusually passionate fan base, no? With soccer it's all or nothing. And with every other American sport geared towards casual viewing, this is a bridge that will be tough to cross for the world's game.
Allow me to explain. Lets say a game is in its 60th minute and it is 0-0. On first glance this is the sort of game that soccer "haters" love to decry as useless and boring. And, of course, watching the game with half an eye or more turned to a computer screen or cell phone or writing pad or whatever will likely produce the feeling that this is a masturbatory exercise of passing and stealing the ball over and over. But by paying close attention, one can see the rhythm and flow of the game, the chances that got away, the especially valiant defenders, and so forth. Indeed, what made the Burnley-Manchester United game so captivating was not the fact that there was one (excellent) goal, it was that Burnley seemed perfectly willing to cede the possession battle to Man U and rely on their defense to carry them through (Man U had 63% possession, 18 shots vs. 8, 9 vs. 2 on target). And it worked, and it was amazing sports television.
It seems, then, that one has to watch soccer with such detail to really appreciate it. An entire country of fans paying such close attention must lead to an unusually passionate fan base, no? With soccer it's all or nothing. And with every other American sport geared towards casual viewing, this is a bridge that will be tough to cross for the world's game.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Premier League
Right now I am watching the 2nd to last game of the 2nd week of the English Premier League. Well, I think its the 2nd to last. I really don't know where one ends and the other begins. Some teams have played 3 times some have played 2 some have played 1. Midweek there is the Champions League and Europa League. The idea of some tournament sticking out in the middle of a season is quite simply jarring to me. I must admit the games I watched from the CL were pretty flat, but I suppose we need to get through this one round to get to the good stuff.
Quite frankly, its pretty impressive just how much of the stuff is available to us Americans. If I had a GolTV subscription, which is like $5 a month, I could get access to all 5 of the "big" European leagues (England, Germany, Spain, France, and Italy). Of course, I am not going to. It's quite simply too much. Though its worth nothing I can damn near watch 2 games in the time it normally takes to watch one NFL game.
Anyway, some thoughts). It's easy to see why Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man U have such big followings. On the Chelsea and Man U front, the way a lot of these guys play is just terrific. Wayne Rooney's intensity and passion is great. His clutch goal in the Community Shield was most excellent. I find myself rooting for Michael Owen to come through, just because I like a success story. As a Yankees hater, I know the problem here. I have no business supporting that goliath Man U. But what can I say? I like how the guys on the team. Of course, the Burnley game was just amazing. I was riveted to that game like I have not been riveted since the 2nd half ot he Super Bowl. Burnley's been playing good ball. Intensity on offense and very sharp defense. Their goalkeeper is terrific. Of course, judging from what I have seen, relying on the keeper only goes so far.
Chelsea is much the same as Man U. Drogba is a killer. He piqued my interest in the World Football Challenge against Inter with an absolute deadly shot. I love watching the guy play. That's all there is to it.
Arsenal has scored 10 goals to 2 in their first 2 games and I have thoroughly enjoyd the clean style of football they play. Of course, their last game was against Portsmouth who is probably gonna be garbage this year. But their first game was against Everton. Who is supposed to be good (not that they are playing particularly well in this game, 27 minutes in). I've seen 3 Arsenal games (the 3rd was the CL game against Celtic). They dominated all 3.
Of the other teams, Liverpool and Aston Villa disappointed me with their flat, uninspired play in their opening fixtures. Of course, they play tomorrow so who knows. Hull City is showing a lot of fight. They were about 3 minutes away from 1-1-1 instead of 1-0-2. Manchester City hasn't put the ball in the net enough times. In their game today, they blew at least 2 easy chances, as many as 4. They seem like a team playing out of sync. If they ever figure it out, though... wow. The talent there is great. Gareth Barry is another player that is emerging as a favorite of mine.
I can't say much about the other teams. Squads like Bolton, Blackburn, Birmingham, Stoke City, etc., I just haven't seen enough. Fulham I saw get dominated by Chelsea today (I believe it was 61%-39% possesson). But who knows what will happen at the end? Of course, how is it possible to see enough of anybody this early? Of course, I can't just flick on the radio or SportsCenter at random times and listen to pundits talk up the league like I can with the NFL or MLB. Without that, its hard to feel as informed. Even though I have paid a *lot* more attention to EPL than I have NFL, I feel like I know more about the NFL than the EPL. Thanks to the "experts" on ESPN and Sports radio. Experts I would otherwise call morons whenever queried. What to make of that?
Quite frankly, its pretty impressive just how much of the stuff is available to us Americans. If I had a GolTV subscription, which is like $5 a month, I could get access to all 5 of the "big" European leagues (England, Germany, Spain, France, and Italy). Of course, I am not going to. It's quite simply too much. Though its worth nothing I can damn near watch 2 games in the time it normally takes to watch one NFL game.
Anyway, some thoughts). It's easy to see why Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man U have such big followings. On the Chelsea and Man U front, the way a lot of these guys play is just terrific. Wayne Rooney's intensity and passion is great. His clutch goal in the Community Shield was most excellent. I find myself rooting for Michael Owen to come through, just because I like a success story. As a Yankees hater, I know the problem here. I have no business supporting that goliath Man U. But what can I say? I like how the guys on the team. Of course, the Burnley game was just amazing. I was riveted to that game like I have not been riveted since the 2nd half ot he Super Bowl. Burnley's been playing good ball. Intensity on offense and very sharp defense. Their goalkeeper is terrific. Of course, judging from what I have seen, relying on the keeper only goes so far.
Chelsea is much the same as Man U. Drogba is a killer. He piqued my interest in the World Football Challenge against Inter with an absolute deadly shot. I love watching the guy play. That's all there is to it.
Arsenal has scored 10 goals to 2 in their first 2 games and I have thoroughly enjoyd the clean style of football they play. Of course, their last game was against Portsmouth who is probably gonna be garbage this year. But their first game was against Everton. Who is supposed to be good (not that they are playing particularly well in this game, 27 minutes in). I've seen 3 Arsenal games (the 3rd was the CL game against Celtic). They dominated all 3.
Of the other teams, Liverpool and Aston Villa disappointed me with their flat, uninspired play in their opening fixtures. Of course, they play tomorrow so who knows. Hull City is showing a lot of fight. They were about 3 minutes away from 1-1-1 instead of 1-0-2. Manchester City hasn't put the ball in the net enough times. In their game today, they blew at least 2 easy chances, as many as 4. They seem like a team playing out of sync. If they ever figure it out, though... wow. The talent there is great. Gareth Barry is another player that is emerging as a favorite of mine.
I can't say much about the other teams. Squads like Bolton, Blackburn, Birmingham, Stoke City, etc., I just haven't seen enough. Fulham I saw get dominated by Chelsea today (I believe it was 61%-39% possesson). But who knows what will happen at the end? Of course, how is it possible to see enough of anybody this early? Of course, I can't just flick on the radio or SportsCenter at random times and listen to pundits talk up the league like I can with the NFL or MLB. Without that, its hard to feel as informed. Even though I have paid a *lot* more attention to EPL than I have NFL, I feel like I know more about the NFL than the EPL. Thanks to the "experts" on ESPN and Sports radio. Experts I would otherwise call morons whenever queried. What to make of that?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
what
I greatly respect Arsene Wenger but he's talking nonsense here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8206510.stm
If there is a European league where all the champions play, I don't see how it will not kill, or at least greatly damage, the national leagues. A Premier League without Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, even Everton or Aston Villa, etc., is not a league that will command the global respect and dollars it does now. And yes, fielding the "B team" for the league fixtures is more or less the same as not existing. I am a Mets fan that has kept close eye on the team all year. I know from experience when I say a reserve Man U squad is not Man U. So there goes that.
Of course, Wenger indicates that with two leagues, the Euro league will have to be midweek. Which is already the case now. On Thursday my DVR will be full of Champions League matches. So you will have a system where Wayne Rooney or whoever plays on Wednesday night in Madrid while his backup plays on Saturday in England. What? How does this make sense to Wenger?
My guess is he really is just pushing for a different revenue structure for the Champions League.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8206510.stm
If there is a European league where all the champions play, I don't see how it will not kill, or at least greatly damage, the national leagues. A Premier League without Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, even Everton or Aston Villa, etc., is not a league that will command the global respect and dollars it does now. And yes, fielding the "B team" for the league fixtures is more or less the same as not existing. I am a Mets fan that has kept close eye on the team all year. I know from experience when I say a reserve Man U squad is not Man U. So there goes that.
Of course, Wenger indicates that with two leagues, the Euro league will have to be midweek. Which is already the case now. On Thursday my DVR will be full of Champions League matches. So you will have a system where Wayne Rooney or whoever plays on Wednesday night in Madrid while his backup plays on Saturday in England. What? How does this make sense to Wenger?
My guess is he really is just pushing for a different revenue structure for the Champions League.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
the US Open and Tiger
So what happened today at the US Open was stunning. This simply does not happen to Tiger. Ever. Some people online have said things like, "sure Yang might have won but Tiger wasn't playing his best... until Tiger loses even while playing his best, he's still unbeatable." Etc. Of course, this is patently ridiculous. The whole point of Tiger Woods is that his best is the best. Nobody can touch him in top form. And until the early evening of August 16th, 2009, he was always his best on the final day at a major. He never loses. What happened to him today, absolutely choking away a lead with poor play and missed putts, is what happens to other people who play against Tiger Woods. ESPN was very quick to point out this morning that research has shown people who play with Tiger in the final round of a major play on average 3 strokes worse than they would otherwise. This is the "Tiger effect."
Now, is it gone? Not likely, but I do think the tenor of a final round of a major will be different after this. Just the fact that Tiger lost to Yang today means that the next guy in Yang's position may not be so intimidated, just because Tiger's record is 14 out of 15 instead of 15 out of 15. It's a big difference.
Of course, I'm not saying Tiger Woods has jumped the shark. It's clearly not over for the man. He will win a lot more. But going forward, it's just not going to be the same.
By the way, I just want to give a big demerit to CBS' announcing team. As he was crumbling (and its nothing but that... if the roles were reversed it would've been called nothing but an epic choke job) they kept their lips firmly enveloped around Tiger Woods' balls. It was almost like they (and many in the stands) simply refused to acknowledge the enormous, historic upset that was unfolding before their very eyes, so blinded they are by Tiger's complete dominance over the sport. Embarrasing.
It's like if everybody in baseball rooted for the Yankees and were sad when they lose.
Now, is it gone? Not likely, but I do think the tenor of a final round of a major will be different after this. Just the fact that Tiger lost to Yang today means that the next guy in Yang's position may not be so intimidated, just because Tiger's record is 14 out of 15 instead of 15 out of 15. It's a big difference.
Of course, I'm not saying Tiger Woods has jumped the shark. It's clearly not over for the man. He will win a lot more. But going forward, it's just not going to be the same.
By the way, I just want to give a big demerit to CBS' announcing team. As he was crumbling (and its nothing but that... if the roles were reversed it would've been called nothing but an epic choke job) they kept their lips firmly enveloped around Tiger Woods' balls. It was almost like they (and many in the stands) simply refused to acknowledge the enormous, historic upset that was unfolding before their very eyes, so blinded they are by Tiger's complete dominance over the sport. Embarrasing.
It's like if everybody in baseball rooted for the Yankees and were sad when they lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
