My question on golf is this?

[Gopher]

I'll call golfers "athletes" when they carry their own bag of clubs around with them on the course.

Fair enough, but that's like saying that I'll call baseball players "athletes" when, after breaking a bat, they go back to the dugout and get a new bat themselves, as opposed to having a batboy bring it to them.

 

Let's put it this way... who do you think stands a better chance of completing a decathalon, Tiger or Prince Fielder? Not a fair comparison, fine... who could complete a marathon... Mickelson or Pujols? We already know Mickelson can walk five miles daily without breaking a sweat. Pujols, after five swings in the HR derby, looked like he was literally going to drop dead. I'm not saying Pujols isn't a great athlete or sports figure... but, this notion that golf is the only sport where you can be successful without being in great shape, or a great athlete, is ridiculous.

[wiegie]

We already know Mickelson can walk five miles daily without breaking a sweat.

let's see, five miles in about five hours**. If my math is correct, that works out to 1 mile per hour. quite impressive

 

(but, for what it's worth, I am sure that all of the octogenarian mall-walkers of the world will be thrilled to learn that they are athletes)

 

**And before you freak out about a five-hour round, I looked it up and that is about the average time for a PGA round.

Edited July 17, 2009 by wiegie

[Jackass]

Fair enough, but that's like saying that I'll call baseball players "athletes" when, after breaking a bat, they go back to the dugout and get a new bat themselves, as opposed to having a batboy bring it to them.

 

Let's put it this way... who do you think stands a better chance of completing a decathalon, Tiger or Prince Fielder? Not a fair comparison, fine... who could complete a marathon... Mickelson or Pujols? We already know Mickelson can walk five miles daily without breaking a sweat. Pujols, after five swings in the HR derby, looked like he was literally going to drop dead. I'm not saying Pujols isn't a great athlete or sports figure... but, this notion that golf is the only sport where you can be successful without being in great shape, or a great athlete, is ridiculous.

 

You won't get any argument from me that some portion of baseball players aren't great athletes.

[Gopher]

let's see, five miles in about five hours**. If my math is correct, that works out to 1 mile per hour. quite impressive

 

(but, for what it's worth, I am sure that all of the octogenarian mall-walkers of the world will be thrilled to learn that they are athletes)

 

**And before you freak out about a five-hour round, I looked it up and that is about the average time for a PGA round.

I figured I would get a pretty good reaction from comparing Mickelson to Pujols. I guess you could say I was fishing to an extent, or at least playing devil's advocate. Look, this argument has taken place a few times before on these boards, so it's really not worth even getting into. I'm not saying all PGA golfers are great athletes... just like any other pro sport (or "game" if you don't want to acknowledge that it's a sport), there are great athletes that play it, and others who aren't so much great athletes as they are very blessed with a certain set of skills. What I don't understand is why people continue to get so hung up on golf, and whether or not it's a sport, when there are a dozen other "sports" out there (sailing, bowling, table tennis, even baseball) that are in the same boat... no pun intended. In other words, with the exception of a few (basketball, soccer, swimming, etc.), all other sports don't really demand that you have to be all that athletic to be good. I would argue that it certainly helps to be in shape in any sport, but it's not required. David Wells is a perfect example of that, as are a number of golfers... Calcavecchia, Daly, Stadler, etc.

 

What I have seen in golf over the past 10-15 years is that, as the sport has become more and more competitive (and the depth of the world-class type of players has increased), you see less players of the Calc and Stadler variety who are successful, and more and more players who are in prime physical condition rise to the top. In other words, there is much less room for error on the PGA tour, in terms of what you can "get away with" physically, so pretty much everybody (Mickelson is a good example) now realizes that you must be in top condition to stay competitive. I think most non-golf-fans would be very surprised at how much time the average PGA players puts in each week just working out... weights, cardio, etc. It's a lot more than people realize, and a lot more than what used to be the norm for the sport. And, I would venture to guess, it's a lot more time than guys like David Wells, Prince Fielder, or C.C. Sabathia ever spent in the gym while in the middle of a baseball season, without a doubt.

 

I guess my point is... if you want to limit the word "sport" to only games where you have to be a great athlete or in prime physical condition to play them, no exceptions, we would basically have to whittle the list down to just a handful of games (and games like baseball probably won't be on that list). I really don't see the point in doing so, or understand why it seems to offend some people so much to call certain "non-athletic" games sports.

 

I will say this... golf is a sport dominated by players, at the pro level, who grew up around the game. It's also an expensive sport to play, in comparison to some others. For those reasons, it's uncommon to see pro-level golfers who came from "out of nowhere", like you sometimes see in other sports. In other words, you don't see many guys who just decided to pick up the game, later than most, and went on to be very successful. Not impossible, but very uncommon. Most PGA players have played since childhood, and grew up around people who also played the game. Maybe that's why golf bothers some people so much... because it's a game that has a reputation of being affiliated with money, or the "country club" lifestyle. Personally, I didn't grow up around the game of golf (or around money)... didn't actually play a hole of golf until I was about 15 years old. But, I can definitely see how some people might sour towards the game, simply due to the fact that it's been widely considered a "wealthy man's sport", and has even been considered to be a game for elitists by many. There are certainly plenty of people who play because they feel it will give them some sort of status symbol, which I find comical. Personally, it's more about the challenge for me than anything else.

[Gopher]

let's see, five miles in about five hours**. If my math is correct, that works out to 1 mile per hour. quite impressive

 

(but, for what it's worth, I am sure that all of the octogenarian mall-walkers of the world will be thrilled to learn that they are athletes)

 

**And before you freak out about a five-hour round, I looked it up and that is about the average time for a PGA round.

And, by the way, I never said Mickelson was a great athlete. The original question in this thread was whether golf should be considered an "athletic event"... I stayed out of this conversation until the debate started on whether or not golf is a sport (which I knew it would, as it always does when these conversations come up). That transition happened on about post #5, so I responded as to why I think golf IS a sport, and see a pretty big flaw in the theory that it's not. Hunting is a sport. Fishing is a sport. If we eliminate everything from the list of sports that can be played or participated in without being athletic, there won't be much left on the list.

 

Edit: Might have been more like post #8.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Gopher

[Gopher]

By the way, I have no problem with people making the argument that Tiger Woods shouldn't be eligible for "Athlete of the Year" awards. After all, if John Daly were the best golfer on tour next year, would he be in the running for best athlete? Tiger is a great golfer who just happens to be in superb physical condition... doesn't necessarily mean much, outside of the world of golf. I have no problem with "Sportsman of the Year" or something along those lines, but can definitely both sides of why he should/shouldn't be considered the best "athlete" on the planet. I happen to think he's probably a pretty good athlete that could hold his own playing most games/sports... but, I would have a hard time giving him a "best athlete" award over somebody like Lebron or Kobe.

[Gopher]

On that note, I'm outta here... It's my 5th wedding anniversary today, and if my wife catches me chatting here with you guys, I'm toast.

 

[bpwallace49]

This is the only guy that can do it all . . . best pure athlete ever

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfK2SujGFRo...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRHgdEd5xWg...feature=related

[Seahawks21]

Not sure where you're getting this information... there's more big young names on tour right now than there has been in 15 years. Many of them are being proclaimed as the next Tiger, or the next this or that... we'll have to see how many of them pan out. But, one thing the PGA has plenty of right now is young superstar-level talent.

 

Kim

McIlroy

Lee

Kaymer

Ishikawa

 

There's a dozen others that I can't think of right now, but that's not even including guys like O'Hair, Watney, Holmes, etc.... guys who have multiple wins on tour in the past couple of years. Kim and Kaymer both also have multiple wins, and they're not yet 25 years old. McIlroy is being touted as the best young player to come out of Europe in 20 years, and the young Japanese phenom, Ishikawa, has brought hoards of media to both the U.S. and Scotland, in Tiger-like proportions.

 

Watson's story this week has more to do with the style of play at the Open... links golf has less to do with distance than any of the other major tournaments. Accuracy is key, and knowing the course (Watson obviously does... he's won there before) is extremely advantageous. I don't care how much preparation Tiger did this week... it can't come close to the experience of having competed at Turnberry in the past. Keeping the ball in play, keeping your composure, and putting well will keep you in the mix... it's not that big of a surprise that a 59-year-old would be able to do those three things. Whether he can sustain it for two more rounds becomes the question... we saw Norman (who's not THAT much younger than Watson) almost pull it off last year. Still, if Watson manages to stay in contention through Sunday, it would be pretty impressive and give the U.S. golf fan contingent a great name to cheer for.

None of the guys you mentioned above have ever been competetive in a major. Those that have, haven't been there more than once. In the past two years we have seen the likes of Westwood, Couples, Love, Norman, Watson, Cabrera, Jiminez, Mediate and especially Kenny Perry consistently in contention in the biggest 6 or 7 tournaments. These guys or guys like them are all over the top of the leaderboard in every single big tournament. Week after week I watch golf on tv, and when the first page of the leaderboard rolls up, I ask "where are all the young guys?" Props to the older crowd, but this simply shouldn't be happening. Truth is, we haven't seen one single young player since Tiger Woods came onto the scene step up and consistently win. Both Villegas and Kim had a decent run at the end of last year and ended up doing NOTHING this year. Rory looks promising, but we can't tell yet.

 

Tiger Woods has literally gone his whole career without really being challenged. Not one single player has come along since him that is worth a darn. Zach Johnson? Paddy? Come on. Sure some of these young kids look like they will be worth something some day, but until they start winning majors, they are no better than Rose, Barnes, Sergio, R. Moore, Tryon, etc. These kids need to grow some balls and win some darn tournaments.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Seahawks21

[tonorator]

let's see where he is on sunday ...

 

i tell you what, that was fun to watch today! how cool would it be if he could pull this off ...

[Gopher]

None of the guys you mentioned above have ever been competetive in a major. Those that have, haven't been there more than once. In the past two years we have seen the likes of Westwood, Couples, Love, Norman, Watson, Cabrera, Jiminez, Mediate and especially Kenny Perry consistently in contention in the biggest 6 or 7 tournaments. These guys or guys like them are all over the top of the leaderboard in every single big tournament. Week after week I watch golf on tv, and when the first page of the leaderboard rolls up, I ask "where are all the young guys?" Props to the older crowd, but this simply shouldn't be happening. Truth is, we haven't seen one single young player since Tiger Woods came onto the scene step up and consistently win. Both Villegas and Kim had a decent run at the end of last year and ended up doing NOTHING this year. Rory looks promising, but we can't tell yet.

 

Tiger Woods has literally gone his whole career without really being challenged. Not one single player has come along since him that is worth a darn. Zach Johnson? Paddy? Come on. Sure some of these young kids look like they will be worth something some day, but until they start winning majors, they are no better than Rose, Barnes, Sergio, R. Moore, Tryon, etc. These kids need to grow some balls and win some darn tournaments.

They have... like I said, there have been a handful of young guys who have multiple wins in the last 18 months... Kim, O'Hair, Holmes, Watney. Martin Kaymer just won two straight on the European tour, and he's 24. The PGA tour right now is deeper than it's ever been. The notion that some young guy is going to come out and win multiple majors, or even one major, is naive... it doesn't happen all that often. Sure, Tiger did it... but Tiger's the kind of player who comes around once every half-century, if that. He's the greatest ever, and despite his struggles in majors this year, there will be no question by the time it's all said and done... he'll have made sure it's unanimous that he's the best there's ever been. So, I don't think it's so much that there's a lack of competition for him, as it is that he's just that much better than the rest.

 

As far as older players dominating majors, that's really not a surprise... there's always at least a couple of older names at or near the top of the leaderboard in these types of tournaments. That simply shows how much experience is a major factor... maybe even more important than talent itself. As far as your list of guys who have dominated majors in the past two years... Love and Couples haven't been consistently competitive in majors for a few years now. Cabrera basically came out of nowhere to win the U.S. Open two years ago... prior to that, he hadn't been a factor. Norman has been competitive in one major in basically the last decade, which was last year's Open. Mediate certainly hasn't been consistently at the top... he had a great U.S. Open last year, and played well the first round this year, but that's it. Kenny Perry, as dominant as he has been over the past 2-3 years, has been a complete non-factor in majors, other than this year's Masters. In fact, that's always been the one knock against him... he's won some nice tournaments, but is nowhere to be found in major championships, with only a couple of exceptions to that in 25 years on tour. The one guy on your list that I do like is Westwood, and he's certainly not "older." He's in his prime, playing the best he's ever played, and has one of the best swings on tour. I expect him to be in contention several more times in majors, over the next half-dozen years.

 

Tiger this week is a perfect example of how hard it is to be consistently at the top in the game of golf. The depth on tour is unquestionable... there are 30-40 guys who can realistically win any tournament, on any given week. That's never been the case before. I'm not going to say that Anthony Kim, McIlroy, or Ishikawa is going to be the next Tiger Woods... only time will tell if they're going to pan out to anything or not. But, there is still a TON of talent on tour right now. Sure, it might not be the same guys every single week, but like I said, that's just a testament to the strength of the fields that the PGA tour is producing. I haven't even mentioned some of the other guys who have won some pretty impressive tournaments... Ogilvy, Stenson, Casey, Johnson, Stricker, etc. There are also a bunch of solid players who have been in contention, but have not yet won anything... Poulter is a good example.

 

It's going to take a couple of years to truly tell how Tiger has come back from his knee injury... right now, I would say he's back, but he's definitely taken a step back from where he once was. Not sure if that's the knee, if he's just simply rusty, if age and general wear and tear are catching up to him, or what. Obviously, his inability to put the ball in the fairway killed him this week. But, as long as he's not quite at the top of his game, it's going to be a dog-fight every week. What we're seeing this week with Watson has 100% to do with the venue, and little to do with a lack of talent in the field. Any tournament on U.S. soil, and there is ZERO chance you would see a 59-year-old in contention after 54 holes. On the other hand, he's playing extremely well right now, with a lot of confidence/composure, and I highly doubt he's just going to fade away on the leaderboard tomorrow. I would expect that it's going to take a very solid round tomorrow for somebody to beat him.

[Gopher]

i tell you what, that was fun to watch today! how cool would it be if he could pull this off ...

That would be amazing... I actually like his chances, just because of how calm and composed he seems. It will be interesting to see how the weather/wind plays out tomorrow. Watson's swing has looked solid all weekend, so I'm not even sure if bad weather would necessarily hurt him at this point. Another guy I'll be cheering for is Stewart Cink... he's got the game to win it, and he's right there, as long as he doesn't make any big mistakes. I also like Westwood and Fisher's chances, moreso than a guy like Goggin, simply because they're very comfortable on the links course. Regardless, I'm guessing some of the pins will be tougher tomorrow, and a final score right around even par (give or take a shot) will probably win it.

[Seahawks21]

Deeper than it has ever been!?!? Deeper than it has ever been!?!??!!

 

WOw!!!!!

 

Tiger and nobody else. How is that deeper than Trevino, Watson, Kite, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Casper, Miller all playing at the same time!?!??!?!!? You gotta be kidding me.

 

You say there are contenders because they are all really good. I say there are a lot of contenders because nobody is great. Nobody has killer instinct. Nobody wins consistently, and they all fall apart under pressure. Every single last one of them except Paddy. It is a whole generation of guys that back-in to victories. Anymore it isn't about winning golf tournament, it is about not losing them.

 

I'm sorry, but these young players simply are so far from being consistent. They will win and then not contend in a single tournament for months. Not even contend.

 

This isn't the strongest PGA ever. It is the weakest and most dilluted that it has ever been. These guys simply aren't winners.

 

Sure, Watney had a great run. Where has he been since? Will we ever hear from him again? How about Glover? How about O'Hair? Two years from now we will never hear from these guys again. You can't tell me that you have been impressed with Anthony Kim this year, or JB, or Bubba, or Ryan Moore, or any of the rest of the folders. They simply haven't won anything. Go to PGA tour.com and look at the tournament winners for this season. Is there a young stud among the group? Are any of the 30 somethings that have won major championship winners? Nobody has the moxie to step up and win consistently. None of them have the backbone to match their talent.

[bpwallace49]

You have a lot more people competing now in golf, and the technology has evened the playing field among average players. I would suggest that with a LOT more quality golfers not only on the tour, but floating around in the smaller tours, occasionally winning their card for a year, t hat the competition for second place behind Tiger has grown.

 

Back in the day how many players were on the tour versus today? Hence more opportunities for other golfers to win.

 

Your killer instinct comment in nonsensical and unsupportable.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

I figured I would get a pretty good reaction from comparing Mickelson to Pujols.

I don't care what anyone says, I'd MUCH rather be able to golf like Phil than play baseball like Pujols. Without a doubt.

[Gopher]

Deeper than it has ever been!?!? Deeper than it has ever been!?!??!!

 

WOw!!!!!

 

Tiger and nobody else. How is that deeper than Trevino, Watson, Kite, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Casper, Miller all playing at the same time!?!??!?!!? You gotta be kidding me.

 

You say there are contenders because they are all really good. I say there are a lot of contenders because nobody is great. Nobody has killer instinct. Nobody wins consistently, and they all fall apart under pressure. Every single last one of them except Paddy. It is a whole generation of guys that back-in to victories. Anymore it isn't about winning golf tournament, it is about not losing them.

 

I'm sorry, but these young players simply are so far from being consistent. They will win and then not contend in a single tournament for months. Not even contend.

 

This isn't the strongest PGA ever. It is the weakest and most dilluted that it has ever been. These guys simply aren't winners.

 

Sure, Watney had a great run. Where has he been since? Will we ever hear from him again? How about Glover? How about O'Hair? Two years from now we will never hear from these guys again. You can't tell me that you have been impressed with Anthony Kim this year, or JB, or Bubba, or Ryan Moore, or any of the rest of the folders. They simply haven't won anything. Go to PGA tour.com and look at the tournament winners for this season. Is there a young stud among the group? Are any of the 30 somethings that have won major championship winners? Nobody has the moxie to step up and win consistently. None of them have the backbone to match their talent.

You're pretty much proving my point without realizing it... the reason Watson, Jack, Arnie, Trevino, and such were always at the top is because the field wasn't nearly as deep back then as it is today. You can disagree with me, but the numbers don't lie. How else do you explain Byron Nelson winning eleven tournaments in a row? That number right there tells me that the group of world-class golfers is constantly getting larger. That would never happen today... even Tiger only wins 1/3 of the events he enters. There may have been better rivalries in golf during the first two thirds of the 20th century, but it's not because there was better talent at the top... it's because there simply weren't that many guys who could compete with the best on any given week. Now, there are far more that can, which is why it's not always the same group of guys every week. Tiger makes the rest of the field look inferior because of how dominant he's been overall. Like I said, the numbers don't lie.

 

As far as backing into winning tournaments, that might have to do with the fact that major championship courses are set up to be more difficult than ever before, as a whole. We can agree to disagree, I guess... but, the bottom line is that the game is completely different than it was 20, 30, 50 years ago... way more talent, more people playing golf worldwide than ever before, better technology, etc.

[Seahawks21]

You have a lot more people competing now in golf, and the technology has evened the playing field among average players. I would suggest that with a LOT more quality golfers not only on the tour, but floating around in the smaller tours, occasionally winning their card for a year, t hat the competition for second place behind Tiger has grown.

 

Back in the day how many players were on the tour versus today? Hence more opportunities for other golfers to win.

 

Your killer instinct comment in nonsensical and unsupportable.

If they have killer instinct, why is the stroke average one full stroke higher anytime Tiger Woods is simply in the field than it is when he isn't? That is nonsensical? No, that is a statistical fact. Look it up.

 

Look at the stats. His presence alone makes them go into the fetal position. This doesn't even take into account how much worse they play when they actually have to play with Tiger. Somebody step up and challenge him!! Bob May and to some extent Ernie Els have beeen the only guys that have ever challenged Tiger, ever. In his whole career. Nobody has stepped up. Not one single guy. Nobody. They are content to let Tiger walk all over them. What's worse, they all get into this "aww shucks' routine in the interview after. Somebody step it up!! Anybody!! Jones had guys that would play well and battle with him. So did Hogan. So did Arnie. So did Jack. Tiger has zero competetion.

 

He breathes, they wilt. He hits a bad shot, opens a door, and they respond by hitting one into the water. They don't hit good shots under pressure, and don't make putts under pressure. Which ever one of the golfers wilts the least ends up winning. You don't see guys make charges on the back down the stretch. That kind of thing simply doesn't happen anymore. There hasn't been a golfer that could consistently win in more than a decade now. It is ridiculous.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Seahawks21

[Seahawks21]

You're pretty much proving my point without realizing it... the reason Watson, Jack, Arnie, Trevino, and such were always at the top is because the field wasn't nearly as deep back then as it is today. You can disagree with me, but the numbers don't lie. How else do you explain Byron Nelson winning eleven tournaments in a row? That number right there tells me that the group of world-class golfers is constantly getting larger. That would never happen today... even Tiger only wins 1/3 of the events he enters. There may have been better rivalries in golf during the first two thirds of the 20th century, but it's not because there was better talent at the top... it's because there simply weren't that many guys who could compete with the best on any given week. Now, there are far more that can, which is why it's not always the same group of guys every week. Tiger makes the rest of the field look inferior because of how dominant he's been overall. Like I said, the numbers don't lie.

 

As far as backing into winning tournaments, that might have to do with the fact that major championship courses are set up to be more difficult than ever before, as a whole. We can agree to disagree, I guess... but, the bottom line is that the game is completely different than it was 20, 30, 50 years ago... way more talent, more people playing golf worldwide than ever before, better technology, etc.

So your theory is that Jack, Watson, Arnie and Trevino weren't great competetors? Those guys did some of the most amazing things ever seen on a golf course! Any one of them would clean up this field in their prime. Any one of those guys. Nick Watney would never won a single tournament in their day. You are talking about gods of the sport!! The best golfers that ever lived! You can't truly believe that. That is what you are basing your argument off of?

 

If the guys today are so good, why are they routinely being beaten by guys that are over the hill??

Edited July 18, 2009 by Seahawks21

[Chargerz]

i tell you what, that was fun to watch today! how cool would it be if he could pull this off ...

+1

[TimC]

Anyone watching Romo choke like it's the playoffs?

[Gopher]

If they have killer instinct, why is the stroke average one full stroke higher anytime Tiger Woods is simply in the field than it is when he isn't? That is nonsensical? No, that is a statistical fact. Look it up.

 

Look at the stats. His presence alone makes them go into the fetal position. This doesn't even take into account how much worse they play when they actually have to play with Tiger. Somebody step up and challenge him!! Bob May and to some extent Ernie Els have beeen the only guys that have ever challenged Tiger, ever. In his whole career. Nobody has stepped up. Not one single guy. Nobody. They are content to let Tiger walk all over them. What's worse, they all get into this "aww shucks' routine in the interview after. Somebody step it up!! Anybody!! Jones had guys that would play well and battle with him. So did Hogan. So did Arnie. So did Jack. Tiger has zero competetion.

 

He breathes, they wilt. He hits a bad shot, opens a door, and they respond by hitting one into the water. They don't hit good shots under pressure, and don't make putts under pressure. Which ever one of the golfers wilts the least ends up winning. You don't see guys make charges on the back down the stretch. That kind of thing simply doesn't happen anymore. There hasn't been a golfer that could consistently win in more than a decade now. It is ridiculous.

Tiger "loses" two out of every three that he plays, so obviously somebody other than Bob May and Ernie has challenged him. I do agree that he has caused many players to "wilt" when they are forced to play him head-to-head. That has been disappointing at times. But, did you ever stop to think that maybe it's the glass half-full instead of half-empty. Instead of nobody being able to seal the deal when neck-and-neck with Tiger, maybe it's just simply that Tiger won't let himself lose when he's in contention.

 

 

So your theory is that Jack, Watson, Arnie and Trevino weren't great competetors? Those guys did some of the most amazing things ever seen on a golf course! Any one of them would clean up this field in their prime. Any one of those guys. Nick Watney would never won a single tournament in their day. You are talking about gods of the sport!! The best golfers that ever lived! You can't truly believe that. That is what you are basing your argument off of?

 

If the guys today are so good, why are they routinely being beaten by guys that are over the hill??

I never once said that those guys weren't great competitors... clearly, they were. They're legends. I simply said the FIELD wasn't as deep back then. Not the top five, or top ten, golfers in the tournament. The entire FIELD. Ask anybody on tour, and they'll agree with that point, so it's really not even worth arguing about. How those guys would fare against today's tour, I don't know. It's impossible to prove, one way or another. I would agree that Jack and Arnie were probably as skilled (or more) than anybody on tour today. But, today's players ARE bigger and stronger than the guys back then, so I think it's like comparing apples and oranges. It's like comparing the '60's Celtics to the '90's Bulls... there's no way to say for sure who would win, but I can tell you that the Bulls were bigger and stronger overall. Does that make them better or take anything away from the Celtics dynasty of 40-50 years ago? No, of course not. But, it's two different eras which are impossible to fairly compare. Same goes for golf.

[Gopher]

So your theory is that Jack, Watson, Arnie and Trevino weren't great competetors? Those guys did some of the most amazing things ever seen on a golf course! Any one of them would clean up this field in their prime. Any one of those guys. Nick Watney would never won a single tournament in their day. You are talking about gods of the sport!! The best golfers that ever lived! You can't truly believe that. That is what you are basing your argument off of?

 

If the guys today are so good, why are they routinely being beaten by guys that are over the hill??

They're not. Please name one "over the hill" golfer to have won on the PGA tour this year. There hasn't been one. The oldest guy to win, I believe, is Perry, and even he will admit that he's playing better now than he was 20 years ago. The guy has hit his prime in his late 40's... I wouldn't say he's over the hill. Watson may be the first tomorrow... but, that hasn't happened yet. And, like I explained earlier, age/strength are basically negated on a links course like the one they're playing this week. That's not to take anything away from Watson... what he's done through three rounds is awesome. But, it's not exactly shocking.

 

I'll give you this... I think we're in agreement that it would be nice to see somebody catch Tiger from behind for once. Maybe that's what you meant to begin with... I just don't think it's fair to say that nobody has ever stood up to him, when half the field beat him fair and square this week.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Gopher

[Hugh B Tool]

 

Let's see......... Mike Jordan and John Elway have both been quoted as saying " Golf is the single hardest sport in the world" Guess they're not athletes either.

[Jackass]

Let's see......... Mike Jordan and John Elway have both been quoted as saying " Golf is the single hardest sport in the world" Guess they're not athletes either.

 

Whether or not they used the term 'sport' is really not relevant.

 

I will say, after watching more golf today than i have in a while, golf requires more mental strength than almost any activity i can think of.

[Bier Meister]

not a sport imo. requires similar athletic ability as pool, darts, bowling, horseshoes, croquet, and tiddily winks. it does require a high amount of skill, and i belive that if one is allready in good physical condition it can help one develop the skills. now... if you have someone out there preventing you from putting that ball in the hole or you make it a timed event we might up it a category or two. have fun with the endeavour, but with no excersion how can it really be a sport? i am pretty passionate about it, but will not go into 30 paragrahs about like some others have.

 

fore!