Im sure a fair amount of you saw this guy come back. Unbelievable the last 2 days considering his recent surgery and you can tell the dudes in major pain.Best athlete on the planet hands down.
Best golfer, yes. Best athlete on the planet? Not even in the ballpark.
Golf is a tough "game" but requires no great strength, no speed, no thowing or jumping, or great coordination. You don't even have to be in shape to play it. Not that some golfers aren't in great shape, and some may (like Tiger) be pretty buff.
But compare them and Tiger too to the best athletes in basketball, tennis, track & field, skill position football players, gymnasts, soccer players, etc. I see no basis to put him in the top 50 athletes in the US, much less the planet. He is the greatest golf game player on the planet, and I admire his playing through the knee pain ... but that proves nothing with respect to being the "best athlete on the planet". I've personally seen football players playing through a lot more pain than that (and in a contact sport), and that doesn't prove they're the greatest either.
Sorry RPS, I think you're way off on this one.
Last edited by Lobograd82; 06-16-2008 at 01:58 AM.
The guy keeps pulling rabbits out of his hat and making huge shots and putts to win. When Tiger speaks TV execs listen.
Tiger is a great athlete in a sport full of non athletes. I was given tickets to the PGA championship last year and went at 6 AM to see him practice, and he was already done. It was 105 that week and he won going away because he was the only one who was in shape.
He is not a great athlete like Jordan or any of the greats, but he money. Golf is not a sport that can be conquered, and his consistency and making that put yesterday were amazing. I am not a golf fan, but I recognize greatness.
And I don't believe Tiger is good for golf, he is good for Tiger. What happens if Tiger is injured and has to retire? Are the people that are turning on golf now going to continue? No. People either love or hate him, so they watch to either root for him or against him. I like to follow all sports, but it drives me crazy if I'm watching ESPN and they talk about Tiger for five minutes before they even mention who is actually leading the tournament. That makes me resentful of him and I end up rooting against him just so the media can stick their microphones up their....noses. So....go Rocco!!!!!!
Last edited by loborick; 06-16-2008 at 09:37 AM.
Don't be such a hater Loborick --- it isn't a pretty look on you!!! LOL!!!
Seriously though, how can you possibly say that Tiger is not good for golf --- are you crazy?!?!?! It's because of him that golf is enjoying its highest viewer-ship.....EVER!!! Like others have said, either you love him or hate him but that "feeling" is what gets viewers to a sport that wouldn't have much attention without him. Similar guys in their professions would include Beckham in soccer and McEnroe in tennis (Federer & Nadal now).
As for the competition comment, I think you're way off on that one as well....maybe if guys like Mickelson, Els, Singh, etc would concentrate on their game and their personal health, they'd be better competition but you can't say Tiger doesn't have competition. I bet if Nicklaus or Watson had been as motivated as Tiger, they would have dominated their eras that much more (making it appears as though they didn't have competition either).
Okay, enough of that.....
GO TIGER, GO CARDINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
Of course Tiger is good for golf. We are talking about him. I am not a golf fan and probably most of us in this thread are not. Even if we hate him, he's good for golf because he gets people talking. Even my dad who hates golf watched the end of it yesterday.
I don't agree that Tiger is good for the game of golf. He is attracting attention to the game right now. But, like I said, as soon as Tiger is gone, so is this attention. It's like when people have talked about in the past when the US has done well in the World Cup that soccer would explode. It didn't. When the WC ended, so did all the attention.
It drove me crazy this morning that everyone was pretty much discounting any chance Rocco had.
I rooted for Rocco, but knew Tiger would find a way to win. I think he is obsessed with winning and agree it is all about Tiger. I agree with Lobo Rick that a lot of the fans will not follow the sport when he retires. They are obsessed with his winning. Ever notice how Yankee fans come out of the closet when the Yankees are winning? I am not ready to crown him the best all time yet. May eventually happen though. He is without doubt the best right now.
Also, Tiger is the best at what he does...who cares about best athlete EVER...give Michael Jordan a basketball in his prime and he was the best ever. But have you seen the guy swing a golf club? Lance Armstrong...simply incredible considering the circumstances. Could he compete on a pro golf circuit...probably not.
of time in my younger days playing other sports and was decent in basketball, baseball, and tennis. Please understand, that one reason Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer in the world and will probably end up being considered the best ever is that he is very athletic. Although I'm certain that Woods (with a good knee) possesses classic athleticism (speed, strength, and coordination), his rare combination of strength and precision-like coordination allow him to not only hit strength-requiring shots like 350 yard drives and shots out of deep rough, but also "tweek" shots like "fades" and "draws" from the tee or on any other place on the course.
As for myself, I'm a decent player, probably an 11-handicapper. However, an uninformed person could falsely think that an 11-handicapper is probably, on average, only 13 to 14strokes "less good" than a good pro. Nothing could be further from the truth. The pros are shooting good scores on longer, "tricked-up" courses than a "decent" amateur normally plays. I'd be lucky to shoot 100 on most of the courses those guys are playing on, and they're routinely shooting 68's and 70's. So, as for the level of athleticism required to be THAT good, it is SUBSTANTIAL. While I may still sometimes have some of the so-called "precision-like" physical coordination, if I hit a 260 yard drive I've really hammered it. By comparison, Rocco Mediate is one of the shortest hitters on the tour and he still AVERAGES 280 - 285 off the tee. And Tiger, of course, ......
Finally, as for GREAT golf not requiring GREAT athleticism, that's just plain horsecrap. You've got to play it to understand it.
Last edited by Lobo_for_life; 06-16-2008 at 09:26 PM.
Wow, what a bunch of haters!
Tiger is absolutely amazing, love him or hate him, the guy gets it done. He is the best of the best, no one even comes close to him, in any sport.
"Don't ever give up, don't ever give up". --- Jimmy Valvano
I agree with Rick and the others. Tiger is the best golfer in the world but not even remotely close to the best athlete. I laugh when I hear this claim being made. In all seriousness, I don't know how anyone could even consider this.
--Stand TALL or don't stand at all
Bo jackson, greatest athlete ever.
Basketball players are the very best athletes in world bar none. Other sports are amazed at a 30-35 vertical and many NBA players are between 35 and 40. Most NBA point guards can run a faster 40 dribbling a basketball then the normal pro athletes can run a 40 and don't even talk about running backwards.
With that said other sports have their specialties like baseball players have the best hand eye coordination, soccer players have the best footwork, etc. but for over all athleticism basketball wins it hands down!!
Tiger Woods = greatest athlete? I wouldn't say that. Greatest competitor? You bet!
One At A Time . . .
Can Kobe bend a soccer ball like Beckham? Can Kobe stay on his feet when trying to block a blitzing Merriman? Can Kobe hit a 100 mph fastball? Can Kobe return a Roddick serve? Obviously, none of those guys can come close to accomplishing what Kobe can do with a basketball.
You guys can argue all day about whether golf is a sport. There is one thing you can not deny and that is Tiger's greatness. When it is all said and done his greatness will probably surpass every other athlete. You can hate all you want, but at some point you have to go with it and just say at least I got to witness this level of greatness.
Last edited by UNM_ALUM; 06-17-2008 at 11:36 AM.
My objection is the hype of the media ( not Tiger ) that spends nine tenths of the golf match on Tiger. Altho Tiger is the best, there are other great golfers that should be covered without every sentence having to contain "Tiger" in it. By beiny the best, he should receive the lions share of the coverage, just not all of it.
Hmm. The media constantly denies they are shills for certain teams and athletes. We know better though don't we?
Tiger is the benefit of great press, and has an extra following of "fans" who love a winner. Saying this though doesn't mean I hate Tiger. Not at all. I respect him for his golf ability. BTW for those of you who don't think the old timers wouldn't have scored better with todays equipment, you are smoking something.
The only game in the 80s or 90s that I remember even close to that was the 1982 Cal-Stanford game, although some of the "players" were dressed as band members, and I think all of those were representing Stanford, so it was probably more like 89 versus 11. A large, large majority of the other football games I've watched, 80s and 90s included, featured 11 men per side, at least by the time the play began.
Remember: pillage first, THEN burn!
I haven't seen anyone "hate" on Tiger. I think the consensus is he is the best golfer around right now. Whether he is the best of all time is an argument that is common in every sport. And everyone has their own definition of athlete.
I actually think it would have been much better for the sport of golf if Rocco would have won yesterday. Underdogs have a way of lifting interest.
So, go ahead and slam me for my "hating".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)