|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
Reactions: Tiger blows open the Open Does this showing rank him among all-time greatest?Posted: Monday June 19, 2000 01:40 PM
While Tiger Woods' total at the U.S. Open set the record for the biggest margin of victory and tied the record for lowest score among others could put him among the greatest athletes ever, CNNSI.com users were asked if he could be considered one of the greatest athletes of all-time and how his feat would rank against benchmarks of excellence in other sports. Some debated golf as a sport, while others questioned if a one-time showing of greatness deemed him worthy of being called an "all-time" great. Here's a sample of some of the responses received: Tiger Woods is a great athlete. But he is playing a sport where athleticism is generally not required. Dominating golf is in no way comparable to dominating basketball, football, hockey or baseball. The fact that every duffer out on a Sunday can accurately measure their skill compared to his shows the gap between golf and the others.
No way does a golfer transcend the highest plateaus of athletics. Golf is a fine sport, and one that offers physical/intellectual challenges to anyone from PGA player to sheer novice; however, there's no chance that a golfer can compare on an athletic scale to someone involved in track & field, cycling, basketball, and any high endurance sport, in general. Woods is what he is, which is the best golfer on the PGA tour right now, but to elevate him in terms of athletic dominance is just wrong when there are so many other men and women around the world who would merit the kind of consideration that'd be much more fitting to a genuinely great athlete.
NO, Tiger Woods is not an athlete and golf is not a sport. Come on, do you see pudgy old men soccer players running down the field and scoring? It just doesn't happen! I play women's soccer and am over 40. For a true sport it takes skill (which golfers definitely have), stamina, speed, and strength. If they ran down the course after they teed off I would be impressed but they don't even have to choose or carry their own clubs. Golf is and interesting mental and skill game and it does take some muscle but I just don't see it as a sport. It takes much more training and endurance to do what Mia Hamm, Brandy Chastain, and Michelle Akers do. Besides, no one ever bleeds in golf!
Sometimes we compare people who really can't be compared. When you try to say that any one man or woman is the best athlete it becomes difficult to argue because of the differences in the various sports. But think of this: Joe Montana, arguably one of the greatest quarterbacks ever had a corps of top notch athletes around him helping him achieve. Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player of our time had teammates that he depended on to win. Tiger Woods has none of that, he has himself, alone. He stood at the 18th green of Pebble Beach, in the US Open, alone, and made history. No one challenged him, no one helped him. Everything he did, he did alone and that makes him one of the greatest athletes ever.
It can't be said, yet, whether or not Woods is the best athlete of his/our time. Only time will tell. If anyone is on the right path it is surely Tiger Woods. Another factor that must be weighed is the classification of what makes someone an athlete. There is no doubt that Tiger is an athlete, but is his game of golf comparable to that of say Michael Jordan's game of basketball? I would argue not.
Tiger Woods is by far the most dominant golfer for his young age, BUT golf is not a sport. It's a game. No one in golf really breaks a sweat unless it's really hot outside. Sure one can pull a muscle, but one can do that lifting children too. A person can be an overweight alcoholic and still play (badly) in the US Open. Maybe if golfers ran from hole to hole, or faced a crippling defense of each green by the foursome ahead of them, then it'd be a sport.
Pele is easily the most dominant athlete of all time. All-time goal scoring leader (most goals and highest scoring average), winner of three of the four World Cups, named a national treasure by his country so he couldn't leave Brazil - it's no contest. Other athletes may have more dominant periods of their careers - Ruth, Gretzky, Chamberlain - but no one dominated the world during an entire career like Pele.
1)Greg Lemond, Tour De France - From an overwhelming defecit, to a remarkable victory, had battled injuries sustained from gunshot wound, and, oh gee, won the Tour de France. What about Mark Spitz?--Seven gold medals...
Dominance in sport is measured not by the number of records set by an athlete but by his or her performance against the competition over an extended period of time. Tiger has demonstrated that he is clearly the best golfer among a field of golfers that should rank among the best of all time. He dominates this field with his skills, mind, and confidence as did Jordan, Chamberlain, Brown, Carl Lewis, and so many others year in, year out. Tiger clearly dominates his sport like no other active athlete of today (and golf is not an easy game notwithstanding its lack of contact), and his dominance - as his game continues to improve - may extend for many years to come.
I think that there is only one feat in sports that matches up to Tiger Woods winning the U.S. Open by fifteen strokes. That was when Secretariat won the Belmont by 31 lengths enroute to the Triple Crown of horse racing.
Only time will tell. As ridiculous as it is to crown Wilt Chamberlain as the greatest athlete of all time for his 100-point game, it is equally absurd to place Tiger on that same pedestal for a single tournament. I'm a huge Tiger fan but greatness, like Rome, isn't built in a day or, for that matter, four days.
Sorry, Tiger, but the most dominant athlete of our time is track & field legend Carl Lewis. Four Olympic golds in the long jump ('84, '88, 92', '96), two in the 100 meters ('84, '88), and another in the 200 ('84). That's seven gold medals. No one, male or female, has been able to even halve that total in track in the same period.
|
