Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Forbes: Tiger Woods becomes 1st athlete to reach $1 Billion in career earnings
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:.:
--- Quote from: Sikotic on October 02, 2009, 06:01:30 PM ---they're all wiping their asses with $20s and $50s so who really gives a shit?
--- End quote ---
Im sure Grant and Jackson would...
Shallow:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on October 02, 2009, 05:58:15 PM ---^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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Sikotic on October 02, 2009, 06:01:30 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on October 02, 2009, 11:09:25 PM ---^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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version