Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

[ComfortablyLomb]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

And to further Forensic's excellent point, what athletic characteristics are in golf or baseball that aren't in track or swimming?

Each requires power.
Each requires stamina.
Each requires precision.
Each requires discipline.
Each requires strength.
Each requires courage.
Each requires competitive instinct.

So I guess you have proved your point: If it's not covered regularly on TV or by some sh*tty major sports rag, it's not a sport.

Brilliant. Take a bow.

Take care,
PK

The question was never whether or not it is a sport, it's whether or not hurdling is even relevant. If next to nobody cares about it then does it even matter? This desire to celebrate everyone's achievements as if they are all some sort of unique little flower is really getting to be quite obnoxious. At the end of the day you can argue all of the athletic merits of hurdles, there are many, but if nobody but track and field folk pay attention to 400 hurdles then does it really matter what that guy is doing? The point being, considering that it's a fridge sport, you don't exactly have a massive chunk of this country or numerous other countries playing it or caring about it. The lack of play is a major factor because it waters down the competition. I'm sure you can pick out numerous other hurdlers to use as examples, feel free, but they're coming from a much smaller pool than baseball players (North America, Latin America, Asia) or golf (North America, Europe, Asia, S. Africa, Australia). Either you're in the bigtime and can try to boast massive accomplishments or you're in the smalltime and can do it for personal pride. Scope matters.

[pk500]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

The question was never whether or not it is a sport, it's whether or not hurdling is even relevant. If next to nobody cares about it then does it even matter? This desire to celebrate everyone's achievements as if they are all some sort of unique little flower is really getting to be quite obnoxious. At the end of the day you can argue all of the athletic merits of hurdles, there are many, but if nobody but track and field folk pay attention to 400 hurdles then does it really matter what that guy is doing? The point being, considering that it's a fridge sport, you don't exactly have a massive chunk of this country or numerous other countries playing it or caring about it. The lack of play is a major factor because it waters down the competition. I'm sure you can pick out numerous other hurdlers to use as examples, feel free, but they're coming from a much smaller pool than baseball players (North America, Latin America, Asia) or golf (North America, Europe, Asia, S. Africa, Australia). Either you're in the bigtime and can try to boast massive accomplishments or you're in the smalltime and can do it for personal pride. Scope matters.

Oh, OK, so now number of participants matters? Well, since millions of people from around the world play poker and it gets boffo ratings on ESPN, is poker now a sport that requires more skill than track and field?

You're like a dog chasing its tail in a circle or better yet, an ostrich with its head buried in the sand. Personal relevance, and however you measure it in your misguided little world, never was a factor in the debate.

Again, the question was asked about "sport," not "sport that you love and respect because its one of your favorites."

The minute you see that difference is the minute your comments will carry more than a grain of salt. I'm not holding my breath. Blinkers might be great for racehorses, but they're not a wise accessory for human beings.

Finally, your claim that there are more people playing baseball than running track is almost certainly false. Countries from more nations around the planet send track teams to the Olympics than baseball. And I'm willing to bet that nearly as many American high schools have track programs as baseball programs.

I'm also almost certain that there are more participants from schoolboy to world elite level in track and field on Earth than there are in baseball, which is popular only in America, Japan and Latin America. But of course, track isn't popular in America, so the fact that it has more worldwide participants than baseball can't be true, can it?

Ignorance may be bliss, but it still makes people look like dumb motherf*ckers in the end.

Take care,
PK

[ComfortablyLomb]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Oh, OK, so now number of participants matters? Well, since millions of people from around the world play poker and it gets boffo ratings on ESPN, is poker now a sport that requires more skill than track and field?

No, it's not a sport, it's a very popular game of skill and luck.

You're like a dog chasing its tail in a circle or better yet, an ostrich with its head buried in the sand. Personal relevance, and however you measure it in your misguided little world, never was a factor in the debate.

Only someone who can't win an argument on merit goes for the insult. Can I safely assume you have nothing left of value to add to this abortion of a debate?

Relevance is always a factor. It's exactly why the world cup-stacking champion can never be the most intimidating, imposing, frightening, whatever in the world.

Again, the question was asked about "sport," not "sport that you love and respect because its one of your favorites."

The minute you see that difference is the minute your comments will carry more than a grain of salt. I'm not holding my breath. Blinkers might be great for racehorses, but they're not a wise accessory for human beings.

They're called "blinders" because they keep the horse from being able to use it's peripheral vision. I believe cars have blinkers.

It has nothing to do with favorites either - it has to do with being a mainstream legitimate competative sport. For example, just because Grandpa Joe's swim team wins the state championship for 17 years straight doesn't mean anything except to the kids on that team and maybe the parents. Remember when Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a game for Polk High? I'm sure he does, but how about others?

Finally, your claim that there are more people playing baseball than running track is almost certainly false. Countries from more nations around the planet send track teams to the Olympics than baseball. And I'm willing to bet that nearly as many American high schools have track programs as baseball programs.

I would assume almost every high school has a track program. Of course they also spread their teams across so many different events that the talent is thin in each. Now for the Olympic claim, the dominance of some countries like Cuba, Puerto Rica, the US, Japan, etc. is so great in that sport that it's hard for some countries to get a team together that can compete. Remember, you have to qualify!

I'm also almost certain that there are more participants from schoolboy to world elite level in track and field on Earth than there are in baseball, which is popular only in America, Japan and Latin America. But of course, track isn't popular in America, so the fact that it has more worldwide participants than baseball can't be true, can it?

Where is track really popular? Soccer is a major world sport. Baseball is growing dramatically. Rugby is pretty huge in some areas, most British-influenced I would assume. But track? People do track, I hardly see other people around the world really getting excited about it. Maybe they use it as an excuse to wave a flag around every time the Olympics comes around but nobody "ooo's" and "aaah's" over track. It's just a test of training and athletecism. Not to make it sound worthless, but you train for it as much as you can, then you execute. If you're playing a bigtime sport you aren't the only one applying pressure to yourself, you also have everyone who is watching you either pulling for or against you, usually in stadium-like atmospheres. There's a much greater weight there when you're trying to sink a 6-footer with millions of eyes on you (thousands present), or trying to catch up with a 97 mph fastball, or thread the needle between a pair of DBs, than there is when you're just running the same time trial you always run. The reason it's not relevant, the reason nobody watches it, it's because while difficult to do it's hard to say it's more difficult than a sport where there is more to do than personally besting times.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it still makes people look like dumb motherf*ckers in the end.

Once again, either you can back up your argument, or you can't. I'm a big boy, I can take it, but using throwing insults in the middle of an argument is a pretty good way to bury it in trash.

[DrJones]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Well, I think forensic and pk500 ended this line of discussion before I could throw in my worthless opinion on this subject, but I think the most fascinating thing about this thread is how it lays bare the difference in opinions based on age/generation gap. I simply can't believe that people think ANY track sport is "fringe"...the 400 hurdles isn't the most glamarous event, but I can't even believe there's a discussion regarding the relative athletic merits of it - you could make the argument that track events are the PUREST of all sports (there was no golf or basketball at the original Olympics, but there sure was running - because it's pure athletic competition). Whether or not the rest of you guys have ever heard of Edwin Moses doesn't make his accomplishments/dominance any less impressive. In fact, there are a lot of people that know a hell of a lot more about sports than anyone on this board who would edumacate our butts about Moses and a lot of other great athletes that were unbelieveable dominant in their day.

I've been making this argument since Michael Jordan suddenly became the consensus "greatest player ever" (incidentally, right around the time ESPN and Nike came to prominence...) in the early 90's, but everyone these days is so centered on our own times and frames of reference that we simply can't believe that anyone that did anything before WE were watching sports could have been worth a damn. It's ridiculous. There's a whole generation of kids that flat-out don't believe there were guys playing basketball in the 60's and 70's that were as good as Jordan, or that there were track athletes that were huge stars, or that cycling was a sport before Lance Armstrong came onto the scene...ESPN, SI, Nike, and whoever else have created who we consider stars and what sports we consider important, that now it appears to the cynical eye that sports leagues exist to simply market their own merchandise, rather than provide a forum for competition. Pop culture sports...sad.

Okay, so that rant was totally un-called for...I was just appalled by the vehemence with which pk500's assertion that Edwin Moses was the most dominant athlete ever was attacked in this forum. I realized we were really continental here in the U.S., but sheesh - I hadn't realized HOW egocentric we'd become...

Excellent post. "The Greatest Athlete Of All-Time" can't be a very prestigious title if it changes on a yearly basis. Didn't ESPN anoint Lance Armstrong as GoaT just last year? I'm sure once Michelle Wie finally wins a tournament someone will breathlessly proclaim her the greatest female athlete of all-time. It's almost as tiresome as someone new being called "the next MJ" every year or two.

[pk500]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Relevance is always a factor. It's exactly why the world cup-stacking champion can never be the most intimidating, imposing, frightening, whatever in the world.

Cup-stacking is not a sport. Hurdles is. I thought you knew the difference.

They're called "blinders" because they keep the horse from being able to use it's peripheral vision. I believe cars have blinkers.

Blinders, correct. And very ironic that you accurately mentioned the definition about peripheral vision, considering you have none in this debate. You're defining myopia.

It has nothing to do with favorites either - it has to do with being a mainstream legitimate competative sport. For example, just because Grandpa Joe's swim team wins the state championship for 17 years straight doesn't mean anything except to the kids on that team and maybe the parents. Remember when Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a game for Polk High? I'm sure he does, but how about others?

Bob Knight called Forensic's grandfather, who is an absolute legend, the greatest coach in American history. Does that make it more legit to you? If so, that's a farce. Doc Counsilman's legend was secured far before being given the stamp of imprimatur by Bob Knight. But at least Knight has enough lateral thinking and perception to realize brilliance in all corners of the sporting world, clearly a novel concept for you.

I would assume almost every high school has a track program. Of course they also spread their teams across so many different events that the talent is thin in each. Now for the Olympic claim, the dominance of some countries like Cuba, Puerto Rica, the US, Japan, etc. is so great in that sport that it's hard for some countries to get a team together that can compete. Remember, you have to qualify!

Just like every country's track team is built through Olympic trials.

Where is track really popular?

Europe, the Caribbean, Africa. All minor outposts on the globe.

If you're playing a bigtime sport you aren't the only one applying pressure to yourself, you also have everyone who is watching you either pulling for or against you, usually in stadium-like atmospheres. There's a much greater weight there when you're trying to sink a 6-footer with millions of eyes on you (thousands present), or trying to catch up with a 97 mph fastball, or thread the needle between a pair of DBs, than there is when you're just running the same time trial you always run.

So, competing in the World Championships, Olympics and annual IAAF Golden League meets, with as many people or more in the grandstands than any golf tournament in the world, is just like a 400-meter training run?

The reason it's not relevant, the reason nobody watches it, it's because while difficult to do it's hard to say it's more difficult than a sport where there is more to do than personally besting times.

So Moses raced alone in those 122 consecutive victories? News flash: There are eight runners on the track simultaneously in 400-meter hurdles events. He beat human beings on the track, not a stopwatch, during his win streak. This isn't downhill skiing, where everything is against the clock.

Once again, either you can back up your argument, or you can't.

I've backed up my argument so well that you'll need a Roto-Rooter to tunnel through it. Even the late Ray Charles could see that. I'm eagerly awaiting your reply, although the wound on my head from banging it against the same brick wall after reading your posts is bleeding a bit more.

Take care,
PK

[Brandon13]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Only someone who can't win an argument on merit goes for the insult. Can I safely assume you have nothing left of value to add to this abortion of a debate?

You don't actually think you're winning this argument do you? I still don't know how or why the popularity of a sport affects how intimidating a participant in the sport can be. It honestly just doesn't make any sense.

[pk500]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

The fifth meet of the annual six-event IAAF Golden League is this weekend at Brussels, Belgium. Here's an interesting note from the IAAF Web site about the meet:

>>>>>

SOLD OUT!

The last tickets for this meeting’s 47,000 available seats sold on the morning of 9 August, the day on which Kim Gevaert won the first of her European golds. The phones have not stopped ringing since…”we could have sold 10,000 more seats with ease,” confirmed Wilfried Meert, and after Kim and Tia won more gold for Belgium later in the championships, “the telephones went red hot.” Belgium is on an athletics induced high at the moment, a most appropriate scenario for the 30th anniversary of the Memorial Van Damme.

Source: http://www.iaaf.org/GLE06/news/Kind=2/newsId=35956.html

<<<<<

47,000 spectators at a track meet. Who would have thought? Organizers must be distributing free dime bags of dope or some other promotion. Who would go watch a track meet with all of those wannabe athletes? Hell, it's not covered on ESPN!

Oh, and if Jamaica's Asafa Powell wins the 100 meters at this meet, he will earn a $500,000 bonus for sweeping the first five Golden League races of the season. If he wins here and Sept. 9 in Berlin, he will earn another $500,000 bonus for a clean sweep of this season's Golden League.

But hey, it will be just like another training sprint, going for a $500,000 bonus this weekend in Brussels before a sellout crowd of 47,000, with every eyeball on him. No pressure. After all, it's not a real sport.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Lomb:

Let me ask you two questions, in sincerity. First, some background.

Renaldo "Skeets" Nehemiah was a world-record 110-meter hurdler from the United States in the late 1970s and through the 1980s. He was the No. 1 110-meter hurdler in the world in 1980, as close to a shoo-in for a gold at the Moscow Olympics, before the U.S. boycott.

From 1982-85, Nehemiah left track to play wide receiver for the San Francisco 49ers. He caught 43 passes for 754 yards and four touchdowns during his four seasons in the NFL, very mediocre numbers.

Skeets then returned to track in 1986, achieving world rankings four times before retiring in 1991.

Two questions.

One, given that Nehemiah was the best in the world in the 110 hurdles but a very mediocre wide receiver, do you consider him more of a relevant athlete for his track career or his NFL career?

Two, did he become a relevant athlete when he joined the NFL and end his career as a relevant athlete when he quit the NFL?

Sincere questions. Eager for a sincere response.

Take care,
PK

[ComfortablyLomb]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Loaded questions - here's a simple observation though: A guy who was so dominating a runner barely cut it in the NFL when he needed some hands and the ability to run routes. Meaning, he had to do more than run down a track for a few hundred meters and hop some fences. Now what happens if you try to get the speediest guys away from football to focus their lives on 400m hurdles? Do they perform at a mediocre level or do their finely tuned bodies top out at mediocre performance?

[ComfortablyLomb]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

You don't actually think you're winning this argument do you? I still don't know how or why the popularity of a sport affects how intimidating a participant in the sport can be. It honestly just doesn't make any sense.

Actually, the point was that he either can or can't make his point without being a real POS while doing so. Apparently he can't and it hurts his argument.

[pk500]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Loaded questions - here's a simple observation though: A guy who was so dominating a runner barely cut it in the NFL when he needed some hands and the ability to run routes. Meaning, he had to do more than run down a track for a few hundred meters and hop some fences.

Way to take the easy escape route.

Why are they loaded questions? Because if you answered them truthfully, you'd look foolish?

Now what happens if you try to get the speediest guys away from football to focus their lives on 400m hurdles? Do they perform at a mediocre level or do their finely tuned bodies top out at mediocre performance?

I would guess that the speediest guys in football would flop in the 400-meter hurdles even after training, as it takes an entirely different skill set than football. Just as the most talented basketball player of his generation, Michael Jordan, was an utter flop in pro baseball because it takes an entirely different skill set than hoops.

But we digress: You're ducking my original two questions. If it makes it any easier, why don't you just give us a list of sports that contain relevant athletes and those with irrelevant athletes? It should make for some very interesting reading. Remember -- I said sports. So leave the cup-stacking analogies at home, please.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Actually, the point was that he either can or can't make his point without being a real POS while doing so. Apparently he can't and it hurts his argument.

Sarcasm is a lost art to those whose papier mache feelings mistake it for "haterade."

A shame.

Take care,
PK

[ComfortablyLomb]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Since when does calling someone a "dumb mother!@#$%^" count as sarcasm? Please, humor me, how do you define sarcasm?

[pk500]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Since when does calling someone a "dumb mother!@#$%^" count as sarcasm? Please, humor me, how do you define sarcasm?

Please tell me where the word "you" or "Lomb" appears in the next sentence, which is quoted verbatim from my prior post:

>>>Ignorance may be bliss, but it still makes people look like dumb motherf*ckers in the end.<<<

Then again, if the shoe fits you, feel free to slip it on.

Honestly, do I think you're a dumb motherf*cker? No. I don't know you.

But do I think your definition of worthwhile athletes in proportion to some arbitrary "relevance" of their chosen sport is ignorant and myopic as hell? You bet I do, based on your illogical attempts to define such "relevance." That doesn't make you a bad guy, though.

Take care,
PK

[ComfortablyLomb]

Re: Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in Sports?

Two questions.

One, given that Nehemiah was the best in the world in the 110 hurdles but a very mediocre wide receiver, do you consider him more of a relevant athlete for his track career or his NFL career?

Two, did he become a relevant athlete when he joined the NFL and end his career as a relevant athlete when he quit the NFL?

Fine, I'll play, but anytime you try to make the answer one or the other on an open-ended question you're not helping matters.

One - If he played in the NFL for a few seasons then he's a mediocre wide receiver who happened to excel as a hurdler. Good for him turning a small-time ability into a small role in the bigtime.

Two - If he's relevant it's because he's an interesting story. A guy who was a world class hurdler who managed to find a way into the NFL. Not that he was very good, though I'm assuming he was older at this point, but that he could do it all. They should make an inspirational movie.

It's kind of like when Michelle Wie or Anika play in a PGA Tour event. They can dominate the ladies circuit as much as they want but when they make the crossover they expose the women for what they are, worse than the men.