Tiger Woods
John Rogers
NO question.
(I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
pantheon now.)
John Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"I will choose a path thats clear.
I will choose free will."
stephenj
> The best ever.
>
> NO question.
what if he never wins another major?
--
The Achilles heel of Socialism was the inability to link the socialist goal
with the provision of incentives for efficient labor and the encouragement
of effort on the part of individuals.
- Mikhail Gorbachev
Kokopeli
"John Rogers" <tige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1n1ie2hnl95ln42oo...@4ax.com...
> The best ever.
>
> NO question.
>
> (I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
> pantheon now.)
Well, it still depends on whether he can win those seven majors to move past
Nicklaus. But he's 31, and he probably has 2-3 more years in his prime and
10-12 more where he could be in the running on Sunday. He should have the
seven by the end of the decade.
dw
McMahone
The thing is -- if he brings his "A" game, he wins. I saw Jack play
very well and still lose. I haven't seen that happen to Tiger. Maybe
that says something about the competition level of the time, but still,
in most sports, it has gotten harder to dominate, not easier.
Marty
stephenj
> "John Rogers" <tige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1n1ie2hnl95ln42oo...@4ax.com...
>
>>The best ever.
>>
>>NO question.
>>
>>(I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
>>pantheon now.)
>
>
> Well, it still depends on whether he can win those seven majors to move past
> Nicklaus.
yes, that's implied. if he never wins another major, just about everyone
who says he's "best ever" right now will either fall silent in
embarrassment or else retract.
that said, tiger's the best golfer i've ever seen, which is different
from being 'greatest' (depends on actual accomplishments).
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
Jim Bush
<mmcm...@umhb.edu>, but he couldn't help me either:
I think the people who talk about how the money has hurt competitive
golf are right. Back in the day, the difference between the first and
second place check was enough to make guys like Player and Trevino
fight that little bit harder to beat Nicklaus.
Now, the money is so freaking humongous for the top 30-40 players that
they don't need to challenge Tiger to cash a big check. Tiger's got
an edge in focus/concentration that other guys can't seem to maintain.
Didn't Tiger just turn 30? If he keeps taking care of his body like
he has, he will continue to dominate for the next ten years.
Jim B.
John Rogers
opinion man.
>John Rogers wrote:
>> The best ever.
>>
>> NO question.
>
>what if he never wins another major?
Well, if that happens I hope he RIP.
SG
"Jim Bush" <jim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m64ie2lub7m31ht8d...@4ax.com...
dingdingding, Jack's first win was worth a whopping $33.33
http://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/014
The Grand Beckoning
wrote:
>The best ever.
>
>NO question.
>
>(I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
>pantheon now.)
>
I put him in the "Peyton Manning" category: he had an unfair
advantage with his father being there training him since birth.
There's something twisted about the "stagemother" life.
Bill Lang
misery?
> The best ever.
>
> NO question.
>
> (I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
> pantheon now.)
>
>
I remember going into work after watching the Friday round of the
British and telling my boss that Tiger's got his head back on
straight and everyone else should just mail it in.
I felt bad for him trying to play the US Open. You could see he
wasn't all there. Now, dude's going on a roll. He'll have Jack's
majors tied before his 35th birthday.
--
wjlmuttatyeahwhodotcom
"Is that Peter f%&$#*@ Frampton?"
Kokopeli
"stephenj" <sj...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xl8Gg.17463$PO.3574@dukeread03...
> Kokopeli wrote:
>> "John Rogers" <tige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1n1ie2hnl95ln42oo...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>The best ever.
>>>
>>>NO question.
>>>
>>>(I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
>>>pantheon now.)
>>
>>
>> Well, it still depends on whether he can win those seven majors to move
>> past Nicklaus.
>
> yes, that's implied. if he never wins another major, just about everyone
> who says he's "best ever" right now will either fall silent in
> embarrassment or else retract.
Except, honestly, it's going to take something disastrous for him not to win
those last seven. Or a super-golfer better than him emerging.
It's possible that he will never win another major, but I don't think it's
something I would put money on.
I would bet on the field for the 2007 PGA, though. He's never been able to
solve Southern Hills. Ever. He's never even finished in the top 10 in a
Southern Hills hosted event.
dw
Kokopeli
You think it's bad now? Wait until the FedEx Cup crap starts next year. At
least the PGA is smart enough to have a seperate tournament structure for
the qualifying golfers vs. SMASHCAR's "let's just hold the Chase in regular
races with the Top 10 getting knocked around by the rabble" stupidity.
Still, it's just a money grab.
dw
Bill Lang
misery?
> I asked Bobby Dylan, I asked the Beatles, I asked "McMahone"
Agreed, the money has changed the game. I can't remember the
details, but I read some thing about if a golfer just shot par on
every hole in every tournament, he would clear some ungodly amount
of cash on the Tour.
But in this case, we're talking about the Majors. Money is just
an afterthought when it comes to the majors. Those championships
are about pride and immortality.
Okay, maybe not so much with the PGA, but the other 3 for certain.
Charles Beauchamp
> John Rogers wrote:
>> The best ever.
>>
>> NO question.
>
> what if he never wins another major?
He has modified his game and now has won a major after the biggest shock of
his life. If he never wins another major it probably means a tragic early
death. Can't see it otherwise. He is the most dominant major athlete in
the world right now. A Grand Slam is not out of the question sometime. As
it stands right now he is going to blow past Jack in both majors and career
wins. The career PGA tour record for tournament wins is 82 by Sam Snead.
Tiger has 51 wins now all in the last 10 years. He will break all of those
records as long as he remains interested in doing so. By all accounts I've
seen he really wants to make a run at the record for majors. I wouldn't bet
against him right now.
--
v/r Beau
stephenj
> "stephenj" <sj...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Xl8Gg.17463$PO.3574@dukeread03...
>
>>Kokopeli wrote:
>>
>>>"John Rogers" <tige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1n1ie2hnl95ln42oo...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The best ever.
>>>>
>>>>NO question.
>>>>
>>>>(I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
>>>>pantheon now.)
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, it still depends on whether he can win those seven majors to move
>>>past Nicklaus.
>>
>>yes, that's implied. if he never wins another major, just about everyone
>>who says he's "best ever" right now will either fall silent in
>>embarrassment or else retract.
>
>
> Except, honestly, it's going to take something disastrous for him not to win
> those last seven. Or a super-golfer better than him emerging.
imagine it's september 1980, and jack has just won 2 of that year's
majors. how much money could i have made if i had bet that he wouldn't
win any in the next 5 calendar years? or if, in september 1983, after
watson had just won his 3rd british open in the past 4 years, i had bet
that not only would he never win another british, but never another
major of any kind? or in 1963 had bet that arnold palmer, who had won 6
majors in the past 4 years including 2 in 1962, would win only 1 more
the rest of his career? lots.
usually, top champs don't gradually stop winning majors. they tend to
fall off a cliff. one minute they are on top of the world, and then ...
granted, tiger doesn't look to be doing anything but winning majors for
as far as the eye can see, but those other greats did too in their day.
my point is that the next major can never be taken for granted, and i
doubt that tiger does. he's still *6* majors, the equivalent of nick
faldo's entire career and almost the equivalent of palmer's away from
tying jack. that's a long way away.
rich hammett
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
> Kokopeli wrote:
>> "John Rogers" <tige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1n1ie2hnl95ln42oo...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>The best ever.
>>>
>>>NO question.
>>>
>>>(I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
>>>pantheon now.)
>>
>>
>> Well, it still depends on whether he can win those seven majors to move past
>> Nicklaus.
> yes, that's implied. if he never wins another major, just about everyone
> who says he's "best ever" right now will either fall silent in
> embarrassment or else retract.
I wouldn't. He's clearly the best ever. The man can dominate
the field anytime he's got his A game, and he can contend when
he's only got his B game.
> that said, tiger's the best golfer i've ever seen, which is different
> from being 'greatest' (depends on actual accomplishments).
You have really bizarre definitions.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
rich hammett
And yet, you like Prez Bush. Go figure.
mianderson
stephenj wrote:
> >
> > Except, honestly, it's going to take something disastrous for him not to win
> > those last seven. Or a super-golfer better than him emerging.
>
> imagine it's september 1980, and jack has just won 2 of that year's
> majors. how much money could i have made if i had bet that he wouldn't
> win any in the next 5 calendar years?
in sept 1980 jack was 10 years older than tiger is now jaros.....Jack
won 1 major after ~40....I wouldn't be shocked if tiger only wins one
major after 40. But in the next ten years, I think he has a good
chance to get 6+.
Kokopeli
>> Except, honestly, it's going to take something disastrous for him not to
>> win those last seven. Or a super-golfer better than him emerging.
>
> imagine it's september 1980, and jack has just won 2 of that year's
> majors. how much money could i have made if i had bet that he wouldn't win
> any in the next 5 calendar years?
Nickalus was 40 in 1980. He was 30 in 1970; he'd won 7 majors by then and
would win 11 more. Tiger is 30 and has 12 majors.
or if, in september 1983, after
> watson had just won his 3rd british open in the past 4 years, i had bet
> that not only would he never win another british, but never another major
> of any kind?
He won those three Opens at 31, 33, and 34. Tiger, again, is 30.
or in 1963 had bet that arnold palmer, who had won 6
> majors in the past 4 years including 2 in 1962, would win only 1 more the
> rest of his career? lots.
He was 33 in 1962. Tiger, yet again, is 30.
> usually, top champs don't gradually stop winning majors. they tend to fall
> off a cliff. one minute they are on top of the world, and then ...
Yes, but in their mid-30s. Even then, Nicklaus won three majors after he
turned 40.
Did you notice that every single person you pointed to had their career peak
between 29-34? It may surprise you, but that's the case with most pro
golfers -- they peak right around 30, but then still have a number of
quality years after that. Tiger is 30.
> my point is that the next major can never be taken for granted, and i
> doubt that tiger does. he's still *6* majors, the equivalent of nick
> faldo's entire career and almost the equivalent of palmer's away from
> tying jack. that's a long way away.
Tiger is 30. There's a chance he will decline next year, but at the same
time, he's at his peak and will be for the next few years. When he's played
at his best, he's won two majors a year, and he has four more years until he
hits 34, when Watson fell off the cliff and Palmer hit his dry patch. And
Nicklaus won that 18th and final major at 46.
Could Tiger never win another major? Of course. How likely is it? As likely
as you picking up your clubs and winning a major. The Masters is only 8
months away.
Will Tiger catch Jack? Maybe. It's more likely he won't catch Jack than win
another major, though.
dw
Tonawanda Kardex
John Rogers wrote:
> The best ever.
>
> NO question.
>
> (I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
> pantheon now.)
This is an asinine statement, for THREE reasons:
1) Jack did it better and for longer, as evidenced by his consistency
and greatness over a longer period of time;
2) He did it against better competition, as his contemporaries have won
a boatload more majors than Tiger's have;
3) Jack was in major battles more than Tiger ever has been, with 46 Top
3 finishes in majors. Tiger can't even sneeze anywhere near that
number.
Stop believing ESPN's sycophantic hype, mmm 'kay?
Onyx_Hokie
[ Tonawanda Kardex | tonawan...@gmail.com ]
[ <1156175927.1...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ]
:2) He did it against better competition, as his contemporaries have won
:a boatload more majors than Tiger's have;
This is the ridiculous argument made most often that gets me really
laughing at those desperate to defame current golfers. Tiger's
contemporaries look weaker by comparison... because they're competing
against Tiger.
The man has one 25% of the tournaments he's entered over the entire span
of his career. That's just plain mind-boggling... it's preposterous.
Skillwise, Nicklaus at his best can't carry Tiger's bag.
In terms of accomplishments, Tiger's got some catching up to do.
rastafar...@yahoo.com
In fact, golfers tend to enjoy the most success in the 10 years from
30-40. The peak is closer to 40 than to 30. While I haven't
rigorously proved it yet, looking at people like Nicklaus, Watson,
Player, Trevino, and Norman, they played their best golf over this 10
year span. The difference with Nicklaus is that he also played at a
comparable level from 20-30. (and then played nearly as well from
40-46). Most don't hit their stride until well into their 20's. Since
Woods is 30 right now, the next 10 years will determine his place in
history. Until then, the jury is out, but he has a great start and is
better at 30 than Nicklaus was at 30 relative to his peers.
Regards
stephenj
> Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
> olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
>
>>Kokopeli wrote:
>>
>>>"John Rogers" <tige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1n1ie2hnl95ln42oo...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The best ever.
>>>>
>>>>NO question.
>>>>
>>>>(I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
>>>>pantheon now.)
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, it still depends on whether he can win those seven majors to move past
>>>Nicklaus.
>
>
>>yes, that's implied. if he never wins another major, just about everyone
>>who says he's "best ever" right now will either fall silent in
>>embarrassment or else retract.
>
>
> I wouldn't. He's clearly the best ever. The man can dominate
> the field anytime he's got his A game, and he can contend when
> he's only got his B game.
>
>
>>that said, tiger's the best golfer i've ever seen, which is different
>>from being 'greatest' (depends on actual accomplishments).
>
>
> You have really bizarre definitions.
no, to anyone who understands sports the difference is sensible and
crystal clear.
stephenj
> stephenj wrote:
>
>>>Except, honestly, it's going to take something disastrous for him not to win
>>>those last seven. Or a super-golfer better than him emerging.
>>
>>imagine it's september 1980, and jack has just won 2 of that year's
>>majors. how much money could i have made if i had bet that he wouldn't
>>win any in the next 5 calendar years?
>
>
> in sept 1980 jack was 10 years older than tiger is now jaros.
meaningless. i'd have won tons of money on that bet.
stephenj
> "stephenj" <sj...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>my point is that the next major can never be taken for granted, and i
>>doubt that tiger does. he's still *6* majors, the equivalent of nick
>>faldo's entire career and almost the equivalent of palmer's away from
>>tying jack. that's a long way away.
> Tiger is 30. There's a chance he will decline next year, but at the same
> time, he's at his peak and will be for the next few years. When he's played
> at his best, he's won two majors a year, and he has four more years until he
> hits 34, when Watson fell off the cliff and Palmer hit his dry patch. And
> Nicklaus won that 18th and final major at 46.
>
> Could Tiger never win another major? Of course. How likely is it?
not likely, but how likely is it he won't win 6 more? not so not likely.
rich hammett
Is this a Chuck Long post?
Charles Beauchamp
You are right obviously in that there are no guarantees..but...in the cases
above there was serious competition. Jack as great as he was, always had a
serious rival. The 2 best other guys out on the PGA tour right now I
suppose are Vijay and Phil. And neither is anywhere near Tiger's league.
He is so far above every other competitor that it really is only ever a
question of whether or not he is on his game. If he is..he wins basically
100% of the time. That is unprecedented in modern times. I feel weird
doing all this talking about freaking golf. If anything that is the
strongest testemony to Tiger Woods....he has actual real sports fans talking
about stupid golf. Jack never did that.
--
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
Yet Tiger is blowing out everyone in a way perhaps because he really is the
greatest. Jack was great, but he didn't drive as far as Tiger..didn't
maintain his composure under pressure as often or frankly win nearly as
much. It is very possible that Tiger will win 100 PGA events if he keeps
rolling them out like he has been. Majors? Heck 2 a year til 35 maybe?
More then 20 for his career? The sky is the limit.
And then of course Michelle Wie will come along and beat all his records <G>
--
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
> rich hammett wrote:
>> Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
>> olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, stephenj:
>>
>>> Kokopeli wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John Rogers" <tige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1n1ie2hnl95ln42oo...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The best ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> NO question.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
>>>>> pantheon now.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it still depends on whether he can win those seven majors to
>>>> move past Nicklaus.
>>
>>
>>> yes, that's implied. if he never wins another major, just about
>>> everyone who says he's "best ever" right now will either fall
>>> silent in embarrassment or else retract.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't. He's clearly the best ever. The man can dominate
>> the field anytime he's got his A game, and he can contend when
>> he's only got his B game.
>>
>>
>>> that said, tiger's the best golfer i've ever seen, which is
>>> different from being 'greatest' (depends on actual accomplishments).
>>
>>
>> You have really bizarre definitions.
>
> no, to anyone who understands sports the difference is sensible and
> crystal clear.
Indeed. It is all subjective opinion and in many cases inconsistent.
For example...you on the one hand have claimed that Cal Ripken's 3,000 hits
is great even though his batting average suggests it was the result more of
playing a ton of games then of consistent excellence. In a word you said
that to get 3,000 hits you have to be a great hitter. On the flip side
Warren Moon whose statistical accomplishments are much higher on the charts
the Ripken's you ripped as being just the result of longevity. Just
something to think about.
--
v/r Beau
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> And then of course Michelle Wie will come along and beat all his records <G>
Yeah, I don't think Tiger will ever will an LPGA event...Michelle still
has a chance.
stephenj
> Warren Moon whose statistical accomplishments are much higher on the charts
> the Ripken's you ripped as being just the result of longevity. Just
> something to think about.
no, not 'just' the result of longevity. you and i could spend 17 yrs on
an NFL roster and never complete a pass. the issue was whether moon
merited HoF inclusion.
Tonawanda Kardex
Time will tell ... but blowing out the competition says more about them
than you. Especially when the competition lacks a certain pedigree.
Hence, the facts that Jack's contemporaries were significantly better
than Tiger's.
> And then of course Michelle Wie will come along and beat all his records <G>
Talk about HYPE.
rich hammett
> A most logial retort, lacking the childish ad hominems of others on
> this group hell-bent with insecurity.
> Time will tell ... but blowing out the competition says more about them
> than you. Especially when the competition lacks a certain pedigree.
Did you mean to say "pedigree"?
The competition is better now, athletically, than in Jack's time.
> Hence, the facts that Jack's contemporaries were significantly better
> than Tiger's.
No, you are wrong.
Tonawanda Kardex
Yes. Modern golfers aren't as good as older era golfers.
> The competition is better now, athletically, than in Jack's time.
Irrelevant. This is the same rational that would have the 2004 San
Francisco 49ers beating the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Which is the better
team?
I mean, by this measure, some stiff like Harrison Frazar is better than
Bobby Jones. That isn't accurate.
> > Hence, the facts that Jack's contemporaries were significantly better
> > than Tiger's.
>
> No, you are wrong.
R-i-i-i-ght. Because Ernie Els is better than Arnold Palmer? Mickelson
is better than Tom Watson? When Jack's primary rivals won 29 majors in
their careers, and Tiger's primary rivals have won only 11 -- with NO
chance of getting to 29, whether Tiger is playing or not -- it's clear
Jack's contemporaries were better in their time than Tiger's peers are
in theirs.
Tiger doesn't win every major, although he probably should considering
the stiffs he plays against. If any of these guys had the ability or
balls of a Watson, a Palmer, a Trevino, or a Player, they'd never have
let him win the last two majors when he wasn't in top form. But
instead, the softies that they are bent over, and guys like DiMarco
(who?!) and Donald (who?!) are the ones who put up the "best" fight.
Seriously -- it shocks me people can be so era-centric here, but it
happens all the time. "Anything that happens now is better than
anything that came before!" Wake up -- learn a little history,
perspective, reality and objectivity, and grasp the truth: Tiger is a
pretender to Jack's throne, like Pete Sampras is a pretender to the
tennis throne, etc.
rich hammett
I think you need to look up the word.
>> The competition is better now, athletically, than in Jack's time.
> Irrelevant. This is the same rational that would have the 2004 San
> Francisco 49ers beating the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Which is the better
> team?
> I mean, by this measure, some stiff like Harrison Frazar is better than
> Bobby Jones. That isn't accurate.
Why not? Because it's cool to talk about the old timers? What
objective criteria are you using?
> Seriously -- it shocks me people can be so era-centric here, but it
> happens all the time. "Anything that happens now is better than
> anything that came before!" Wake up -- learn a little history,
> perspective, reality and objectivity, and grasp the truth: Tiger is a
> pretender to Jack's throne, like Pete Sampras is a pretender to the
> tennis throne, etc.
You mean, it's shocking how much old fogies will whine about the
good old days.
Tonawanda Kardex
rich hammett wrote:
> >> >> Yet Tiger is blowing out everyone in a way perhaps because he really is the
> >> >> greatest. Jack was great, but he didn't drive as far as Tiger..didn't
> >> >> maintain his composure under pressure as often or frankly win nearly as
> >> >> much. It is very possible that Tiger will win 100 PGA events if he keeps
> >> >> rolling them out like he has been. Majors? Heck 2 a year til 35 maybe?
> >> >> More then 20 for his career? The sky is the limit.
> >>
> >> > A most logial retort, lacking the childish ad hominems of others on
> >> > this group hell-bent with insecurity.
> >>
> >> > Time will tell ... but blowing out the competition says more about them
> >> > than you. Especially when the competition lacks a certain pedigree.
> >>
> >> Did you mean to say "pedigree"?
>
> > Yes. Modern golfers aren't as good as older era golfers.
>
> I think you need to look up the word.
Dude, I'm an English professor: "the origin and the history of
something" -- words have more meanings than the topical, common ones.
If you don't get the reference, and if you don't get the pun, that's
not my problem. It's Slick's.
> >> The competition is better now, athletically, than in Jack's time.
>
> > Irrelevant. This is the same rational that would have the 2004 San
> > Francisco 49ers beating the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Which is the better
> > team?
>
> > I mean, by this measure, some stiff like Harrison Frazar is better than
> > Bobby Jones. That isn't accurate.
>
> Why not? Because it's cool to talk about the old timers? What
> objective criteria are you using?
Are you seriously asking this question? Or is this just bate? If so, it
stinketh the most.
> > Seriously -- it shocks me people can be so era-centric here, but it
> > happens all the time. "Anything that happens now is better than
> > anything that came before!" Wake up -- learn a little history,
> > perspective, reality and objectivity, and grasp the truth: Tiger is a
> > pretender to Jack's throne, like Pete Sampras is a pretender to the
> > tennis throne, etc.
>
> You mean, it's shocking how much old fogies will whine about the
> good old days.
I'm not even an old fogey -- I'm just someone who knows and respects
history. After all, you can learn from it. If you don't, you're
destined to repeat its problems.
Duh.
Tonawanda Kardex
John Rogers wrote:
> The best ever.
>
> NO question.
>
> (I love ya, Jack... but even you know that you're second in the
> pantheon now.)
You know, we haven't even discussed Tiger's lackluster Ryder Cup
results.
Sorry, but Jack will always be better than el Tigre.
John Rogers
like... your opinion man.
I love it when Aubrun grads go all intelligent on someone's ass.
Hey, Rich... how many independent study sociology courses did YOU
take? HAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
John Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"I will choose a path thats clear.
I will choose free will."
Charles Beauchamp
At the same points in their careers Jack's contemporaries looked no better
then Tiger's.
> Seriously -- it shocks me people can be so era-centric here, but it
> happens all the time. "Anything that happens now is better than
> anything that came before!" Wake up -- learn a little history,
> perspective, reality and objectivity, and grasp the truth: Tiger is a
> pretender to Jack's throne, like Pete Sampras is a pretender to the
> tennis throne, etc.
Pete Sampras is the 2nd best male tennis player of all time behind Rod
Laver. And it is pretty damned close.
--
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
Yes..just as the argument was kinda sorta about whether or not Ripken is the
greatest something or other (actually last time it came up was when I was
pointing out that Barry Larkin was a better hitter then Ripken and Slick
nearly atomized.)
--
v/r Beau
rich hammett
I took a half-dozen or so in electrical engineering. Pretty
much the same thing.
stephenj
the answer would depend on what one was claiming ripken was the
'greatest' at (greatest hitter of all time? no. greatest orioles SS of
all time? yes). just as answers about moon depend on what's being asked
(deserve the HoF under a strict standard i described? no. deserve to be
called one of the 10 best QBs of the mid-80s thru mid-90s? yes).
Tonawanda Kardex
Dude couldn't win on clay -- he was Agassi's inferior, despite all the
GSs.
Charles Beauchamp
Clay is a specialty that is almost pointless except for one tournament a
year. Sampras dominated Agassi head to head. Sampras' career records dwarf
Agassi's. Sampras wins most Grand Slams 14-8. Sampras has more total
tournament wins 64-60. Sampras did this all with 140 fewer total matches.
It isn't close. Sampras was superior to Agassi nearly in the way that Tiger
Woods is superior to Phil Mickelson.
--
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
Your comment about your inconsistent comments is inconsistent. One cannot
rationally even call Ripken a Hall of Famer based on statistics and then say
Moon is not since Moon is ranked way higher statistically in his specialty
then Ripken was. Ripken is to the 3,000 hit club what Vinny Testaverde is
to the 40,000 yard passing club....which is my point since you were the one
that claimed that Ripken was a great hitter because of 3,000 hits despite
the reality that he did it with an awful lot of bad hitting to get there
with such a mediocre batting average. Moon is in the top 5 in passing
yardage, touchdowns and completions...with a solid efficiency rating (which
btw..you are also inconsistent about. You have bagged on efficiency rating
as any kind of measure in the past..but decided it mattered when defending
Kurt Warner). A measure is either relevant or it is not.
--
v/r Beau
Tonawanda Kardex
Yeah, but Sampras couldn't win on a major surface. It is like Tom
Watson never winning the PGA.
No sale.
Charles Beauchamp
Ya but he could he just didn't win that particular "major" tournament. He
nevertheless blew Agassi away in every other category including head to
head.
--
v/r Beau
Tonawanda Kardex
Perhaps, but he couldn't win the French Open -- which will always DQ
him from ANY discussion of being 'the best ever'.
Tonawanda Kardex
Jack still the GOAT, and Sampras' record went down, too.
WIN.
