Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Forbes: Tiger Woods becomes 1st athlete to reach $1 Billion in career earnings
Shallow:
--- Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on October 02, 2009, 01:06:33 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Shallow on October 02, 2009, 03:41:14 PM ---
--- Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on October 02, 2009, 01:06:33 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:.:
--- Quote from: Shallow on October 02, 2009, 03:41:14 PM ---
--- Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on October 02, 2009, 01:06:33 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on October 02, 2009, 03:48:51 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on October 02, 2009, 03:41:14 PM ---
--- Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on October 02, 2009, 01:06:33 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version