Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by snapple, Jan 30, 2007.
(Not a sport)
the realy question would be who is more boring ? that is a very tough one to answer
The main reason golf isnt a sport is because your opponent has no direct impact on your play.
Wow that drops a lot of "sports" I guess track and field is not a sport, gymnastics is not a sport but poker would be a sport. :evil:
Give it up spectra; you know what he meant
Poker being on ESPN is a joke.
Best post here
Actually, I thought yours was.
Yes that, but some Baseball Bigshots make as much money In one year as all the Prize money Federer has won so far
Neither is speed/figure skating, skiing, snowboarding, etc
or bowling. (no offense intended)
Figure skating is a real sport. Watch them practice and notice the falls and beatings their body takes trying those triple and quadruple rotation jumps where you have to balance yourself at tremendous impact on those thin steel blades on slippery ice. All the spinning in one spot in multiple positions, and complex footwork steps, and it also tests your physical endurance. Figure skating is much more a sport then people make it out to be.
Also in figure skating you do have a direct impact on your opponents performance. You get your marks before a chief competitor, if they are high enough, you put huge pressure on them, or even shut them out and demoralize them. You sometimes cut off a chief competitor at warmup or do a jump planning to finish right in their view. There are all kinds of mind games that you affect your competitors.
Hey!!! Bowling is on the Wii Sports game along with Tennis. Who says it's not a sport?!
Darts would also qualify as a sport to the golfers
I do agree that figure skating takes atheltic ability but its a pagentry sport. Its not like people can clearly see one person beat another.
Lamb, the same arguement can be made for golfers. Since they see others scores putting pressure on them. But they still arent directly competing.
SI: Who do you think is the more dominant athlete: Tiger Woods or Federer?
Sampras: Good question. As far as pure domination, it's hard to say because I find golf harder to dominate than tennis. For Tiger to do what he has done, he has to worry about a field of players but he's not as much in control of how it goes compared to Roger. For Roger, it's just one on one. He has to worry about seven guys and seven guys only. Tiger has to worry about some floater guy shooting 62. Tiger is not as much in control so it tells you what Tiger has done might be more impressive. But at the same time Roger has lost like five matches in the last 18 months. Something ridiculous like that. It's hard to say whether tennis is harder to dominate than golf. I think a lot more crazier things can happen in golf than tennis so I'd lean a little toward Tiger but at the same time Roger has won more than Tiger.
Sampras says Roger has won more then Tiger... more what?
Tiger has 55 tournament wins, including 12 majors and $66,648,324 in winnings.
Federer has 46 title wins, 10 majors and $29,581,018 in winnings.
Also Tiger has a 2 Grand Slams one of which was 4 consecutive major wins.
OBVIOUSLY he was referring to the last few years.
No, I'm pretty sure Sampras was speaking of their careers as a whole.
EDIT: Last 2yrs...
Tiger Woods 24 tournament wins.
Federer 23 tournament wins.
So even if he did me as of the last few years...
yes, golf is not a sport, but its not as easy as you make it. the course is the obstacle and Tiger faces 18 of them each day for 4 days. Its tougher to dominate golf than tennis....no doubt.
Banger...you may have missed Rob's point. While tennis is easily more a physical sport, golf is a tougher in skill. He was making that point...I inferred it. Golf is very, very difficult. Tennis is too, but to dominate the way Tiger has and if you look at its history, Tiger has dominated the past 6 years like no other. Before Fed you had Pete, Then Mac, Then Borg-Connors, Laver and so on. Golf is just more difficult to dominate because of how many people you have to play against (I know...I know..they play the course), but you still have to beat other scores to win. Its not as if someone said ok...to win you have to shoot a score of this. Obviously its not like that.
I am not taking anything from Fed...he is truly a wonder, but Tiger has a more difficult "sport" to dominate. Today's player (Roddick, Safin, etc) just all out hit thinkless power shots, while in golf you not only need the skill and nerve, but brains to figure things out. Again...not saying any idiot could dominate tennis, because Fed is a smart guy, but golfers in general use more of their brain than tennis players. Honsetly...Roddick brain is not much different than that Geco on the Geico commercials.
we are losing the point. This thread was not which is the more "sport"
Who dominates more. Golf is not an ATHLETIC sport...its obvious.
Also, John Daly has some demons, but he's a great guy. He would be in tears how you people have talked about him.:sad:
dam* that's the best point made so far for fed/tiger comparison. who is this sampras guy.
Separate names with a comma.