Ironslave's top 10 greatest athletes ever

[Skeptic]

its not about whose better than who blah blah, its about how they dominated in their sport. the fact that shes female doesnt mean the domination she had is any less than the domination of guy. you're comparing totally different sports. and im pretty sure youve had arguments with people (tim i think it was??) about the same thing you're talking about

 

[Ironslave]

lol i know i mispoke the first time i said that. i thought it was a list of the top 100 athletes of all time not the top 10.


still though man how can you possibly call this a list of the greatest athletes ever.....and put a woman on the list? seriously this isn't being sexist, women are physically and athletically inferior to men (when comparing athletes of similar caliber, obviously allison felix is a far superior athlete to the average man). it's just how it is. how you can put a female golfer ahead of the greatest basketball player ever (who is arguably one of the greaest physical specimens as well, ever) makes this a list of who you find to be the most influential ever, not the best.


edit: i am aware this is ironslave's list. i just want to hear more of a justification for the selection process here.

Read the write up again. There were far more impressive athletes in their sport than Jordan, and Babe Didrikson was one of them. From a modern perspective, Gretzky sure as hell was. By your logic, since athletes are getting better all the time, will the winner of the decathalete this summer be the greatest athlete of all time?

Edit: and sorry, if Adrian Peterson was to retire in 3 years, he wouldn't be close to a top 100 athlete.

 

[Ironslave]

its not about whose better than who blah blah, its about how they dominated in their sport. the fact that shes female doesnt mean the domination she had is any less than the domination of guy.

Exactly. All lists everywhere, ESPN, the AP, they all have her in their top 15 at the very least. Obviously, if an athlete is able to dominate today, it's likely more impressive than an athlete dominating 100 years ago.

.... which is what brings me to my number one.... THE most dominate athlete ever across any sport... and the athlete to have the most impact ever in sport across a worldwide level .....

 

[Ironslave]

….. and the greatest athlete of all time is…..

When it comes to athletic greatness, obviously genetic factors play a major, major role. Some people seem like they were born to run, shoot, throw, or perform the given action required for their sport. However, from the time he was a child, to what he has become today, NO athlete ever has ever, or will ever, seem like they were born for the purpose of greatness in their sport like Tiger Woods.

Most athletes are become noticed by many in the sporting word once they hit college age, some gain recognition during high school, and an even rarer few are touted as future greats in their sport during their teens; often times, these highly acclaimed athletes don’t pan out and make the professional level, let achieve superstar status. However, no other athlete, ever, gained national attention as a child phenom at a younger age than Tiger Woods. He hasn’t just lived to the hype, he’s done things almost unthinkable.

When Tiger turned pro on the PGA tour in 1996, he proclaimed “hello world”. But almost two decades prior, it was the world said “hello Tiger.” At the age of 2 years old (!) Tiger Woods was introduced to the world on National TV on the Mike Douglas Show. Already able to hit the ball, Tiger shared the spotlight in what now seems like a surreal moment on the show with Bob Hope, in a segment that is now legendary. Tiger couldn’t say hello back, he could barely speak, but he could still drive the ball straight.



The very next year, at the age of 3 years old, Tiger shot 48 on 9 holes! To put this in perspective, I’m willing to bet you could take the average golfer who has been playing for 3 years (nevermind being alive for 3 years) and they couldn’t shoot a legitimate 48 on 9 holes. He’d soon win the World Junior Golf Chanpionship at the age of 8 (in the boys 9-10 category, no less). He’d win 4 more World Junior championships from 88-91.

After winning the World Junior Championship in 1991, Tiger began an unprecedented streak of USGA Amateur wins, winning 3 straight US Junior Amateur Championships (becoming the youngest player to ever win it, and nobody else has won it more than once!) and 3 straight US Amateur championships (also, youngest and only player to ever win this). For those unfamiliar, these tournaments are played in a match play tournament format, meaning that on any given day, anybody can beat anybody. To illustrate the difficulty of winning match play, the difference in between first and 250th is 4 strokes! Thurs, it takes 1 or 2 bad or good holes, lucky breaks, and anybody can beat anybody. Even winning these by itself is just mind boggling, it wasn’t just the fact he won, it was HOW he won. Tiger changed the golf world with his booming drives, high and soft iron shots, and his enthusiasm. Before Tiger, golf was an “old white man’s” game, yet Tiger pretty well singlehandedly made golf “cool”. It was at these events where Tiger established himself as the most exciting, and best pressure performer the sports world has ever seen. Most golfers crack under pressure, but somehow, Tiger just gets better.

In his first US Amateur, he came from an incredible 6 holes (not strokes, holes) behind (including 5 behind with 12 to play!) to win in his trademark dramatic fashion in the afternoon round. He did so by staging a tremendous comeback, only to tie his opponent Trip Kuehne by making a long, sliding birdie on arguably the most famous hole in all of golf, the “Island Green” 17th at the TPC at Sawgrass. Tiger followed his incredible putt with a fist pump that would take the world by storm, and won on the 2nd extra hole.

After a relatively “uneventful” 2nd straight US Amateur win in 1995, Tiger went into his last US Amateur in 1996, and again made it to the finals, and fell into morning trouble being 5 holes (again, not strokes) with 16 holes to play (and 2 holes up with 3 to go!) Again, one for the dramatic and eerily similar to 2 years prior, Tiger made a 35 foot putt on the 17th hole to tie the match. Tiger won the Match on the 2nd extra hold, and although he would go on that year to win the NCAA Championship, it was at this moment where Tiger Woods had arrived.


Shortly after this, Tiger turned pro in his famous “Hello world” press conference, immediately signing a mind boggling $40 million dollar deal with Nike, and $20 million dollar deal with Titleist. At the time, those looked like two of the most outrageous endorsement deals ever signed, but now, it looks like an absolute bargain. The excitement and change Tiger brought to the PGA tour was unlike anything any athlete has ever done. Ratings and attendance both skyrocketed (literally, doubling because of Tiger), and prize money followed suit. Not only were new, younger audiences attracted to the game because of Tiger, but the game exploded on a global market. People around the world of all different ages, sexes, races and cultures all wanted to try golf because of Tiger Woods; no other athlete has ever had this impact on a global level.

Once turning pro, Tiger showed no signs of slowing up, winning 2 of his first 10 tournaments. Already knowing that Tiger was well on his way to one of the best careers of all time, still, nobody ever could have predicted what would happen next, in his first major as a professional in 1997, appropriately named the “Masters.”

Before that Masters, the sports world was abuzz with “Tiger Mania”. In large part of this was due to the fact that just over 20 years prior, black athletes weren’t even allowed to play in the Masters, nevermind thinking that a black athlete had a chance to win. After starting slow on the front 9 shooting a 40, tiger blitzed the back 9 shooting 30. He’d go on to destroy the field, winning by an incredible 12 shots over 2nd place! Again, to put this in perspective, the difference between 2nd place and 30th place was 12 shots, simply unreal. Tiger set the record for lowest score, largest margin of victory, and youngest winner ever.

Tiger would follow this up with another Major in the 1999 PGA, putting the breaks on those who doubted his dominance after not winning another major in over 2 years. However, by the 2000 US Open, Tiger put any doubters to rest with the most dominant win ever in the history of golf, and possibly sports. On the famed Pebble Beach, Tiger shot -12, while his next closest opponent shot +3, a record breaking margin of victory (though, the record he broke was his own his own.) Again, to put in perspective how insanely dominant this was, 15 strokes separated 1st and 2nd place, and also separated 2nd and 55th place! The USGA actually moved up Pebble Beach in the tournament rotation, because they wanted the 2000 Open to be remembered, however even after 1997, it would have been difficult to envision anything happening like this.

At the very next Major, in what by now seems like a storybook life, Tiger Won the 2000 British Open by 8 shots, at the Home of Golf in St. Andrew’s. In doing so, Tiger became the youngest player ever to win all 4 majors over a career. He followed this up winning the 2000 PGA in memorable fashion over Bob May in a shot for shot shootout that seemed like two guys playing darts with a golf ball, and the following year, went on to win the 2001 Masters, meaning he now held all 4 Masters championships at the same time! As a common theme, to put this incredible accomplishment in perspective, nobody else has ever won more than 2 in a row, and only 25 men have ever won 4 Major Championships over their whole career! (Phil Mickelson, 2nd best in the world, has only won 3).

Fast forward a few years, to this year’s US Open. After finishing second in the Masters (and having knee surgery the week after), Tiger returned at the US Open, his first tournament back, where he played his first full round the start or the week. Up until that point, Tiger hadn’t even bent down to read a putt on the greens! As if his performance (which he’d win) wasn’t incredible enough, we then learned that Tiger Woods won the US open with a Torn ACL and microfractures! Read that again, it’s simply absurd that he could do this.

Turthfully, I could go on and on forever about the accomplishments Tiger has achieved over his life. But now, I’ll wrap it up with summarizing in my mind why he is the greatest athlete of all time.

- Golf is THE most difficult sport for the best players in the world to excel at. Again, refer to the 4 stroke difference between the first, and 250th ranked player on the PGA tour. Anybody with a few good shots, a few lucky breaks, putts that just lip in, can win on any given week, and that’s a fact. I’m sure we’ve all heard the debate between who is the more dominant in their sport, Tiger Woods, or Roger Federer. This comparison is just LAUGHABLE. Never ever in tennis does a player ranked out of the top 300 in the world have a realistic chance to win a major. Like most other sports, tennis is a game where you can control your opponent, and the best player usually wins. To illustrate this, there have always been a select few men who dominated Tennis at the same time (Federer/Nadakl, Sampras/Aggasi, etc), and always seem to end up in the championship. This is not so with golf, as everyone is pretty well expected to “par” a hole. Golf is also THE most difficult, fine motor movement in sports. Even the SLIGHTEST degree of angle off can result in a shot sailing 30 yards wide into a water hazard, ruining an entire round. In a sport like tennis, or basketball, hockey, anything really… the margin for error is SO much greater. If a tennis player miss hits a shot, it’s often not a huge deal, as the ball can still go in and be a good shot. This isn’t the case with golf, especially with putting, trying to roll a little tiny ball along a sloped ground into a small hole. One or two “lucky” breaks can make or break an entire round, or even tournament. Across sports, no athlete has EVER dominated their particular sport to the level Tiger Woods has.

- On a global scale, nobody has had the impact for promoting their sport that Tiger Woods has, it’s not even close. Participation, prize money, and level of competition have advanced so much because of this one man. Not only have the way golfers prepare changed because of Tiger (permanent swing coaches, improved fitness, overall elevation of play), but they’ve actually tried to change the game because of Tiger! (ie, Tigerproofing the course). How many athletes can say that the field of sport was literally changed because of them?

- Tiger is THE mentally toughest athlete that has ever lived, or ever will live, period. The more pressure there is in golf, the more most people get nervous on drives and iron shots, but most importantly, putts. Somehow, Tiger lives for these moments, and he always produced his best play during these times. It seems like the tougher the shot, the better he hits it. Don’t believe me? Watch.



To force a playoff at this year’s US Open, a must make.


To win the Bay Hill (Arnold Palmers) Tournament


An impossible putt,


As I mentioned to start this, no athlete has ever seemed to be destined into greatness, yet at the same time, no athlete has ever surpassed those expectations since childhood like Tiger Woods has. It almost seems like he was put on this earth to accomplish something special, something that has never been done at a level its never been done before. Last year, ESPN had a contest, where it took all the athletes in the world, and voted who was “Now” in the sports world. Predictably (as always), Tiger won. However, Tiger Woods isn’t just who’s “now”, he’s who’s “ever”.

 

[Duality]

its not about whose better than who blah blah, its about how they dominated in their sport. the fact that shes female doesnt mean the domination she had is any less than the domination of guy. you're comparing totally different sports. and im pretty sure youve had arguments with people (tim i think it was??) about the same thing you're talking about

acutally it was between line, ironslave, and myself, but i know what your talking about we have discussed this before.

Originally posted by Ironslave
Read the write up again. There were far more impressive athletes in their sport than Jordan, and Babe Didrikson was one of them. From a modern perspective, Gretzky sure as hell was. By your logic, since athletes are getting better all the time, will the winner of the decathalete this summer be the greatest athlete of all time?

Edit: and sorry, if Adrian Peterson was to retire in 3 years, he wouldn't be close to a top 100 athlete.

where i think your judgement is flawed is in your assumption that all sports are created equal. they're not. it takes far more physical superiority, athletic prowess, and is far more physically taxing to dominate the game of basketball as jordan did for so many years.

and no my logic would not lead to a decathalete being the greatest athlete ever.

Originally posted by Ironslave
Golf is THE most difficult sport for the best players in the world to excel at

words cannot express my dissapointment with this statement

 

[Ironslave]

where i think your judgement is flawed is in your assumption that all sports are created equal. they're not. it takes far more physical superiority, athletic prowess, and is far more physically taxing to dominate the game of basketball as jordan did for so many years.

and no my logic would not lead to a decathalete being the greatest athlete ever.

Oh please, hockey doesn't take more skill than basketball? Granted, nobody is saying that Gretzky was a wrecking crew, but hockey requires less physical superiority than basketball?

It is infinite times easier to dominate a basketball game than a hockey game, this is absurd if you think otherwise. Gretzky did it better, and longer than Jordan. Sorry, its not even close.

 

[Duality]

Oh please, hockey doesn't take more skill than basketball? Granted, nobody is saying that Gretzky was a wrecking crew, but hockey requires less physical superiority than basketball?

It is infinite times easier to dominate a basketball game than a hockey game, this is absurd if you think otherwise. Gretzky did it better, and longer than Jordan. Sorry, its not even close.

umm did i question gretzky's placing on this list?? no i did not. where did this even come from? i don't have any qualms with gretzky being higher than jordan as that is fairly subjective as to who dominated their sport more. i think you know what "sport" it is i think deserves no place on this list.

 

[Ironslave]

umm did i question gretzky's placing on this list?? no i did not. where did this even come from? i don't have any qualms with gretzky being higher than jordan as that is fairly subjective as to who dominated their sport more. i think you know what "sport" it is i think deserves no place on this list.

I refered to Gretzky in modern context as a more dominant athlete in a team sport, and you responded with comments on physical superiority and athletic prowess, so I assumed you were referring to MJ being better than Gretzky.

Sorry, but if you think any sport is as difficult to golf to reach an elite level, and especially to dominate to the extent Woods has, you're wrong.

 

[Duality]

Originally posted by Ironslave
Sorry, but if you think any sport is as difficult to golf to reach an elite level, and especially to dominate to the extent Woods has, you're wrong.

sorry but if you think it is harder to become an elite level golfer than it is to become a starting RB for an NFL team, a power forward for an NBA team, or a forward in the NHL, you're wrong.

 

[Ironslave]

sorry but if you think it is harder to become an elite level golfer than it is to become a starting RB for an NFL team, a power forward for an NBA team, or a forward in the NHL, you're wrong.

I'd largely disagree. But it depends on the level. To get to the level Tiger Woods has? I'm absolutely correct, he's so far above and away everyone else in such a difficult game. Keep in mind, with golf, as I mentioned, everyone once they get to a point is pretty much on the same level. Generally, they all drive the ball, hit it to the green, and make 2 putts. So if you're talking an elite level golfer like a general golf pro, verses a starting RB in the NFL, I'd agree with you.

However, to dominate the sport like Tiger has is far more impressive than anything in sport.

 

[Braaq]

Amazing Tiger Woods write up IS , had to rep you on that. I cannot argue with his placing because when you look at it how you put it, you are right.

 

[Duality]

Originally posted by Ironslave
I'd largely disagree. But it depends on the level. To get to the level Tiger Woods has? I'm absolutely correct, he's so far above and away everyone else in such a difficult game.

difficult game? yes. but (and i know your going to hate this comparison) still i find this statement very comparable to what you could say about a champion chess player, please allow me to explain. i know that chess requires no physical exertion, but my point is (and please read this slowly) you keep saying how hard golf is, but only from a technical stanpoint and one that is not based on athleticism, which in and of itself is a contradiction to the definition of a "sport". meaning, you are ONLY going off the technical stanpoint, the golf swing, and completely ignoring the fact that the game requires NOTHING in terms of athletic talent. the golf swing is something that can be mastered through practice and does not require any immense physical capability, which is why i'm comparing it to chess. both games are hard to master, but neither requires any kind of athletic talent (please also note i am using the word "talent" and not ability)

i'm going to be presumptious here, i'm betting your going to respond telling me the golf swing is one of the hardest and most technical movements to master, and i agree. but that is the ONLY facet of the game. the jumpshot is arguably one of the most technical movements to master as well, however that is just ONE of the MANY (many) facets the game of basketball requires: defense, conditioning, athletic talent, speed, dexterity, memorization of plays, ball handling. the same cannot be said for golf. really IS it cannot.

Originally posted by Ironslave
Keep in mind, with golf, as I mentioned, everyone once they get to a point is pretty much on the same level. Generally, they all drive the ball, hit it to the green, and make 2 putts. So if you're talking an elite level golfer like a general golf pro, verses a starting RB in the NFL, I'd agree with you.

However, to dominate the sport like Tiger has is far more impressive than anything in sport.

pretty fair post all in all. my dissagreement with you comes from my adament belief that it takes less athletic ability and talent to dominate the game of golf the way tiger has as compared to the way gretzky, jordan, and brown dominated their respective sports.

 

[Beefcake]

Tiger Woods outta nowhere!

Very well thought out No. 1 IS . Golf is a hard sport to be good at, but IMO it is much harder to become well known in golf than say compared to football or basketball.

 

[tim290280]

sorry but if you think it is harder to become an elite level golfer than it is to become a starting RB for an NFL team, a power forward for an NBA team, or a forward in the NHL, you're wrong.

Yes, yes it is harder to become an elite golfer than most other sports. Golf has the most participants of any sport on the planet, has the most professional and semi-professional athletes and requires a large skillset and ability to just be consistent let alone dominate. I can think of a few examples of pro athletes that started out with golf scholarships but changed sports (tennis, cricket and hockey I think were where they ended up from the e.g. in mind) as they had less chance of making it.

Another thing; it is very hard to dominate a sport (e.g. Layne Beachley in womens surfing who is regarded as the best surfer with 6 world titles in a row and 7 total besting Kelly Slater's 4 in a row and 8 total). So for any athlete, male, female, transvestite, to dominate their sport is amazing. Doing it against a very impressive and competitive field is even more special.

 

[Duality]

Yes, yes it is harder to become an elite golfer than most other sports. Golf has the most participants of any sport on the planet, has the most professional and semi-professional athletes and requires a large skillset and ability to just be consistent let alone dominate. I can think of a few examples of pro athletes that started out with golf scholarships but changed sports (tennis, cricket and hockey I think were where they ended up from the e.g. in mind) as they had less chance of making it.

Another thing; it is very hard to dominate a sport (e.g. Layne Beachley in womens surfing who is regarded as the best surfer with 6 world titles in a row and 7 total besting Kelly Slater's 4 in a row and 8 total). So for any athlete, male, female, transvestite, to dominate their sport is amazing. Doing it against a very impressive and competitive field is even more special.

i disagree with the bold portion of this statement and i'll tell you why and this is my arguement against the female ironslave has at #4. they seperate male and female competitors for a reason, correct? this is to promote a even and competitive playing field. so in my mind, a women can never be considered one of the greatest athletes ever because their competition is not the greatest in the world (and i mean greatest, not greatest for a woman, see what i'm saying) this is an unfair characteristic of life that both sexes are not created equal. even if a woman does dominate her sport, the fact that she is doing it against less than the best means she can not be considered one of the greatest ever to play the sport. she can however be considered the greatest female to ever play the sport.


example: did you know that legally the NBA, NFL, or PGA cannot discriminate due to sex? technically if a woman is good enough, she can make an NBA team

however because a woman has never made one of these pro teams (or in annika sorenstam's case, not done well at all) based entirly off of physical ability, leagues were then formed to make competition fairer for women as seen in the LPGA and WNBA.

 

[tim290280]

i disagree with the bold portion of this statement and i'll tell you why and this is my arguement against the female ironslave has at #4. they seperate male and female competitors for a reason, correct? this is to promote a even and competitive playing field. so in my mind, a women can never be considered one of the greatest athletes ever because their competition is not the greatest in the world (and i mean greatest, not greatest for a woman, see what i'm saying) this is an unfair characteristic of life that both sexes are not created equal. even if a woman does dominate her sport, the fact that she is doing it against less than the best means she can not be considered one of the greatest ever to play the sport. she can however be considered the greatest female to ever play the sport.


example: did you know that legally the NBA, NFL, or PGA cannot discriminate due to sex? technically if a woman is good enough, she can make an NBA team

however because a woman has never made one of these pro teams (or in annika sorenstam's case, not done well at all) based entirly off of physical ability, leagues were then formed to make competition fairer for women as seen in the LPGA and WNBA.

While I understand what you are saying and agree to some extent you are being particularly misogonistic with your statement.

Yes the reality is that men and women are different and should be treated as such is true (I hate feminists for their take on things). But to say that women are lesser than men because they dominate against other women and not the men is just wrong. By that example you could say that no athlete is the greatest/best/good as they haven't competed against the best athletes. Take this as an all time (athletes have better coaching and training now), or take this as a sport segregation (how many great athletes have chosen a sport over another they dominated), or poverty (how many didn't get the chance), or politics (Cuban boxers anyone?), or injury at the wrong time, or any other limitation.

You really are showing how young you are.

 

[Duality]

Originally posted by Tim290280
While I understand what you are saying and agree to some extent you are being particularly misogonistic with your statement.

if this is the way you took my post that is unintended. i'm just being realistic about it.

Yes the reality is that men and women are different and should be treated as such is true (I hate feminists for their take on things). But to say that women are lesser than men because they dominate against other women and not the men is just wrong.

that's not what i said. what i said was that they cannot be considered one of the greatest athletes ever (let alone the top 10 of all time) when there are far superior male athletes playing the same sport. THAT is what i call gender bias.

By that example you could say that no athlete is the greatest/best/good as they haven't competed against the best athletes. Take this as an all time (athletes have better coaching and training now),

what you're saying here in an effort to show holes in my logic is (for example) that since the 2007 new england patriots never faced the defense of the 80's bears, they can't be considered the best offense ever. is this a relevant example to what you're saying here? i see the thought process, but i don't see it as being a retort that really refutes what i said. if i said something like "babe ruth can't be considered the best because he never faced athletes of the caliber that we have today" then yes but i don't make the connection here in regards to women being less capable in sports. where the example i just is completely unrealistic and unfair to the patriots, women HAVE been given the chance to compete against male competition and have failed.

or take this as a sport segregation (how many great athletes have chosen a sport over another they dominated), or poverty (how many didn't get the chance), or politics (Cuban boxers anyone?), or injury at the wrong time, or any other limitation.

i'm not gonna lie, i don't understand what you're getting at . That circumstances influence peoples' abilities to succede? idk please elaborate.

You really are showing how young you are.

well i guess i am rather young hopefully this doesn't influence peoples' ability to accept what i am saying.

 

[Lionheart]

Nice list and write ups IS.I mostly dont agree w your list ,but its interesting atleast.Repped

 

[tim290280]

if this is the way you took my post that is unintended. i'm just being realistic about it.

As I said I think your point while valid was not in the context of realism and smacked of misogonism. If that isn't your intention then you need to be more clear.

that's not what i said. what i said was that they cannot be considered one of the greatest athletes ever (let alone the top 10 of all time) when there are far superior male athletes playing the same sport. THAT is what i call gender bias.

It isn't technically the same sport, they play in a womens league. In the golf example they play off of different course positions (bringing different factors and elements into play), often entirely different courses to the men. THe only true example of the same sport I can think of (off the top of my head) is track and field. This is why I acknowledged the fact that women and men are different and should be viewed as such, as the women aren't the same athletes. But to say that they are some how less great due to their gender is to say that the women's competition is a joke, which it is not.

what you're saying here in an effort to show holes in my logic is (for example) that since the 2007 new england patriots never faced the defense of the 80's bears, they can't be considered the best offense ever. is this a relevant example to what you're saying here? i see the thought process, but i don't see it as being a retort that really refutes what i said. if i said something like "babe ruth can't be considered the best because he never faced athletes of the caliber that we have today" then yes but i don't make the connection here in regards to women being less capable in sports. where the example i just is completely unrealistic and unfair to the patriots, women HAVE been given the chance to compete against male competition and have failed.

Yes this was what I was saying. You have to compare apples with apples, not oranges and pears and apples. Jack Nicklaus was previously the best golfer in the world and still has more title than Tiger Woods. Why is he not regarded as the best still (since he does hold more titles)? Because Tiger has done it on harder courses against more competition. Yet you can't compare the two easily as technology has changed etc, and they have never played against each other in their respective primes. There were also several great historic golfers that dominated when they still had regular jobs, played with hickory stick clubs, etc. They really need to be put in a play off with Woods and Nicklaus to decide whom is the greatest golfer.

i'm not gonna lie, i don't understand what you're getting at . That circumstances influence peoples' abilities to succede? idk please elaborate.

I'm saying that you can't say that X athlete is not as good because they can't hack it against Y athletes. By that assertion all other factors that limited athletes and any comparisons suddenly becomes valid. I could claim that Tiger Woods isn't as good as Bobby Jones because Bobby had it tougher. How do you compare the achievements of golfers in the era of the featherie ball, a sewn leather sphere stuffed with feathers, to the modern era of aerodynamically tested Surlyn balls and titanium-shafted clubs? How do you rank players who had different opportunities to win championships? Or those who competed before there were large money purses or, indeed, any at all?

well i guess i am rather young hopefully this doesn't influence peoples' ability to accept what i am saying.

No doesn't change what we accept from you. It just means that your opinion is very much formed from a limited knowledge base. While this is true of a lot of people (old and young) you do tend to grasp an awareness of what you don't know with age.

 

[Clint]

I'm really confused as to why there is arguing in this thread