Forbes: Tiger Woods becomes 1st athlete to reach $1 Billion in career earnings

[pootypooty]

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=4524640

[Shallow]

How much would Nicklaus or Sneed have made with the current inflated dollar values. This doesn't mean as much as it seems. Jake Long of the Miami Dolphins probably made more in his rookie year than Johnny Unitas made his whole career.

[MoneyTossa]

what a baller 

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

Its funny how some people will argue no matter what you type up. It is relevant that he reached $1 billion. Nicklaus or Sneed probably wouldnt and shouldnt be the money earner that Tiger is. He will go down as the greatest golfer ever easily, unless he dies tomorrow and even then who knows.  He has obviously completely transcended the sport.  His earning power is based off of his total package, not just his golfing ability. He is young and marketable and has dominated his sport like no other athlete (if you consider golfers athletes) in our time.

[Chamillitary Click]

only major superstar with no haters, i swear lol.

[Shallow]

Its funny how some people will argue no matter what you type up. It is relevant that he reached $1 billion. Nicklaus or Sneed probably wouldnt and shouldnt be the money earner that Tiger is. He will go down as the greatest golfer ever easily, unless he dies tomorrow and even then who knows.  He has obviously completely transcended the sport.  His earning power is based off of his total package, not just his golfing ability. He is young and marketable and has dominated his sport like no other athlete (if you consider golfers athletes) in our time.

1) Federer was and is more dominant than Tiger ad ten times the "athlete".

2) Don't speak on Nicklaus. He still has more majors. He still did it in an era much more compettitive than the modern Gold era. 4 guys with 5 or more Majors vs 1 guy with 5 or more majors. And Tiger would have to finish second inevery tourney from noew until he's 40 to tie how many times Jack was the runner up. If he passes 18 and then goes on to win over 20 I'll give him that, but until then it's like callning the 18-0 Pats the best team ever in January '08 before the Superbowl. When all they ended up as was the best Super Bowl loser of all time.

[Chamillitary Click]

Its funny how some people will argue no matter what you type up. It is relevant that he reached $1 billion. Nicklaus or Sneed probably wouldnt and shouldnt be the money earner that Tiger is. He will go down as the greatest golfer ever easily, unless he dies tomorrow and even then who knows.  He has obviously completely transcended the sport.  His earning power is based off of his total package, not just his golfing ability. He is young and marketable and has dominated his sport like no other athlete (if you consider golfers athletes) in our time.

1) Federer was and is more dominant than Tiger ad ten times the "athlete".

2) Don't speak on Nicklaus. He still has more majors. He still did it in an era much more compettitive than the modern Gold era. 4 guys with 5 or more Majors vs 1 guy with 5 or more majors. And Tiger would have to finish second inevery tourney from noew until he's 40 to tie how many times Jack was the runner up. If he passes 18 and then goes on to win over 20 I'll give him that, but until then it's like callning the 18-0 Pats the best team ever in January '08 before the Superbowl. When all they ended up as was the best Super Bowl loser of all time.

i wouldn't nessesarily agree with either.

#1 - who is Federer playing against? not to mention he can't beat Nadal.

#2 - if Tiger Woods wasn't in the Golf world, you wouldn't believe how competetive it would become. it's just that Tiger is head & shoulders better than the rest of the field. guys like Padraig Harrington and Steve Stricker would be considered all time amazing players if Tiger didn't win all the time.

you could make the argument throughout sports history, people played with different equipment back then, Bobby Jones & them used wooden clubs, just like Jonny Mac used a wooden racket.

both games are ridiculously advanced now.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

Its funny how some people will argue no matter what you type up. It is relevant that he reached $1 billion. Nicklaus or Sneed probably wouldnt and shouldnt be the money earner that Tiger is. He will go down as the greatest golfer ever easily, unless he dies tomorrow and even then who knows.  He has obviously completely transcended the sport.  His earning power is based off of his total package, not just his golfing ability. He is young and marketable and has dominated his sport like no other athlete (if you consider golfers athletes) in our time.

1) Federer was and is more dominant than Tiger ad ten times the "athlete".

2) Don't speak on Nicklaus. He still has more majors. He still did it in an era much more compettitive than the modern Gold era. 4 guys with 5 or more Majors vs 1 guy with 5 or more majors. And Tiger would have to finish second inevery tourney from noew until he's 40 to tie how many times Jack was the runner up. If he passes 18 and then goes on to win over 20 I'll give him that, but until then it's like callning the 18-0 Pats the best team ever in January '08 before the Superbowl. When all they ended up as was the best Super Bowl loser of all time.

Like I said, unless he dies tomorrow.  You always just like to argue for the sake of arguing  . It wouldnt matter what was posted in this thread.

[Shallow]

Its funny how some people will argue no matter what you type up. It is relevant that he reached $1 billion. Nicklaus or Sneed probably wouldnt and shouldnt be the money earner that Tiger is. He will go down as the greatest golfer ever easily, unless he dies tomorrow and even then who knows.  He has obviously completely transcended the sport.  His earning power is based off of his total package, not just his golfing ability. He is young and marketable and has dominated his sport like no other athlete (if you consider golfers athletes) in our time.

1) Federer was and is more dominant than Tiger ad ten times the "athlete".

2) Don't speak on Nicklaus. He still has more majors. He still did it in an era much more compettitive than the modern Gold era. 4 guys with 5 or more Majors vs 1 guy with 5 or more majors. And Tiger would have to finish second inevery tourney from noew until he's 40 to tie how many times Jack was the runner up. If he passes 18 and then goes on to win over 20 I'll give him that, but until then it's like callning the 18-0 Pats the best team ever in January '08 before the Superbowl. When all they ended up as was the best Super Bowl loser of all time.

i wouldn't nessesarily agree with either.

#1 - who is Federer playing against? not to mention he can't beat Nadal.

#2 - if Tiger Woods wasn't in the Golf world, you wouldn't believe how competetive it would become. it's just that Tiger is head & shoulders better than the rest of the field. guys like Padraig Harrington and Steve Stricker would be considered all time amazing players if Tiger didn't win all the time.

you could make the argument throughout sports history, people played with different equipment back then, Bobby Jones & them used wooden clubs, just like Jonny Mac used a wooden racket.

both games are ridiculously advanced now.

You're dead wrong my friend. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Philippoussis and Nadal would all have more Majors than any than any of Tiger's contemporaries if Roger didn't exist. He's beaten Nadal 6 times in tournament play and shut him down in everythung but clay his entire career. He's been to the finals in France 4 years straight. No one hasas many final appearances as this guy across the board and he still has years to go.

Who in Tiger's era has more than 3 majors and who in Tiger's era racks up 2nd places behind Tiger? Nobody. When Tiger isn't winning the winning shuffkes around just like the runners up do. He plays in an inconsistent era where no one can play well all the time but him. Federer plays the same guys in the finals. Roddick and Nadal alone have like 10 majors finals losses thanks to Federer.

Steve Stricker? Are you fucking kiding me? Do so research kid. This guy only placed 2nd in one major his whole career and he didn't even lose to Tiger, he lost to Singh. And where all of Harrington's second places behind Tiger? He's done well as of late. Even won 3 majors and maybe a lot more to come but he hasn't lost shit because of Tiger. I'm not comparing head to head. Who knows how Roger would do with big heavy rackets or how Jack would do with the new stuff. I'm saying it was harder to win 14 majors in the 60s and early 70s than in the late 90s/2000s.

If I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing ten you must fucking suck at defending what you believe in Daygo because you aren't bringing me any evidence. I argue what I believe in and only what I beleve in, and I've believed for years that Nicklaus had it tougher than Tiger and deserves more credit. Die tomorrow? I just told you he needs to place 2nd in every major from now until 40 to tie the amount of second places Jack had. If even a quarter of those second places were inthe weak era and wins then he'd be out of reach.

[Chamillitary Click]

^Golf is a different sport than Tennis.

anybody can win in Golf; Zack Johnson came out of the blue at the Masters.

if you're playing good Golf on that given weekend you can win.

if people going into the Final round weren't paired up with Tiger, nerves wouldn't kick in & other things.

you have to look at Golf all year around, all events, not just majors; although in the end you're as good as how many majors you win, i'll take consistancy over a lucky weekend.

Tiger stays consistant in everything he plays in, including majors.

Roger is a monster of superstar & he is one of the most dominate athletes in the last 20 years & more; but ask some average Joe on the streets what do you think of when you hear Tennis & you'll get 3-4 responses, based on age & things.

but ask anybody in the world the same question about Golf & you will hear Tiger Woods 100 times out of 100.

[Sikotic™]

While you guys go back and forth about an athlete's earning value or ability, they're all wiping their asses with $20s and $50s so who really gives a shit?

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

they're all wiping their asses with $20s and $50s so who really gives a shit?

Im sure Grant and Jackson would...

[Shallow]

^Golf is a different sport than Tennis.

anybody can win in Golf; Zack Johnson came out of the blue at the Masters.

if you're playing good Golf on that given weekend you can win.

if people going into the Final round weren't paired up with Tiger, nerves wouldn't kick in & other things.

you have to look at Golf all year around, all events, not just majors; although in the end you're as good as how many majors you win, i'll take consistancy over a lucky weekend.

Tiger stays consistant in everything he plays in, including majors.

Roger is a monster of superstar & he is one of the most dominate athletes in the last 20 years & more; but ask some average Joe on the streets what do you think of when you hear Tennis & you'll get 3-4 responses, based on age & things.

but ask anybody in the world the same question about Golf & you will hear Tiger Woods 100 times out of 100.

I never said he was more popular than Tiger Woods. Anna Kornikova was once the most popular female tennis player on the planet. She was no where near the best. I said Federer was more dominant. He doesn't only win majors. He was ranked the #1 player for 237 consecutive weeks. That's over 4 years straight, and a total of 250 weeks thus far in all. That means he was number 1 that whole time. His career win record is 672-157, that's over 80%, and he's ben doing it for 11 years. He turned pro at 17 years old. He rose to dominance at 22 and his stayed dominant until 28. In 6 years he grabbed 15 championships. In the next two years he could very well get to 20, and he did it in an era where a lot of the same guys kept coming in second, meaning they'd have gotten a lot of first places if Roger wasn't there. No one, or two or three guys were coming in second while Tiger was winning.

You think playing along side Tiger is hard? How hard do you think it is for all those guys that had to face Roger in the quarters of these tournaments? Arguing Tiger's partners would have played better if they didn't have to deal with him is like arguing the guys Riger beat early would have won. It doesn't fly, because there are plenty of times the same guys that play with Tiger and never win, play with out Tiger, or with no Tiger at all and never win. Show me stats of a single Golfer that consistently excels when there is no Tiger but stinks it up when he has to play with him. I'm not saying it's easy to play with Tiger. I'm saying no one that plays with Tiger is as good at Golf as Nadal, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt are at Tennis. No Roger in Tennis and those 4 names dominate Tennis the last ten years. No Tiger and his 14 majors and 71 tournament wins get divied up amongst a dozen for Majors and to 3 dozen guys for tournament wins. The second places aren't there in the Woods era, like they are for the Roger era, or the Nicklaus era for that matter.

Roger is more dominant because he won more in less time and beat greater opponents. Nicklaus is more dominant the same way Ali was more dominant than Tyson. Tyson is like Woods; he walked right over a whole lot of bums and beat a few very good fighters, but the level of talent on the wins column of Ali and Nicklaus so far out weighs that of Woods and Tyson you can't say anything but one guy was more dominant. Unless Tiger ends up with over 20, which he could, history will remember Nicklaus before Tiger. In the present it's still Tiger's time and all the sports writers and fans weren't around for the Nicklaus glory days, but when the writers andfans can't remember either period 50 years from now they will call Nicklaus the better Golfer unless Tiger goes on a killing spree in the next few years.

While you guys go back and forth about an athlete's earning value or ability, they're all wiping their asses with $20s and $50s so who really gives a shit?

Every year on my birthday I wipe my ass with a hundred dollar bill just to make myself feel better about myself. Then I cry myself to sleep.

[Chamillitary Click]

^again, who is Roger playing?

yeah, he plays the same competition.

but Federer - A++; Nadal - A; a select few - B; the rest of Tennis - C & lower.

he only has to beat a select few each tournament & Tennis is 100% skill.

explain this; - that guy couldn't do that again if he tried a TRILLION more times, but that's -2 to the score.

Tiger has to deal with a luck factor major in & major out.

not saying it makes Tiger more dominate, but i think they have been equally dominate in their sports historys.

[Shallow]

^again, who is Roger playing?

yeah, he plays the same competition.

but Federer - A++; Nadal - A; a select few - B; the rest of Tennis - C & lower.

he only has to beat a select few each tournament & Tennis is 100% skill.

explain this; - that guy couldn't do that again if he tried a TRILLION more times, but that's -2 to the score.

Tiger has to deal with a luck factor major in & major out.

not saying it makes Tiger more dominate, but i think they have been equally dominate in their sports historys.

He is playing guys that are better Tennis players than Stricker, Harrington, Mickelson, and Singh, and whoever you cn name as a Tiger contemporary. I didn't understand the logic of your argument. Because no one in the Tiger era is good enough to consistently win Tiger has it tougher than a player who has to contend with other great players.

If in his career Roddick adn Safin are B players and than by comparison Stricker is an F Minus. Do you even watch Gold or tennis? I seriously wonder. There are plenty of fluke shots in Tennis too, and plenty of fluke shots in Golf that Tiger benefits from. The issue isn't what's harder ro play, but who won more in a shorter time against stiffer competition, and the athlete is Federer.


Tennis is not 100% skill. it involves just as much athleticism as it does skill. The conditioning you need to be in to perform at a championship level is insane. The skill itself of returning a 130 mph serve is hard enough. The athleticism of getting to the ball and striking it with the right angle and power is also insane. Give Federer one year on a course to learn Golf and have him go head to head with Tiger and he'll lose  yeah, but give Tiger as long as he wants head to head with Roger and he'll lose 100x worse. I'd actually be shocked if Tiger won a single point. 6 Love, 6 Love, 6 Love. Golf is a sport where Charles Barkley and such can pick it up in their twiligt years and save par on the same holes Tiger saves par on.

Tennis is harder to begin with, the window of opportunity to win in is smaller, and Federer has won more than Tiger has won. It's a no brainer. And if Tiger was white Swiss and Federer was black american you better fucking believe that in the world Federer would have been ten times the star. Because nobody would give a shit about a white swiss Golfer and everyone in their mother would know the black kid that dethroned Sampras and went on to set the record.