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?

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

Oh, c'mon now. Do you really take anyone reading this to be that stupid? Who else could you have meant that to be about? You're arguing about perception on the one hand and are trying to make it seem like you weren't intending that fun little saying of yours to be aimed directly across my bow? No, you did not say, "you, comfortablylomb, are such-and-such," but you might as well have considering the context.

[ComfortablyLomb]

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

Here's one for you:

If Michelle Wie ends up dominating the LPGA Tour between ages 20 and 35 and has a streak against the women that is widely recognized as being much more dominant than Tiger's run over the PGA Tour - but still tries to compete against the men every year, and fails miserably, can she be considered one of the most dominating athletes?

[pk500]

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

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.

No, it's not, because Wie and Sorenstam are playing the same game when they cross over, so they are exposed as being inferior golf athletes to the men.

Nehemiah attempted to cross over in an entirely different discipline, so he clearly wasn't as good of a football player as he was a hurdler. But that doesn't make him less of an athlete because he only was good at hurdles, which doesn't qualify as "relevant" in your mind.

Therein lies the rub between you and I. You think Skeets Nehemiah needed to succeed in the "relevant" NFL to validate himself as a great athlete where I -- and nearly everyone outside of the U.S. and many inside the U.S. -- already considered him a great athlete due to his track success.

I don't believe an athlete has to succeed in a sport that is currently popular in the U.S. and/or worldwide to be considered a great athlete. I interpret that you do.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

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

Oh, c'mon now. Do you really take anyone reading this to be that stupid? Who else could you have meant that to be about? You're arguing about perception on the one hand and are trying to make it seem like you weren't intending that fun little saying of yours to be aimed directly across my bow? No, you did not say, "you, comfortablylomb, are such-and-such," but you might as well have considering the context.

As I said, if the shoe fits ...

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

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

Here's one for you:

If Michelle Wie ends up dominating the LPGA Tour between ages 20 and 35 and has a streak against the women that is widely recognized as being much more dominant than Tiger's run over the PGA Tour - but still tries to compete against the men every year, and fails miserably, can she be considered one of the most dominating athletes?

Certainly. She dominated her primary arena of play. If Wie wins more regular tournaments and 13 LPGA majors by age 30, then yes, she is more dominant that Tiger. It does get a bit tricky with Wie because she has crossed over to compete with men. But if she puts up similar numbers in the LPGA as Woods has in the PGA, yes, she will be considered just as dominant.

Or are you going to play the sex card along with the "relevance" card? There's no way a woman can be a dominant athlete because a guy could kick her azz in her chosen sport?

So Martina Navratilova, who has 58 combined Grand Slam titles between singles and doubles, wasn't as dominant as Boris Becker, who won six Grand Slam tournaments, because Becker could kick Martina's azz in a head's-up singles match?

Take care,
PK

[ifuxwitu]

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

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...

I agree with alot of what you are saying but, Jordan is in a class by himself. I have watch basketball for a long time an no one comes close to the leadership, skill, drive, determination, motivation, and mental preparation that Michael Jordan brought to the game of basketball. If you think that some of the players in the 60's and 70's were as good as Jordan, please enlighten me.

[pietasterp]

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

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?


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!


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.

Just for the record, I have heard horse people call them "blinkers" as well...

There's a fundamental difference between what YOU, or even WE as a nation, consider mainstream and watch routinely, and what the rest of the world considers mainstream or what they watch routinely. Vast swaths of the world come to a standstill during the Cricket World Cup (including India, the second-most populous country in the world), but does anyone in America even know that the sport exists? Clearly, in England, Australia (the best team in the world), India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and many other countries, Cricket is a HUGE deal. Because we (myself included) don't know a damn thing about it doesn't mean it isn't mainstream; it just means it isn't mainstream HERE in America. Big difference. We're just one in a vast constellation (a globe even!) full of countries.

Regarding your comment from a previous post, Lomb, about being sick of celebrating everyone's minor accomplishments, I happen to agree with you. That's just not what we're talking about here...we aren't talking about being Politically Correct, artificially inflating fragile egos, or demanding props for a little league team that won it's division championship - we are talking about major league, big time athletics. Watched by millions the world over. Again, just because it isn't big to you or I, doesn't mean it isn't big. And even if it isn't watched by some arbitrarily set minimum number of spectators to be considered "big time" (I'd be interested to know what that number is, by the way), if it's athletic accomplishment, it's athletic accomplishment. Put it this way - if you happened to live in Belgium, where baseball isn't popular (I dare say your average citizen there watches zero MLB games a year), would you still consider Hank Aaron's career HR record important? Of course you would...the fact that the people around you don't care doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the feat is impressive.

Also, I do think it is a big deal that Al Bundy scored 4 touchdowns in one game for Polk High his senior year. After all, we all knew that fact and are still talking about it, 20+ years after the fact!

[pietasterp]

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

I agree with alot of what you are saying but, Jordan is in a class by himself. I have watch basketball for a long time an no one comes close to the leadership, skill, drive, determination, motivation, and mental preparation that Michael Jordan brought to the game of basketball. If you think that some of the players in the 60's and 70's were as good as Jordan, please enlighten me.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying there aren't a lot of really good arguments one could make to declare Jordan the greatest of all time - he may well be. What I am saying is that it's alarming how quickly people will attack you or else just completely dismiss you/think you don't know anything about basketball (as if we're talking about basic "facts" rather than opinion) if you dare to suggest anyone other than MJ might be the greatest hoopster of all time. It's as if there just isn't any possibility that it could be someone else, and certainly not someone that played before our time...

Comparing players between eras is always tricky, but I guess that's what makes for a great argument. Off the top of my head, greatest of all time arguments could easily be made for:

Wilt Chamberlain...his statistical dominance is completely unassailable - and mind-boggling. His stats are straight out of an EA Sports videogame (i.e. unreal) - Wilt scored 60 or more points in a single game 32 times; in second place is Michael Jordan with...four. Chamberlain finished the 1962 season with a 50.4 ppg average, and he scored 50 or more points 45 times -more than any other player in NBA/ABA history did in his entire career! Unbelievable...and, let's not forget his 100 points in a game stunt, which I'm just going to go on record as saying will never be topped (despite Kobe's best attempts last season).

Bill Russell - 21,620 career rebounds (an unbelievable average of 22.5 per game over his CAREER), including 51 boards in one game, 49 in two others, and a dozen consecutive seasons of 1,000 or more rebounds, 12-time All Star. And, oh yeah - he won 11 championships in 13 years with the Celtics.

Oscar Robertson - "The Big O"'s stats in just his second year in the league (1961-62): 30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, and 11.4 assists per game - yes, an average of a triple-double for an ENTIRE SEASON. No other player in history can match those numbers. He is the gold-standard for all-around excellence in basketball - fairly convincing argument for GoAT...

It gets even murkier if we consider guys that started in the ABA, but could well have been the greatest if their careers weren't shortened/altered by the NBA's annexing of the league - Julius Erving, George Gervin, etc...

I think it's fine for people to say they think Jordan was the greatest, but I think it's NOT fine for people to state it as if it's a fact. There is no objective evidence or statistics anyone can point to to make that argument - if it's # championships, then Russell is way ahead. If it's stats, clearly Chamberlain is superior. If it's all-around play, Robertson was/is still the pinnacle. What makes everyone so sure MJ is the best is because Stuart Scott on ESPN or Nike or Gatorade or whoever have drilled it into kids' heads that he is the greatest without giving any quarter to any other player that ever laced up a pair of sneakers. I'm not saying that's why everyone who thinks MJ is the best thinks that, but I do think a large portion of that group is unduly influenced by marketing and media bias.

[pk500]

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

The most remarkable aspect of the 1961-62 NBA season? Elgin Baylor averaged 38 points per game and lost the scoring title by an average of 12 POINTS PER GAME to Wilt.

That qualifies as a W-O-W.

Take care,
PK

[ifuxwitu]

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

Just to clarify, I'm not saying there aren't a lot of really good arguments one could make to declare Jordan the greatest of all time - he may well be. What I am saying is that it's alarming how quickly people will attack you or else just completely dismiss you/think you don't know anything about basketball (as if we're talking about basic "facts" rather than opinion) if you dare to suggest anyone other than MJ might be the greatest hoopster of all time. It's as if there just isn't any possibility that it could be someone else, and certainly not someone that played before our time...

Comparing players between eras is always tricky, but I guess that's what makes for a great argument. Off the top of my head, greatest of all time arguments could easily be made for:

Wilt Chamberlain...his statistical dominance is completely unassailable - and mind-boggling. His stats are straight out of an EA Sports videogame (i.e. unreal) - Wilt scored 60 or more points in a single game 32 times; in second place is Michael Jordan with...four. Chamberlain finished the 1962 season with a 50.4 ppg average, and he scored 50 or more points 45 times -more than any other player in NBA/ABA history did in his entire career! Unbelievable...and, let's not forget his 100 points in a game stunt, which I'm just going to go on record as saying will never be topped (despite Kobe's best attempts last season).

Bill Russell - 21,620 career rebounds (an unbelievable average of 22.5 per game over his CAREER), including 51 boards in one game, 49 in two others, and a dozen consecutive seasons of 1,000 or more rebounds, 12-time All Star. And, oh yeah - he won 11 championships in 13 years with the Celtics.

Oscar Robertson - "The Big O"'s stats in just his second year in the league (1961-62): 30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, and 11.4 assists per game - yes, an average of a triple-double for an ENTIRE SEASON. No other player in history can match those numbers. He is the gold-standard for all-around excellence in basketball - fairly convincing argument for GoAT...

It gets even murkier if we consider guys that started in the ABA, but could well have been the greatest if their careers weren't shortened/altered by the NBA's annexing of the league - Julius Erving, George Gervin, etc...

I think it's fine for people to say they think Jordan was the greatest, but I think it's NOT fine for people to state it as if it's a fact. There is no objective evidence or statistics anyone can point to to make that argument - if it's # championships, then Russell is way ahead. If it's stats, clearly Chamberlain is superior. If it's all-around play, Robertson was/is still the pinnacle. What makes everyone so sure MJ is the best is because Stuart Scott on ESPN or Nike or Gatorade or whoever have drilled it into kids' heads that he is the greatest without giving any quarter to any other player that ever laced up a pair of sneakers. I'm not saying that's why everyone who thinks MJ is the best thinks that, but I do think a large portion of that group is unduly influenced by marketing and media bias.

You speak the truth in everything that you said, however, Jordan dominated on both ends of the court. Everyone and everything you mentioned was concetrated on either offense or defence. I'm not disagreeing because, like you said, everthing is based on opinion. I just think that all-around game should include everything i.e..... Offence, Defence, Freethrows (Had to put that in for Chamberlain), Leadership, Clutch and the fact that everybody in the building knew when the game was on the line, Jordan was getting the ball. Still, he managed to amaze us time and time again. Again, the other people you mentioned were great, but their basketball greatness was not spread over all aspects of the game IMHO.

[pietasterp]

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

You speak the truth in everything that you said, however, Jordan dominated on both ends of the court. Everyone and everything you mentioned was concetrated on either offense or defence. I'm not disagreeing because, like you said, everthing is based on opinion. I just think that all-around game should include everything i.e..... Offence, Defence, Freethrows (Had to put that in for Chamberlain), Leadership, Clutch and the fact that everybody in the building knew when the game was on the line, Jordan was getting the ball. Still, he managed to amaze us time and time again. Again, the other people you mentioned were great, but their basketball greatness was not spread over all aspects of the game IMHO.

I think that would be a legitimate point, but for the fact that Jordan's so-called defensive prowess was in my opinion completely overrated. He wasn't even the best defensive guard on his own team for most of the 90's (w/ Phil Jackson opting to put Ron Harper on the opposition's best offensive players), yet he consistently made all-defensive teams while Harper (and others way more deserving, i.e Joe Dumars) did not. In addition, I can't take seriously much of what I saw from Jordan because his prowess is inexorably linked to the leniency allowed him by the referees (perhaps at the discretion of David Stern, who wanted Jordan to be his flag-bearer?). As Matt Bullock once blatantly put it, "You touch him, it's a foul...He touches you, it's a steal." You can't convince me every single guy in the NBA at the time didn't feel the same way. Another one of my favorite quote about Jordan: "The last time anyone traveled as much as Jordan, they discovered the New World."

The only clip you ever have to watch to know how Jordan's "legacy" was completely fabricated by the popular media is the now legendary game-winning jumper against the Jazz in game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals...is there anyone on earth who does NOT see the most obvious push-off of all time on Bryon Russell, which ultimately went un-called and allowed MJ to swish a completely uncontested 20-footer? I couldn't believe my eyes that they didn't call that 10 years ago, and to this day I remain completely befuddled by that no-call. Really, the only possible conclusion is that the NBA wanted that game to end that way. More to the point; if you read the NBA.com description of that event, it states something to the extent that "Russell fell for a fake, slipped to the floor, and allowed Jordan an open 20-footer". Are you f&#*(@ing kidding me??? Is the NBA really that intent on preserving MJ's legacy that they are willing to flat-out lie on their own website to bamboozle people into remembering the exact same event completely contrary to the actual occurence? Is there any other description of that play anywhere else in the world that doesn't give at least passing mention to the fact that Jordan shoved Russell to the floor?

What the heck was I talking about? Oh yeah - the idea that Jordan was dominant as both and offensive and defensive players. I would reject that out of hand, at least to the extent that he was any better defensively than Wilt. While I think no one argues his incredible offensive stats, consider that defensively:

Wilt Chamberlain set a record for rebounds in a game with 55, against the Boston Celtics on November 24, 1960...The opposing center in that game? Bill Russell (who had held the prior one-game record of 51).

Chamberlain is the only player in NBA history to record a double-triple-double (meaning 20 points, 20 rebounds, 20 assists in one game), during a 1968 game.

A more arguable (but almost certainly probable point) that many sportswriters would attest to: Chamberlain would have had many quadruple-doubles, and may have averaged a triple-double (points, rebounds, blocks) over his career, but since he played in an era during which statistics on blocks and steals were not officially recorded, this remains speculation.

Chamberlain led the league in total assists in 1968, at a rate of 8.6 per game.

For all his reputation as a horrid foul shooter, Wilt wasn't that much worse than Russell (.511 to Russell's .561) and, in fact, was better than Russell in four of his first five seasons. And since Wilt got to the foul line so much more often than Russell, he shot almost twice as many free throws and made almost twice as many.

Interesting side note: despite the fact that Chamberlain was regularly double- and triple-teamed on offense and was relied upon so heavily on defense, he NEVER once fouled out of a game in his 14 years in the NBA. I'm not sure what that proves, but it's a cool stat.

Once again, the model for "all-around" accomplishment is still the big O, who excelled in every area of the game possible.

Again, I respect that people can think MJ was the greatest of all time; I'm not dogging you by any means, ifuxwitu - you are clearly stating that it's your opinion, and that's cool. I just think it's interesting as a point of discussion to point out that compelling, borderline airtight cases could be made for a number of basketball players, but we just don't ever hear them discussed that often in this modern Air-Jordan driven media age. I don't know where I was going with that anti-Jordan rant, but whatever - take that with a grain of salt.

[ifuxwitu]

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

I think that would be a legitimate point, but for the fact that Jordan's so-called defensive prowess was in my opinion completely overrated. He wasn't even the best defensive guard on his own team for most of the 90's (w/ Phil Jackson opting to put Ron Harper on the opposition's best offensive players), yet he consistently made all-defensive teams while Harper (and others way more deserving, i.e Joe Dumars) did not. In addition, I can't take seriously much of what I saw from Jordan because his prowess is inexorably linked to the leniency allowed him by the referees (perhaps at the discretion of David Stern, who wanted Jordan to be his flag-bearer?). As Matt Bullock once blatantly put it, "You touch him, it's a foul...He touches you, it's a steal." You can't convince me every single guy in the NBA at the time didn't feel the same way. Another one of my favorite quote about Jordan: "The last time anyone traveled as much as Jordan, they discovered the New World."

The only clip you ever have to watch to know how Jordan's "legacy" was completely fabricated by the popular media is the now legendary game-winning jumper against the Jazz in game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals...is there anyone on earth who does NOT see the most obvious push-off of all time on Bryon Russell, which ultimately went un-called and allowed MJ to swish a completely uncontested 20-footer? I couldn't believe my eyes that they didn't call that 10 years ago, and to this day I remain completely befuddled by that no-call. Really, the only possible conclusion is that the NBA wanted that game to end that way. More to the point; if you read the NBA.com description of that event, it states something to the extent that "Russell fell for a fake, slipped to the floor, and allowed Jordan an open 20-footer". Are you f&#*(@ing kidding me??? Is the NBA really that intent on preserving MJ's legacy that they are willing to flat-out lie on their own website to bamboozle people into remembering the exact same event completely contrary to the actual occurence? Is there any other description of that play anywhere else in the world that doesn't give at least passing mention to the fact that Jordan shoved Russell to the floor?

What the heck was I talking about? Oh yeah - the idea that Jordan was dominant as both and offensive and defensive players. I would reject that out of hand, at least to the extent that he was any better defensively than Wilt. While I think no one argues his incredible offensive stats, consider that defensively:

Wilt Chamberlain set a record for rebounds in a game with 55, against the Boston Celtics on November 24, 1960...The opposing center in that game? Bill Russell (who had held the prior one-game record of 51).

Chamberlain is the only player in NBA history to record a double-triple-double (meaning 20 points, 20 rebounds, 20 assists in one game), during a 1968 game.

A more arguable (but almost certainly probable point) that many sportswriters would attest to: Chamberlain would have had many quadruple-doubles, and may have averaged a triple-double (points, rebounds, blocks) over his career, but since he played in an era during which statistics on blocks and steals were not officially recorded, this remains speculation.

Chamberlain led the league in total assists in 1968, at a rate of 8.6 per game.

For all his reputation as a horrid foul shooter, Wilt wasn't that much worse than Russell (.511 to Russell's .561) and, in fact, was better than Russell in four of his first five seasons. And since Wilt got to the foul line so much more often than Russell, he shot almost twice as many free throws and made almost twice as many.

Interesting side note: despite the fact that Chamberlain was regularly double- and triple-teamed on offense and was relied upon so heavily on defense, he NEVER once fouled out of a game in his 14 years in the NBA. I'm not sure what that proves, but it's a cool stat.

Once again, the model for "all-around" accomplishment is still the big O, who excelled in every area of the game possible.

Again, I respect that people can think MJ was the greatest of all time; I'm not dogging you by any means, ifuxwitu - you are clearly stating that it's your opinion, and that's cool. I just think it's interesting as a point of discussion to point out that compelling, borderline airtight cases could be made for a number of basketball players, but we just don't ever hear them discussed that often in this modern Air-Jordan driven media age. I don't know where I was going with that anti-Jordan rant, but whatever - take that with a grain of salt.

I don't take what you are saying as being anti-Jordan. You are just making a very good case. I rarely get to have an mature debate on this board and I must say that I really am impressed (just not enough to go against MJ). (J/K).

Even on the play you mentioned against the Jazz, MJ showed every possible intangible that you can have in all facets of Basketball. First starts with Defence by stealing the ball from the Mailman and calmly walking the ball up court and still had the poise to deliver the dagger to not only win the game, but to clinch a World Championship. Russell never had a chance. He was just a modern day Craig Ehlo. Jordan owned him everytime they played. I must admit that Jordan got alot of calls but so does every so called superstar that ever played in the NBA. The same thing happens today. Chamberlain and Russell were also both physically superior to most of their opponents (meaning size and strength), giving them the edge. MJ was never the biggest, fastest, or the quickest guy in the league. Just pure will and determination to be the best made him who he was. That's my main reason for my beliefs regarding MJ. (Damn you are making it hard on me though).

[4BiddenKnight]

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

Dam, pietasterp your arguments seem so believable. I'll take that without a grain of salt. Yes I saw it many times, that infamous MJ game winner on that crossover against Russell. I thought that he almost broke his knee or ankle by doing that. But then now, with the help of forums like this, I can see that MJ really did push Russell off with his left hand. I guess without all the superstar treatment MJ received, he wouldn't even be close to being as dominant as he was.

[pk500]

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

The question here isn't Jordan's dominance. He was dominant in every sense of the word.

The question is whether people 30 and younger today even think of anyone who played before 1985 as a legitimate basketball player because those players weren't pimped endlessly by the NBA and ESPN and didn't endorse 19 products on TV screens and billboards all over the country.

I still think Jordan is the best ever. But there's absolutely no question that Wilt, Russell and the Big O are just a whisker behind MJ, in the select pantheon with guys like Kareem, Magic and Bird.

You have the same problem in hockey. There's an entire generation that has no idea who Gordie Howe is, let alone that he was the best all-around hockey player to ever lace on a pair of skates. Sadly, people also are forgetting that Bobby Orr was the greatest defenseman ever, hands down.

Take care,
PK

[scoman]

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

Actually the question should have been:Is Tiger The Most Intimidating, Imposing and Frightening Figure Ever in the history of golf,then the answer would be yes. But comparing him to great individuals on team sports is really pretty senseless.As then it becomes just a matter of opinion,and there would really be no correct answer.