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

[Chamillitary Click]

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.

EXACTLY & Charles has the worst swing in the history of the sport.

when a guy like that can have a good day & possibly go into a amateur torunament & go into the clubhouse as leader after day 1, imagine it at the professional level.

hundreds of guys playing the games of their lives on a given weekend.

you said that nobody consistantly stays second in the sport, but look at Tennis it's the EXACT same guys every tournament because it goes Ferderer is better than "him", whose better than "him", whose better than "him" & so on & so forth.

Federer is just the best in his sport where if you're the better player, you're going to win 9 times out of 10; & Golf is a sport where if you're the best player you might win 5 times out of 10 & Tiger wins about 7/10 lol.

[Shallow]

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.

EXACTLY & Charles has the worst swing in the history of the sport.

when a guy like that can have a good day & possibly go into a amateur torunament & go into the clubhouse as leader after day 1, imagine it at the professional level.

hundreds of guys playing the games of their lives on a given weekend.

you said that nobody consistantly stays second in the sport, but look at Tennis it's the EXACT same guys every tournament because it goes Ferderer is better than "him", whose better than "him", whose better than "him" & so on & so forth.

Federer is just the best in his sport where if you're the better player, you're going to win 9 times out of 10; & Golf is a sport where if you're the best player you might win 5 times out of 10 & Tiger wins about 7/10 lol.

How does any of this change the fact that Nicklaus and Federer played and play with better players than Tiger Woods plays with? When you play against better opponents and dominate you are more dominant than someone that plays against worse opponents. No one is at Tiger's level day in and day out. Palmer and Player were both at Jack's level. Jack was simply better. Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt are or were at Federer's level, but Federer was simply more dominant. No other Golfer in the Woods era will be remembered as an all time great. Player, Travino, and Palmer already are all time greats and had to suffer because of Jack. Nadal will be remembered for sure, already more so than any other modern Golfer, except Tiger. Time will tell on Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick.

Who had the better game as QB? The guy that went 21 of 28 for 4 TDs against the Ravens, or the guy that went 20 of 26 for 4 TDs against the Lions? The QB rating would be about the same, but the fans would know better.

[Chamillitary Click]

^i'm not very online search stat savy, but check Woods stats compared to Jack's; besides majors.

i would no be surprised if Woods has had much lower scores than Jack; & if you tell me a guy who has the same stats as a guy who is considered one of the greatest to pick up the clubs, isn't ridiculously dominating, i won't know how to respond lol.

& it changes the fact that because Golf isn't Tennis.

Tennis is like College Basketball or Football, the better ranked team is going to win 8 out of 10 times.

Federer beats the same guys time & time again, just the the guys he beats, beats the same scrub a round eariler.

example - Roddick (top 10 seed) beats some scrub who is ranked 15-20 & then Andy loses to Roger.

all he has to beat is Nadal lol.

& as happy as i am for him & as hard i rooted for him to win the most majors, he would still be stuck one short if Nadal wasn't so injury prone.

[Shallow]

^i'm not very online search stat savy, but check Woods stats compared to Jack's; besides majors.

i would no be surprised if Woods has had much lower scores than Jack; & if you tell me a guy who has the same stats as a guy who is considered one of the greatest to pick up the clubs, isn't ridiculously dominating, i won't know how to respond lol.

& it changes the fact that because Golf isn't Tennis.

Tennis is like College Basketball or Football, the better ranked team is going to win 8 out of 10 times.

Federer beats the same guys time & time again, just the the guys he beats, beats the same scrub a round eariler.

example - Roddick (top 10 seed) beats some scrub who is ranked 15-20 & then Andy loses to Roger.

all he has to beat is Nadal lol.

& as happy as i am for him & as hard i rooted for him to win the most majors, he would still be stuck one short if Nadal wasn't so injury prone.

No one said that Tiger isn't dominant. He's cleary the best playing. My agument ws that there are no other dominant players playing with him, to take away wins from him. How is that so hard for you to grasp? Are you trying to be what you accuse me of being? Devil's advocate, or do you really believe it's just as hard to beat guys at your level as it is to beat guys beneath your level. Niklaus has 4 more Majors if Tom Watson doesn't exist, because Niklaus was placed 2nd and sometimes far and away 2nd during 4 or Tom's 8 Majors. I can't give you regular stats because every tournamant Jack and Tiger played in and didn't play in isn't easy to look for.

Scores mean shit. They used different clubs, balls, and played on different types of courses. I'd like to see how Tiger's all time score would change if he had used the same clubs Jack used in the 60s. It's like comparing Johnny Unitas's stats with Peyton Manning's. It's not fair.

What you said about Tennis rankings is simply wrong. It doesn't work that way. If you followed Tennis you'd know that. Just this year alone in Wimbledon, the unranked Hewitt beat 5th ranked Del Porto to make the final round, then lost to Roddixk, ranked 6th, who beat the favoured 3rd ranked Murrat in the semis. Federer beat the 24th ranked Haas, who beat 4th ranked Djokovic in the quarters. In the French this year, Nadal was healthy and the favourite, but the 23rd ranked Soderling upest him early on, then beat the 12 ranked guy, and went on to beat the 10th ranked guy who upset 3rd ranked Murray in the quarters. Then he lost to Ferderer, who wasn't going to lose that Tourney the way he was playing. Don't take that away just because Nadal got beat early. All that is simply this year alone, and it wasn't a fluke year. It happens all the time, because it's hard to win at Tennis, but when you're just a bit better than the rest like Roger is you win the most. He wins so many of these at tie breaks with a 7 in his column. That means the guys he's with are in his class, but he just keeps winning more than them. He doesn't always win 6-2,6-2,6-2. Winning two or three sets with a 7 takes so much energy and concentration and nerves, that with fatigue added in it's simply harder than Golf.

If Roger can strive in the new wave of Djokovic, Del Porto, Nadal, and Murray then he'll be head and shoulders above the rest in history. The next 3 years will be interesting.

Look, it's simple; Tennis is harder to win at then Golf. So if a Tennis player wins more than a Golfer the Tennis player is more dominan than the Golfer. A 60 year old Tom Watson can make the Finals of a Golf Tournament. I'd like to see the 50 something Bjorn Borg or Jmmy Connors compete today. Tiger is lucky to be in a sport where he could very well be winning 10 to 15 years from now and could tally up more wins than Federer ever could, because once the mid to late 30s hit Roger; it's over. You also have to be a better athlete and in better shape. What Tiger could do with a bad knee a couple years ago on the Gold course he could never have done on the Tennis Court.

[Invincible]

Thats just crazy. Why can't he just hand a million over to me. He won't miss it.