TIGER! 50 Wins At The Age Of 30!

[matcom]

:wow:

best. athlete. EVAH!

[bmbmd]

1. I agree.

Most dominant athlete in a sport, ever.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. I don't know about that.

What about Rocky Marciano? Or Ali? Or Jack Johnson? Or Wilt Chamberlain? Or Babe Ruth? Eddy Mercx? He's certainly the most dominant GOLFER, but 'most dominant athlete ever' is a bit of a stretch.

[bmbmd]

7. I stand by the original post.

Tiger is the most dominant force in his own sport ever-and he is just getting started. Fifty wins, thirty years old-able to win at will, it seems. He has retooled his swing three times, and won majors in each incarnation. He hits shots no one else can hit, and is now 21-0 when leading after three rounds. He never blinks, never backs down, and never chokes. Seven hundred million dollar fortune, supermodel wife, five per cent body fat-he has got it all. The goatee creeps me out, though.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Golf isn't a sport, though.

It's a game. Bit of a difference. (Sports require athleticism. Golf doesn't, although it may help some.)

And golfers aren't true athletes; golf doesn't require the same sort of strength or stamina as boxing, or cycling, doesn't require the range of skills one finds in a serious track-and-field competitor--it requires some strength (enough to hit a good drive...the velocity of a well-swung driver or three-wood and the follow-through do a good bit of the work there, though) and coordination, but it's not really 'athletic'.

[matcom]

10. you KIDDING???

Tiger has DOMINATED the sport by lifting and conditioning and growing his stamina

shit you people are ignorant as hell about this SPORT

but then again, all Texans are hicks so I DO see where you are coming from :sarcasm:

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. I'm not from Texas. Never BEEN to Texas.

Grew up in California, actually. So I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

And I stand by what I said: Golf is NOT a sport. The career of a serious competitive ATHLETE is usually OVER by the age of 35 or 40. For golfers, that's the prime of their career, and they can remain seriously competitive into their fifties.

[matcom]

12. THAT is your criteria for a sport?

the fact that it can be played into old age?

baffling

yeah, i have SO much respect for a 300 pound 7-foot "athlete" who has to put pads on for his 10 year (maybe) career running into walls for a living.

THAT'S a 'sport' i'll tell ya! :eyes:

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. Notice that none of the athletes I mentioned in my original response...

played American football--which I don't think much of as a sport, either. I prefer REAL football (soccer, that is) or rugby.

My criterion for a sport is that it's something that REQUIRES a level of athleticism (physical conditioning and/or endurance) to play at all, let alone play well; hence, boxing, soccer, cycling, tennis, and so on are sports; golf, darts, billiards, automobile racing, and, arguably, baseball and cricket, are games.

[bmbmd]

23. Wait a minute-I'm a Texan, and I agree with you.

Don't make me turn against you....

[maveric]

3. Athlete? I dont consider golfers "athletes".

Now lets consider Bill Russell, Jim Brown, Michael Jordan, Lance Armstrong, Willie Mays, Jerry Rice, Bobby Orr...before you toss a golfer in that pool.
Arguably the best golfer evah.

[matcom]

5. you no NOTHING of golf

nothing.

[maveric]

6. Played it for 11 years my friend.

Now can you really put golfers in the same category with the athletes I mentioned?

[matcom]

8. no I cannot

because Golf is the ONLY sport where you have to beat your OWN demons BEFORE you can beat your opponents.

Golf is unique that way. You beat the course, you beat yourself, you HAVE to put the other guy out of your head.

Tiger is the GREATEST mental athlete ever. There is no one to 'assist' you or 'feed' you the ball. 100% on YOU.

Tiger wins hands down. And I got 20 years on your golfing 'career'.

on edit: check the stats. NOBODY has dominated ANY sport so young.

[lildreamer316]

4. He is the new model of mental accomplishment.

He is a good example of what one can do if one applies oneself. Also a good example of mental and phisical blending....
The new standard of what is possible.

[Wilhelm Klink Reich]

13. Have you watched the events Woods wins?

he has more than his share of trouble with the driver, and many times waltzes to victory when every other golfer near the lead requires a paramedic perform the Heimlich manuever on him on Sunday.

You can argue the depth of the field is stronger than any other time, but you can't ignore weak strength of elite competition. Els? Gag/suck/underachieve. Mickelson? Basket case most of the time, all-time performance when he (briefly) screwed his head on straight. Vijay? One career year it looks like.

You could easily make a case for Federer being more dominant in his respective sport currently, Nadal or no. And recent runs from Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds easily trump anything Tiger's done other than the Tiger Slam.

[matcom]

15. Lance & Barry?

last time I checked, Tiger wasn't shootin' up

i watched Tiger give a CLINIC last week at the British

50 wins at 30. 50 wins at 30. :wtf: is so hard to understand?

[Wilhelm Klink Reich]

17. Is your case longevity based or dominance based?

He's very good right now, but not dominant in the "transcends his sport" sense other than the hype/promotion/marketing surrounding him.

Two other players have won majors this year and I imagine one of them (Mickelson) has won additional events as well..

As for the doping aspect, I would ask you to prove that they in somehow had the advantage of an uneven playing field? The top 7 riders were disqualified before this year's Tour de France.

How many baseball players are definitely NOT on steriods?

But, no, let's go another round of villainizing the athletes.

[Awsi Dooger]

20. Tiger has by far the most margin for error of any athlete in history

It's true he is not at his best right now, not close to where he was in 2000 or the first half of 2001. He still overswings on his driver and blows it into the right rough far too often.

But it's mostly irrelevant, and not just for the reason you mention, that the competitors in this era tend to fold when Tiger sticks his nose high on the leader board. Tiger simply doesn't make mistakes. His percentage of holes over par is astonishingly low. When he's playing poorly it's simply a matter of not taking advantage of birdie opportunities.

I spent far too many years trying to deny Tiger's greatness, and I was dead wrong. He has the greatest variety of shots ever and incredible mental intensity. He's not the natural putter Nicklaus was in his prime but the perfect mechanics and focus allow most of them to go in, especially in the clutch.

There will be a stretch again when Tiger is smacking the driver as straight and confidently as he did in the '97 Masters or throughout 2000. And look out. The 2 or 3 shot wins will turn into 8 or 10 shot walkovers again. Hell, he played like crap at Augusta and still was right there on the back nine on Sunday, losing due to a few missed putts.

Let's see, Federer is awesome but he's never won the French on clay and his career record against Nadal is 2-7. Go ahead and name a golfer who has dominated Tiger like that. Lance Armstrong turned his career into a one-track pursuit, the Tour de France. He didn't have anywhere near the overall record of an Eddie Merckx.

Tiger is only 30. Once he passes Nicklaus on the career majors list, this becomes a mute point and he will be considered Ali-like in terms of legend and dominance. The detractors can scream in the dark but it will mean squat.

[Wilhelm Klink Reich]

21. Federer has a well-chronicled hole in his game (forehand)

that only Nadal has proven capable of exploiting and only then on one surface. Woods has an equally glaring hole if not moreso (driver, and the mis-step of going to it too often)

As for Armstrong, I don't see how his season revolving around a single event is much different than's Tigers focus on the majors. They are introducing a whole new look to the PGA tour's end of season to get him (and other top players) to play more than the minimum 15-20 events per year.

Perhaps he will one day be held as an Ali or Jordan like figure that's not really for me to say. But he is clearly not the most dominant athlete right now, nor has he been for some time.

[Awsi Dooger]

25. It's actually the backhand

Federer was all over the place at Roland Garros with his backhand. He was rolling it all day instead of slicing and that was leaving sitters for Nadal to pounce on. In the final at Rome it's true Federer missed two easy forehands on match point, but I have no idea how you are assessing his forehand as the weaker side. When he gets in trouble it's always a high number of unforced errors on the backhand side.

Plus he doesn't go to the net nearly enough. That's where baseliners like a Federer or a Steffi Graf would have had trouble if they met a Sampras or Navratilova in their absolute primes, especially at Wimbledon. The pressure is always on the person forced to make the passing shots.

You got it right, Tiger focuses four times a year plus the Players Championship and every other year the Ryder Cup. We basically didn't hear from Armstrong other than the Tour de France, especially late in his career.

Tiger can maintain this same form of the last two years for the next decade and win 18-20 majors and be remembered as possibly the most dominant athlete of all time. If he has another stretch like 2000 he can win 21-24 majors and it won't even be an argument. The 30s are historically the best decade for a golfer plus Tiger's physical regimen and body type mean he should be able to extend his prime into his early 40s. That's one major a year. Unless some young dynamos come around that's not even a challenge. For reference purposes, Tiger is always 2/5 or thereabouts to win at least one major in a season.

[Wilhelm Klink Reich]

26. Ah well

shows what I know about tennis

Anyway, did you hold Nicklaus to be the most dominant athlete ever prior to coronating Tiger? It's seems you'd almost have to if you are seriously making this case and that strikes me as absurd

[rug]

16. Disregarding that golf is not a sport, the answer is Gretzky.

:popcorn:

[Wilhelm Klink Reich]

18. Funny thing is

alot of people rank Orr ahead of him in terms of greatest hockey player..

[rug]

19. I can see that, but he was as dominant as Bill Russell was in basketball.

[bmbmd]

24. And there you are.

In every other sport, there is contoversy about who was the "greatest". In golf, there was Jack, and now there is Tiger. As much as it pains me to say it, Tiger has the edge. He is, without arguement, the greatest golfer ever.

[callous taoboy]

22. so what.....