Tiger Woods comeback...

[Gregg]

Tiger Woods will be attempting a comeback starting tomorrow.

Do you have any interest in it? Will you be rooting or hoping for a fail?

Maybe you don't care at all?

[TranaGreg]

yeah, some curiosity ... he stated that it's the first time in many years that he's pain free; if so I'm sure he'll show off some prodigious drives but it will be interesting to see if he can regain his touch

[Mithrandir]

I was a huge fan of Woods. I would like to see him regain his form well enough to be competitive again.

[baldgriff]

Meh........

[Mithrandir]

http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/stats-incredible-tigers-40-greatest-numerical-records/

From the article:

"It may take decades, but someday, people will look at Tiger’s prime years as possibly the most dominant, relatively speaking, by any one athlete in the history of sports. "

During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59.

[Hornsby]

Could. Not. Possibly. Care. Less.

[Sour Masher]

http://www.golfchannel.com/article/g...rical-records/

From the article:

"It may take decades, but someday, people will look at Tiger’s prime years as possibly the most dominant, relatively speaking, by any one athlete in the history of sports. "

During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59.

I'll dispute that, but only because I don't consider golf a sport, or golfers athletes. But other than that, I'd agree .

[DMT]

I'll dispute that, but only because I don't consider golf a sport, or golfers athletes. But other than that, I'd agree .

Agreed, no chance a golfer can be considered the greatest athlete of all-time. Serena Williams is the greatest athlete of all-time IMO.

[Mithrandir]

Yeah. Golf isnt a sport and golfers aren't athletes. Because golf is so easy. Hahahaha

[Ken]

I'll dispute that, but only because I don't consider golf a sport, or golfers athletes. But other than that, I'd agree .

I've heard the Nascar argument, but under what definition would golf not be considered a sport?

[Sour Masher]

Yeah. Golf isnt a sport and golfers aren't athletes. Because golf is so easy. Hahahaha

There are many hard things that are not sports, and there are many hard activities that are not athletic, so your logic is flawed.

[Sour Masher]

I've heard the Nascar argument, but under what definition would golf not be considered a sport?

I don't want to die on this hill, because I concede this debate is founded on the admittedly blurred boundaries of the definitions of sports vs games/recreational activities (some sources define sports as "games that require athletic excellence", and I tend to agree with those definitions, but they are not universal). Personally, I think of sports as involving athletic excellence and rigorous physical activity, and while golf does have athletic people playing it (like Tiger), it does not require exceptional athleticism. I put it in the same category as bowling. I don't care how good at the game Don Carter was as a bowler, considering him one of the greatest athletes of all time is absurd to me. Tiger was exceptionally fit for a golfer, I concede, but there are buff bowlers, I am sure. That doesn't make bowling a sport, or bowlers athletes, in my mind. To me, golf is a game. A game that requires precision and skill, but not a high level of strength or agility or overall fitness. The one physically taxing thing done in golf is hitting the shot. I concede that it is similar to a hitter hitting a baseball, but the differences are 1. I don't consider DHes who don't or can't field true athletes, and 2. Swinging many times in a row like an AB is different from swing once at a golf ball and then walking a long way to swinging once again.

But really, definitional debates don't matter much. A lot of people watch and admire golfers. Tiger was clearly the most dominant golfer ever for a long stretch. There is no denying his dominance. He was better at golf (whatever you want to label it as) than almost anyone has ever been better at anything. It's just, where is the line for "sport," and how do you draw that line? If you agree that it must involve a high level of athletic prowess, you may simply disagree about how much athleticism it takes to play golf (and in calling Tiger the greatest athlete or most dominant athlete of all time, those who make that claim are clearly making the claim that golf is a highly athletic activity).

Edit: I'll go ahead an concede that there may be inconsistency in my stance, because I do consider baseball a sport, and Cecil Fielder and David Wells appear to be no more athletic than John Daly. I would argue they may be as fat, but they were more athletic, and baseball requires greater athleticism, in general, in my mind than golf, especially players that are good fielders. I also think a case could be made that no matter what a great hitter Cecil or Prince Fielder was, no one would ever put them on a list of greatest athletes. I would not quibble, therefore, in calling Tiger the greatest golfer of all time, but I cannot bring myself to think of him as the most dominant "athlete" of all time, because his stength, speed, and agility wouldn't even put him in the top 1000 for most activities I consider sports.

Edit 2: I guess my thinking is all kinds of fuzzy on it, because while I'd call Larry Bird one of the greatest basketball players of all time (an activities I agree is a sport), I'd never call him one of the greatest athletes of all time. He was great at his sport despite less than stellar athleticism. So, I guess my main quibble is with calling Tiger the most dominant athlete ever more so than calling golf a sport, although I have issues with both claims.