Ok, let me get this straight; Tiger is called the greatest athlete of our day.
He is being revered for his heroics by playing on a severely injured leg to win golf's toughest tournament.
This is supposed to be his finest hour, topping all his other incredible athletic achievements.
Yet what did Tiger really do?
He beat a 45-year-old Rocco Mediate.
Today's Must Reads
Well, Michael Jordan did compete very well at the age of 40 in basketball, a sport that truly requires athleticism.
I hate to be a party pooper, but if you ask me, as nice of a story as it was for both Rocco and Tiger, this really just affirms what I have always believed about Tiger, he's not an athlete.
Tiger might as well have won darts competition with carpal tunnel or a billiards tournament with a bad back or the gout.
Tiger might be a great winner, and extremely talented at what he does.
But in my mind he will never be near Roger Federer as an athlete.
People have claimed Federer isn't in Wood's league because of his recent troubles, but what Fed has to do athletically is so far and above Tiger Woods it is a complete joke, which is why his dominance in tennis has been so much more impressive.
John Daly and Rocco Mediate would be dead after one opening round match of a Grand Slam in tennis.
comments (1) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
Nobody in their right mind says in it the context: "Tiger Woods has the most athletic ability in the world." When they say "Greatest athlete in the World" it basically is inferred that "in his sport" or "compared to his competitors" is part of it. He is more dominant than Federer for one reason alone. Tiger does not get to impart his physical advantage on other players. In tennis, one player's skill is directly pitted against the others. Federer hitting an amazing shot directly affects the ability of his opponent to hit a return shot. Tiger Woods knocking a 5 iron stiff from 225 yards definitely gets the crowd in a frenzy, but it was has no direct effect on the other players other than a psychological shot to the gut..... which turns out to have been enough. For this reason, it is tougher to win a golf major than a tennis major. Jack Nicklaus, the gold standard for golf majors, won 18, his first in 1962 and his last in 1986. That is a span of 24 years, or less than 1 major per year for the most dominant golfer in history PT (Pre Tiger). Pete Sampras, possibly the current GOAT for Tennis until Federer takes that title, won 14 Grand Slams in 12 years, more than 1 per year. You'll be hard pressed to find many people that think Sampras was a better tennis player than Jack was a golfer. Same goes to Tiger-Federer comparison. Tiger winning the way he does is something we have never seen before, not even close.
Yes, Federer is a better "athlete", but Tiger Woods is still the most dominant athlete on earth today.
And come on man... you are discounting a man that just walked about 6 miles per day, for 6-7 days straight (playoffs and practice rounds) with a RUPTURED ACL AND TWO FRACTURES IN HIS TIBIA. Walking on that for a week straight is ridiculous enough, but composing himself enough to violently swing a golf club 140 MPH in the toughest tournament of the year.... AND TO WIN???
write a new comment