You are who you THINK you are...

Status
Not open for further replies.
trickyric67

trickyric67

New
Ali was way better than Tyson. Ali faced the best every time and had rematch's. Ali fought every single #1 contender in his era (also known as the golden era of boxing). He had 37 knockouts and this with his hiatus during the Vietnam war.
Tyson fought has-beens and marshmallows. He fought a very old Larry Holmes and Ken Norton who Ali fought 13 years earlier. Lastly there were no Buster Douglas's in Ali's prime.
Tiger Woods has had the greatest run in golf history and even in this his worst year by far he has 2 top fives in majors is 85 on the money list with only 8 events played and his personal life in shambles.
He will be back.
Just my opinion though.
 
D

dbl

New
What do you mean by worst year? There might be some debate. He had majorless years in 1998, 2003 and 2004. 2004 he lost his OWGR #1 amid one victory, and in 98 he had but one victory also. In 98 and 04 he was not POY nor Vardon trophy winner. Many people remember 98 as a year of transition as he was undergoing swing changes.
 
Richie3Jack

Richie3Jack

New
trickyric67 said:
Ali was way better than Tyson. Ali faced the best every time and had rematch's. Ali fought every single #1 contender in his era (also known as the golden era of boxing). He had 37 knockouts and this with his hiatus during the Vietnam war.
Tyson fought has-beens and marshmallows. He fought a very old Larry Holmes and Ken Norton who Ali fought 13 years earlier. Lastly there were no Buster Douglas's in Ali's prime.
Tiger Woods has had the greatest run in golf history and even in this his worst year by far he has 2 top fives in majors is 85 on the money list with only 8 events played and his personal life in shambles.
He will be back.
Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody questions that Ali was better than Tyson. But as far as dominating, when Tyson was in his prime, he mowed over guys and it was never even close. Although I think Foreman was more dominant than either of them.





3JACK
 
mgranato

mgranato

New
Yeah, who's this straw man fella saying Tyson was better than Ali or Clay?

My perspective is dominating does not always equal best.

Hard to argue that Wilt was not the most dominating, but I don't consider him the best baller.

Although, according to some sources, it seemed Tiger took the "rope-a-dope" literally.
 
B

Bigwill

New
mgranato said:
Yeah, who's this straw man fella saying Tyson was better than Ali or Clay?

My perspective is dominating does not always equal best.

Hard to argue that Wilt was not the most dominating, but I don't consider him the best baller.
Click to expand...

I agree with Rich and mg. The most dominating and the G.O.A.T. are not necessarily the same thing.
 
Richie3Jack

Richie3Jack

New
Look at Johnny Miller. There was a period where he absolutely destroyed the competition. He's an HoF'er in my mind and also one of the greatest ballstrikers ever, but nowhere near the G.O.A.T





3JACK
 
trickyric67

trickyric67

New
I just don't consider Tyson to have been dominating. He was a media creation that excemplifies the corruption of boxing at that time. He beat Michael Spinks (a weak champion in comparison to others)and then fought hand picked fights against weak fighters that shouldn't have been fighting for the title. When he did fight real contenders he lost. To me that is not dominating. That is hype. Now sugar Ray Leanord or Marvin Hagler dominated their divisions and even stepped up to fight in heavier divisions to get to fight the best! thats dominating.
Also Ali's 37 knockouts against top contenders is very dominating also. you have heard and remember the names of the guys he fought.
thats all I'm sayin.
 
duckjr78

duckjr78

New
aaron_lohan said:
Looking at his long game his swing hasn't changed an awful lot despite him claiming to have put a lot of work in with a variety of instructors.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you think the fact that his swing hasn't changed much to your eye is an indicator of his lack of work ethic.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think are some other career paths where you can reach #2 in the world with a poor work ethic, as I would like to try to get into them.
 
birdie_man

birdie_man

New
Phil has arthritis!

Good luck Phil...!

Boo Tiger!

(though I hope he does OK, life-wise and sometimes golf-wise :D)

(not sure I would ever wish anyone to fall off the Earth...)
 
J

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
trickyric67 said:
I just don't consider Tyson to have been dominating. He was a media creation that excemplifies the corruption of boxing at that time. He beat Michael Spinks (a weak champion in comparison to others)and then fought hand picked fights against weak fighters that shouldn't have been fighting for the title. When he did fight real contenders he lost. To me that is not dominating. That is hype. Now sugar Ray Leanord or Marvin Hagler dominated their divisions and even stepped up to fight in heavier divisions to get to fight the best! thats dominating.
Also Ali's 37 knockouts against top contenders is very dominating also. you have heard and remember the names of the guys he fought.
thats all I'm sayin.
Click to expand...

While i agree with most of this, you cannot discount tyson's power or speed. I mean, even in slow motion a lot of his massive knockout uppercuts almost looked real time. So did he always face big time opponents? No, but never the less he was some kind of freak.
 
trickyric67

trickyric67

New
JK,
the guy was a jack Hammer no doubt! He hit like a truck but he didn't take getting hit very well. He might even try to bite your ear off :D
 
A

aaron_lohan

New
duckjr78 said:
I'm sorry that you think the fact that his swing hasn't changed much to your eye is an indicator of his lack of work ethic.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think are some other career paths where you can reach #2 in the world with a poor work ethic, as I would like to try to get into them.
Click to expand...

Its relative his work ethic, relative to the top guys his is far less.
 
mgranato

mgranato

New
How could you possibly know the work ethic (the amount of hours spent on golf) of the top 50 players in the last 15 years to know where he ranks?

If the goal behind having a "top" work ethic is to be a successful player - is there any golfer in the past 15 years (not named Tiger) who would not switch their record for his in a heart beat.

Phil's decision making is the biggest thing that has kept him from a few more wins - not his lack of reps. Regardless, he'd still be considered the second best player of his generation.

Thank goodness there is still a gambler with a U.S. passport, though. The rest of his U.S. age group make watching golf tough sometimes. I love watching someone, playing with tons of house money, willing to go all in. I could care less about how many practice balls someone hits, I'm just a big fan of guys who try to win rather than guys who try not to lose.
 
ZAP

ZAP

New
I have to agree with Phil being exciting to watch. Personally I like the fact that he sometimes plays "outside the box" golf. I would not even play golf if I had to make the "percentage play" all the time. Never have I heard a story about a great lay up.
 
D

DCgolf

New
I agree with Brian here. This is a bump in the road and I cant believe all the Tiger naysayers in this site. Youth is my guess as to why. For 13 years we have been witness to the best golf anyone has ever seen. Writing someone off after one bad year reeks of deeper issues with the guy than his game.
 
self-mastery

self-mastery

New
DCgolf said:
I agree with Brian here. This is a bump in the road and I cant believe all the Tiger naysayers in this site. Youth is my guess as to why. For 13 years we have been witness to the best golf anyone has ever seen. Writing someone off after one bad year reeks of deeper issues with the guy than his game.
Click to expand...

The top guy is always hated.

Sheeple prefer the false humility of Lefty than the dirty mouth, and womanizing ways of Mr. Woods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top