- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Phelps vs Tiger SITUATION
Posted on 8/12/08 at 12:57 pm to BLanoix
Posted on 8/12/08 at 12:57 pm to BLanoix
quote:
Every golf course is getting changed b/c of Tiger.
every golf course changes everytime..
YOu can't change a pool
quote:
Swimmers get fasters, pools are designed better, and their suits are redesigned all the time.
Technology hasn't changed in golf at all? Same club technology as used in the 70's?
quote:
Which golf tourney? Which swim race? There are too many unknowns.
I would take Phelps in any race over tiger at any course.
but like someone said...this argument is going in circles...And I did it in the original thread last night...done with this. Some people have a hard on for Tiger just like they do for Kobe, Lebron, And many other athletes...when you really really like someone you can't give a neutral observation. To each his own
2
Posted on 8/12/08 at 12:59 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
All right, last 10 years, Tiger has won 13 majors, which is undeniably great. Jack, from 1963-1972, won 10. That’s an edge to Tiger, but hardly “incomparable” dominance which we have not seen in the past 100 years as some have argued. So, we can make an argument Tiger has the best peak of all time. I’m waiting for the total tally on Tiger to push him to overall, #1, but he’s definitely on his way.
But in the span of five years (2003-2007), Roger Federer won 12 Grand slams. So in five less years, Federer won one less of his sport’s four majors. I think it’s pretty easy to make an argument that Tiger isn’t even the greatest athlete right now, Federer is. And Sampras won 14 Grand Slams in 10 years.
My point is not that Tiger Woods isn’t an all-time great. He certainly is. But to say he is a guy who comes along only once every 100 years is an absurd argument. And why do we have to run down other greats (Phelps, Lewis, Lance, Feder, etc.) in order to justify the greatness of another? Can’t they both be great at their respective sports?
But in the span of five years (2003-2007), Roger Federer won 12 Grand slams. So in five less years, Federer won one less of his sport’s four majors. I think it’s pretty easy to make an argument that Tiger isn’t even the greatest athlete right now, Federer is. And Sampras won 14 Grand Slams in 10 years.
My point is not that Tiger Woods isn’t an all-time great. He certainly is. But to say he is a guy who comes along only once every 100 years is an absurd argument. And why do we have to run down other greats (Phelps, Lewis, Lance, Feder, etc.) in order to justify the greatness of another? Can’t they both be great at their respective sports?
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:00 pm to BLanoix
Phelps was .08 seconds from not breaking spitz record. Lezack had to swim the fastest time in 100 m history to keep Phelps hopes alive. I hope Phelps wins 102040404 medals. All fricking gold. But you cant compare him to Tiger Woods. I dont even think its close.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:00 pm to BLanoix
quote:
great show.
thanks buddy.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:00 pm to fightingtiger2335
I like swimming but no one really cares about it ecept every 4 years when the olympics take place. At least Golf has the 4 Majors every year that people watch
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:01 pm to Baloo
quote:
All right, last 10 years, Tiger has won 13 majors
14 majors.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:01 pm to fightingtiger2335
Golf is too fickle of a game to be dominated like a sport like swimming where its just all about speed.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:01 pm to BLanoix
quote:
I dont even think its close.
It's not.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:02 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All right, last 10 years, Tiger has won 13 majors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 majors.
1997 Masters not included
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:03 pm to Baloo
quote:
I think it’s pretty easy to make an argument that Tiger isn’t even the greatest athlete right now, Federer is
your get dumber by the post. Just quit posting and go back to work.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:04 pm to BLanoix
No, it's 13 in the last 10. He's won 14 Majors, but his first was in the 1997 Masters. He won the US Open in 2008. The Masters doesn't count in his "last ten years" since it was 11 years ago. I made the same deduction for Jack.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:04 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
quote:
But in the span of five years (2003-2007), Roger Federer won 12 Grand slams. So in five less years, Federer won one less of his sport’s four majors. I think it’s pretty easy to make an argument that Tiger isn’t even the greatest athlete right now, Federer is. And Sampras won 14 Grand Slams in 10 years
In tennis you play one player at a time, golf you play 150 all at once....so if someone off the radar has a career game, chances are sampras or federer wont be facing him on that day. In golf when bob may or rocco play the tournament of their life, there is no way for tiger to dodge it.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:05 pm to BLanoix
quote:
your get dumber by the post. Just quit posting and go back to work.
Way to refute my argument. Make a cogent argument why Federer's accomplishment was lesser than Tiger's. I'll read it with an open mind. But make a case.
Or are you too dumb to make a convincing case for Tiger?
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:06 pm to Baloo
quote:
Way to refute my argument. Make a cogent argument why Federer's accomplishment was lesser than Tiger's. I'll read it with an open mind. But make a case.
I just did
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:06 pm to fightingtiger2335
dumb question. of course you would take phelps. there are too many variables in golf. i would rather take the japanese swimmer in the 100m breast than tiger in a golf tournament. does that make him a more dominanat athlete than tiger? swimming is a totally different sport.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:07 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
quote:
In tennis you play one player at a time, golf you play 150 all at once....so if someone off the radar has a career game, chances are sampras or federer wont be facing him on that day. In golf when bob may or rocco play the tournament of their life, there is no way for tiger to dodge it.
If Tiger played Match play in every tourney he would have 2x the wins he does have now. You cant compare that.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:09 pm to Baloo
quote:
Make a cogent argument why Federer's accomplishment was lesser than Tiger's. I'll read it with an open mind. But make a case.
He plays 1 person at a time. Tiger plays head up against 155 other people every week.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:09 pm to BLanoix
good thing about golf is that when someone shoots 66-78 they are Even par(most of the time)
if thats match play and Tiger shoots 69-69 and plays him on the wrong day, then he loses
if thats match play and Tiger shoots 69-69 and plays him on the wrong day, then he loses
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:10 pm to lsugolf1105
quote:
dumb question. of course you would take phelps. there are too many variables in golf. i would rather take the japanese swimmer in the 100m breast than tiger in a golf tournament. does that make him a more dominanat athlete than tiger? swimming is a totally different sport.
probably the best post all day. you hit the nail on the head.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:12 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
quote:
In tennis you play one player at a time, golf you play 150 all at once
This is a terrible argument as they aren't the same whatsoever.
quote:
so if someone off the radar has a career game, chances are sampras or federer wont be facing him on that day.
Yes, but in Tennis you can't afford to frick up any match.
In Golf you can have average first 2 days of a tournament and still win.
With Tennis you lose that first match you are done.
Page 4 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News