(i am rooting for tiger) f-ck the sponsors

SBR_John · 12-15-09, 06:36 AM

ACCENTURE has some cool ads in airports. Otherwise who the fvck are these guys??? I have no clue.

All I know is when I have some problems in life golf is a great release. He needs to play through this and not hide. If the girl wants to bolt then she will eventually anyway. Quit with I need time I am a transvestight or transgressed or whatever. Just play baby, as his ads say... Just do it.

Grandmaster B · 12-15-09, 06:38 AM

guy had 20 mistresses

hes garbage

no need to even be married in the first place if he wanted to bang different women every hour

thezbar · 12-15-09, 06:46 AM

Most of the males I speak to don't think what Tiger did was all that bad. So there may still be a market for male products. The females are a different story. Its about image and right now Tiger's image has a black eye. His value as a sponsor is in a nose dive at this point in time. What these companies are doing is good business. He is no longer worth the money he was being paid! Bottom line.

ztballer · 12-15-09, 07:31 AM

Tiger gives black and Asian men a bad name

BEANTOWNJIM · 12-15-09, 07:45 AM

MAYBE HE GAVE THE ASIAN MEN A BAD NAME BUT THE BLACK MEN HAD A BAD NAME LONG BEFORE TIGER WOODS CAME ALONG

I KNOW NIKE IS GOING TO RUN AN ADD SOON AND IT WILL SAY SOMETHING TO THE AFFECT OF GET BACK TIGER GOLF IS MISSING YOU

THEY ALWAYS RUN SOME CREATIVE ADDS

btraband · 12-15-09, 07:48 AM

Tiger is dirt..........................for now. The wife should become an ex and then will become "loaded" for all of his shortcomings'

MartinBlank · 12-15-09, 07:52 AM

If you are a company trying to sell goods, why in f's name would you want a piece of shit like Tiger as the face of your product?

Tiger's entire life/act has been a lie.

His persona was of this dedicated married guy-----a guy with great character----and companies lined up to buy into it----now you want the same companies to pay him millions and millions of dollars for the lie?

F that.

Let Colt 45 and Trojan become Tiger sponsors.

floridagolfer · 12-15-09, 08:06 AM

Just another reason why I don't purchase anything Nike. There's only one thing that matters to Phil Knight and that is $, $ and more $.

Deuce · 12-15-09, 08:12 AM

Jimmy all he did was get his dick wet. Given the same opportunity without repercussions, we all would have done the same Jimmy.

floridagolfer · 12-15-09, 08:30 AM

These things rarely happen without repercussions.

MartinBlank · 12-15-09, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Deuce

Jimmy all he did was get his dick wet. Given the same opportunity without repercussions, we all would have done the same Jimmy.

Obviously Tiger didn't do it "without repercussions".

Fine--he wanted to get his "dick wet"----why get married and why do that to your kids?

Deuce · 12-15-09, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by MartinBlank

Obviously Tiger didn't do it "without repercussions". Fine--he wanted to get his "dick wet"----why get married and why do that to your kids?

I agree here, as a man with morals and ethics I feel the same as you do, re-read what I said, if we COULD GET AWAY WITH IT WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS WE WOULD.

BEANTOWNJIM · 12-15-09, 08:43 AM

TIGER WOOD IS SLEEPING AROUND IS THAT GOING TO KEEP YOU FROM BUYING GILLETTE RAZORS LETS GET SERIOUS THEY DIDNT HAVE TO DROP HIM.I JUST HOPE TIGER STICKS IT TO THESE COMPANIES THEY USD THE SHIT OUT HIS NAME WHEN HE WAS GOING GOOD THEN THEY DROP HIM IN A WEEK WHEN THINGS WENT BAD.

GILLETTE WILL BE THE FIRST COMPANY READY TO REHIRE TIGER IF MAKES A GREAT COMEBACK THATS A BULLSHIT COMPANY

raydog · 12-15-09, 09:15 AM

btj, wouldnt it be fukking great if tiger were to sign with Schick and Powerade (and other competitors of co. who drop him) a few weeks before returning to play. that shit would make jim grin

DolphinSpurs · 12-15-09, 09:18 AM

I'm with beantown on this one. So the guy slept around. Like women don't do that crap to guys either? Nike will once again come out on top for sticking with Tiger. Any future superstars who is being courted by the companies will have Phil Knight coming to them and saying - we stuck by Tiger. We'll always stick by you. I don't really buy Nike but if I were an athlete, signing with them over all those other weak-willed sponsors would be the easiest move to make.

MartinBlank · 12-15-09, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by DolphinSpurs

I'm with beantown on this one. So the guy slept around. Like women don't do that crap to guys either? Nike will once again come out on top for sticking with Tiger. Any future superstars who is being courted by the companies will have Phil Knight coming to them and saying - we stuck by Tiger. We'll always stick by you. I don't really buy Nike but if I were an athlete signing with them over all those other weak-willed sponsors would be the easiest move to make.

I don't get this.

Tiger has been selling the public an image of this guy with perfect character. Companies bought that image.

Said companies find out that Tiger's entire act is a lie.

If he wants to whore around---fine. But why should the companies be obligated to buy his new persona of a pussy chasing cheater with no character?

It is their money. If they want a family guy----then they have to fire Tiger's ass and move on.

DolphinSpurs · 12-15-09, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by MartinBlank

I don't get this.
If he wants to whore around---fine. But why should the companies be obligated to buy his new persona of a pussy chasing cheater with no character?

It is their money. If they want a family guy----then they have to fire Tiger's ass and move on.

NOW these companies are all suddenly protesting they wanted squeaky clean Tiger. Show me the commercial where Gatorade or Gilette put Tiger on a couch with his kids on each knee reading their bedtime stories. They signed him because he was the greatest golfer on earth and one of the most dedicated athletes. He still is. If they want father of the year go sign 9 to 5 worker who buys his family the best presents.
Unfortunately, athletes/celebrities these days will come with some sort of baggage like this. This is on the companies for not doing their due diligence. This guy has been sleeping around for years. They should have known.

jellobiafra · 12-15-09, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Deuce

I agree here, as a man with morals and ethics I feel the same as you do, re-read what I said, if we COULD GET AWAY WITH IT WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS WE WOULD.

You just exhibited an absolute misunderstanding of the phrase "morals and ethics".

MartinBlank · 12-15-09, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by DolphinSpurs

NOW these companies are all suddenly protesting they wanted squeaky clean Tiger. Show me the commercial where Gatorade or Gilette put Tiger on a couch with his kids on each knee reading their bedtime stories. They signed him because he was the greatest golfer on earth and one of the most dedicated athletes. He still is. If they want father of the year go sign 9 to 5 worker who buys his family the best presents.
Unfortunately, athletes/celebrities these days will come with some sort of baggage like this. This is on the companies for not doing their due diligence. This guy has been sleeping around for years. They should have known.

Actually this shows how absolutely clueless you are.

I know this may be hard for you to understand---but sponsorship and endorsement relationships extend beyond television. They actually require the endorsee to participate in family functions for the respective companies and in Woods' case---he used his own family to drum up gobs of cash for himself and his foundation.

That Foundation of his is littered with his sponsor money and pictures OF HIS FAMILY. In fact, when I was at his event this past summer---Elin Woods was the face of his foundation---and standing right next to her---Gillette, Gatorade and Accenture. Gatorade has this exhibit allowing kids to have their golf swings analyzed by an automated Tiger Woods---they also had a junior golf promo asking kids to stay in school and "be a Tiger".

Accenture had a "luncheon with Elin Woods" as part of their promotion exhibit on the Tuesday before the event. Accenture ponied up for no less than 35 junior golf scholarships in the name of Tiger's family---NOT TIGER---his family.

On the same night---Robert McDonald who is the CEO of Gillette' parent--Proctor and Gamble was hosting the "Tiger Woods Foundation Improve the life of a Child" dinner.

Some role model there------P&G must be beeming with pride to know they are throwing their money at a guy who is chasing so much pussy while asking them to fund his foundation.

SBR_John · 12-15-09, 10:09 AM

I'm just interested in him playing golf. So he loses a few sponsors? Big deal. If the girl bolts and takes a couple hundred extra large, good be gone. Just get out and play golf. He will still make $1 million a week just in interest on his investments...so fvck the money thing. Thats coverd. Play golf, if the girl and sponsors bolt fvck'em dont let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

Deuce · 12-15-09, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by jellobiafra

You just exhibited an absolute misunderstanding of the phrase "morals and ethics".

No, you're wrong, the reason we have ethics and morals is the belief of repercussions as well as the reason for a conscience.

This leads to the feelings of others and the responsibility of your actions. The fact it is socially unacceptable and will hurt someone in return, leaves you thinking well I can't do that to someone I "love" and have too much respect and dignity. If we all lived like animals, we would bang any lioness in the jungle. Some would survive, jjgolds of the world would still never get laid. Comes down to what has been socially accepted for all of time.

DolphinSpurs · 12-15-09, 10:20 AM

I admit you got me on the extenuating responsibilities that a sponsored athlete must be part of Martin. I can definitely see why some companies might be peeved enough to drop him in that respect. He did use his family image for his foundation. At the same time I agree with SBR John. The consumers are just interested in Tiger and golf and within 1 year, they will still be interested in Tiger and golf, not Tiger, golf and Elin Woods. The PGA tour will be even more popular when he gets back. America loves a redemption story. You do have to think any foundation of his will be done for though.

Bsters · 12-15-09, 10:31 AM

Tag Hauer is also going to drop Tiger

jellobiafra · 12-15-09, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Deuce

No, you're wrong, the reason we have ethics and morals is the belief of repercussions as well as the reason for a conscience.

This leads to the feelings of others and the responsibility of your actions. The fact it is socially unacceptable and will hurt someone in return, leaves you thinking well I can't do that to someone I "love" and have too much respect and dignity. If we all lived like animals, we would bang any lioness in the jungle. Some would survive, jjgolds of the world would still never get laid. Comes down to what has been socially accepted for all of time.

Definition of MORAL

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Moral

of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical; expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior; conforming to a standard of right behavior… See the full definition

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>

There is nothing in that definition about repercussions. If you want to water down the meaning of repercussions to include a strain on one's conscience, then you could technically convince yourself that you are right.

We can make words mean whatever we want, but any proper understanding of morality involves a universal sense of right and wrong. Societal or legal consequence stem from the sense of morality itself, not the other way around.

By your interpretation, if I wanted a man dead and could absolutely guarantee my escape from apprehension and a completely clear conscience, it would be perfectly moral of me to murder him.

MartinBlank · 12-15-09, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by DolphinSpurs

I admit you got me on the extenuating responsibilities that a sponsored athlete must be part of Martin. I can definitely see why some companies might be peeved enough to drop him in that respect. He did use his family image for his foundation. At the same time I agree with SBR John. The consumers are just interested in Tiger and golf and within 1 year, they will still be interested in Tiger and golf, not Tiger, golf and Elin Woods. The PGA tour will be even more popular when he gets back. America loves a redemption story. You do have to think any foundation of his will be done for though.

Dolphin, I agree with you though.

If Woods wants to chase pussy----fine by me.

But I don't think the sponsors should have to supplement that lifestyle.

If they want to pull their cash---so be it.

Woods didn't kill anyone, he didn't even commit a crime as far as we know.

Let me golf all he wants----but let's not be forced into buying some idea that he is a family man when he is asking fans to donate to his foundation.

Deuce · 12-15-09, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by jellobiafra

By your interpretation, if I wanted a man dead and could absolutely guarantee my escape from apprehension and a completely clear conscience, it would be perfectly moral of me to murder him.

No not at all, if it were accepted in society of course it would then be moral. The reason it isn't is because society has deemed it to be this way

The Seer · 12-15-09, 10:55 AM

Tiger didnt win any majors last year and I dont see him doing it anytime soon either. I think he just peaked early and there are too many good young guys out there ow. Either way, if it comes out he used hgh or anything else, even nike wont be able to market him.

jellobiafra · 12-15-09, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Deuce

No not at all, if it were accepted in society of course it would then be moral. The reason it isn't is because society has deemed it to be this way

Again, you are demonstrating a fundamental misconception of terms. "Society" for instance can be taken as a fairly loose concept. There is a society of people organized under the acronym "NAMBLA". This group of associated people with common interests advocates the loosening of laws against sexual relationships between adult males and minor boys. Most rational people would consider their charter to be immoral.

Charles Manson was the head of a society. There are societies with fluctuating sensibilities spanning time and globe. Morality is by definition a constant.

We can carry this to as extreme of an example as you wish, but you're still going to be mistaken.

Deuce · 12-15-09, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by jellobiafra

Again, you are demonstrating a fundamental misconception of terms. "Society" for instance can be taken as a fairly loose concept. There is a society of people organized under the acronym "NAMBLA". This group of associated people with common interests advocates the loosening of laws against sexual relationships between adult males and minor boys. Most rational people would consider their charter to be immoral. Charles Manson was the head of a society. There are societies with fluctuating sensibilities spanning time and globe. Morality is by definition a constant. We can carry this to as extreme of an example as you wish, but you're still going to be mistaken.

Do I suggest society as a whole? I am not talking about Manson cults. I am talking about human civilization as we know it today.

Lockitup1x · 12-15-09, 11:21 AM

Poor Tigger

jellobiafra · 12-15-09, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Deuce

Do I suggest society as a whole? I am not talking about Manson cults. I am talking about human civilization as we know it today.

Civilized human history is littered with examples of immoral behavior sanctioned by "society". As I said, sensibilities can fluctuate but morality is constant. There is either right, or there is wrong. The concept is not influenced by threat of repercussions or consequences.

Deuce · 12-15-09, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by jellobiafra

Civilized human history is littered with examples of immoral behavior sanctioned by "society". As I said, sensibilities can fluctuate but morality is constant. There is either right, or there is wrong. The concept is not influenced by threat of repercussions or consequences.

I grant you with, who chooses between right and wrong?

jellobiafra · 12-15-09, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Deuce

I grant you with, who chooses between right and wrong?

Not sure if I understand your phrasing, but as to the question: Who chooses between right and wrong?

We all do.

Unfortunately, most people don't have a problem with choosing wrong. That's why we have the need for societal repercussions and consequences.

If you make a choice to do or not do something based on what the repercussions of your actions will be, you are not making a decision founded in morality or ethics. If you make a decision regardless of what the repercussions will be, most likely you are.

Deuce · 12-15-09, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by jellobiafra

Not sure if I understand your phrasing, but as to the question: Who chooses between right and wrong? We all do. Unfortunately, most people don't have a problem with choosing wrong. That's why we have the need for societal repercussions and consequences. If you make a choice to do or not do something based on what the repercussions of your actions will be, you are not making a decision founded in morality or ethics. If you make a decision regardless of what the repercussions will be, most likely you are.

My question was, who determines what is right and wrong? Who made those assumptions way back in time and why do you follow those guidelines? I'll save you time, it was "SOCIETY" as a whole that did. Not a specific group or cult, not a village in Eastern Tibet, Western Civilization did.

If Western Civilization hadn't poured the groundwork for morals and ethics, what Mr. Woods is doing would be quite alright actually and in some religions it is just that.