- 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 1:12 pm to BLanoix
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:12 pm to BLanoix
So.. you're argument is essentially that because in a golf tournament you play 150 golfers at one time, you are automitically better than anyone in any sport with a smaller field?
So, essentially, the greatest golfer is ALWAYS better than the greatest of any other sport. Except cycling. where the field is 181. And therefore, we're back to Eddy Merckx.
Since Merckx beat larger fields, therefore, Merckx is greater than Tiger. That's simply absurd, but if that's your best argument, ok.
So, essentially, the greatest golfer is ALWAYS better than the greatest of any other sport. Except cycling. where the field is 181. And therefore, we're back to Eddy Merckx.
Since Merckx beat larger fields, therefore, Merckx is greater than Tiger. That's simply absurd, but if that's your best argument, ok.
0
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:14 pm to fightingtiger2335
quote:
Easy way to determine more dominant.....
If you life depends on
1) Tiger winning a golf tourny
2) Phelps winning a swim match
Who do you take with your life on the line? That would be the answer to who is more dominant.
I would take myself shooting a Free throw over Tiger winning a golf tourney if my life depended on it. What does that say? Your analogy is horrible.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:15 pm to TheEdge
quote:
With Tennis you lose that first match you are done.
Same with golf in match play. You think the other golfers in the field would rather play tiger head up in match play or in a field of 155 golfers?
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:15 pm to BLanoix
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So.. you're argument is essentially that because in a golf tournament you play 150 golfers at one time, you are automitically better than anyone in any sport with a smaller field?
no, we are just saying that you need to look at it with more than just W/L's
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:16 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
likelihood of winning doesn't necessairly correlate to dominance.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:16 pm to BLanoix
quote:
Same with golf in match play.
Except most of Golf isn't match play
quote:
You think the other golfers in the field would rather play tiger head up in match play or in a field of 155 golfers?
I don't think they have a choice most of the time
Plus no one has mentioned that dominant Tennis players play essentially three different games every year.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:17 pm to TheEdge
quote:
In Golf you can have average first 2 days of a tournament and still win.
only like 1 or 2 guys can make that claim
quote:
With Tennis you lose that first match you are done.
if federer loses a first round match that would be the equal of tiger shooting about 80 in which case he wouldnt win either
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:18 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
quote:
likelihood of winning doesn't necessairly correlate to dominance.
+1
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:19 pm to LSU Fan 90812
quote:
likelihood of winning doesn't necessairly correlate to dominance.
Nah, but actually winning does.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:20 pm to MrKennedy
quote:
Nah, but actually winning does.
is maroney better than LT because he wins more?
ETA: i know i know, bad analogy
This post was edited on 8/12/08 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:20 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
quote:
only like 1 or 2 guys can make that claim
The guys who do are the dominant guys who we are discussing, so its a fair statement.
quote:
if federer loses a first round match that would be the equal of tiger shooting about 80 in which case he wouldnt win either
Its no simply the first round, but if he loses ANY match he's done.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:21 pm to TheEdge
quote:
Its no simply the first round, but if he loses ANY match he's done.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:22 pm to TheEdge
Ask Rocco or Nadal who is more dominating........
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:22 pm to BLanoix
tiger's greatness is that he has dominated in every stage of his life. to win 3 us juniors and then 3 us am's in a row is sick. then to win 4 majors in a row, hold or tie all the scoring records in the majors and win 65 tournaments in 11 years in today's game is absolutely unheard of. golf is not a game which is suppose to be dominated like that.
also if you are the best swimmer, you are probably are going to win the race. when was the last time a swimmer who was the eight seed in the race won it? rarely do you see even the third best in the race win. in golf, anyone can win and does win. shaun micheel, ben curtis, todd hamilton all won majors recently. name me some swimmers that won gold that had no chance to win or were ranked 193rd in the world??
also if you are the best swimmer, you are probably are going to win the race. when was the last time a swimmer who was the eight seed in the race won it? rarely do you see even the third best in the race win. in golf, anyone can win and does win. shaun micheel, ben curtis, todd hamilton all won majors recently. name me some swimmers that won gold that had no chance to win or were ranked 193rd in the world??
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:23 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
You picked out absolutely the worst situation situation. A first round match to make a comparison to Tiger.
The point is that Federer doesn't just play a first round match and a final and call it done.
He has to play a good few more matches and he can not afford to have a single bad performance.
Tiger can afford to mess up.
The point is that Federer doesn't just play a first round match and a final and call it done.
He has to play a good few more matches and he can not afford to have a single bad performance.
Tiger can afford to mess up.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:23 pm to lsugolf1105
quote:
tiger's greatness is that he has dominated in every stage of his life. to win 3 us juniors and then 3 us am's in a row is sick. then to win 4 majors in a row, hold or tie all the scoring records in the majors and win 65 tournaments in 11 years in today's game is absolutely unheard of. golf is not a game which is suppose to be dominated like that.
also if you are the best swimmer, you are probably are going to win the race. when was the last time a swimmer who was the eight seed in the race won it? rarely do you see even the third best in the race win. in golf, anyone can win and does win. shaun micheel, ben curtis, todd hamilton all won majors recently. name me some swimmers that won gold that had no chance to win or were ranked 193rd in the world??
my new favorite poster
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:23 pm to BLanoix
You ask their peers.
In tennis there will be mostly Federers and a couple Nadals
In golf, they will all say Tiger Woods
In tennis there will be mostly Federers and a couple Nadals
In golf, they will all say Tiger Woods
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:24 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
quote:
ETA: i know i know, bad analogy
Awful analogy... you can't compare team sports to individual ones like this.
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:24 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
quote:
Tiger can afford to mess up.
because he is so fricking good
Posted on 8/12/08 at 1:24 pm to sportsinfogeauxlsu
quote:
Awful analogy... you can't compare team sports to individual ones like this.
hence the ETA
Page 5 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News