Tiger or Jordan?

[Bama Gambler]

A couple of questions:

1. Who is more well know world-wide right now?

2. What about during their peaks (assuming this is Tiger's peak)?

3. Who dominated his sport more?

4. Who would you rather watch (during peak)?

Bama Gambler

[Bama Gambler]

1. Jordan (he has all those shoes, clothes, etc.)
2. Jordan
3. Tiger (Only Wayne Gretzky dominated his sport more)
4. Jordan (although I would rather play golf with Tiger than hoop-it-up with Jordan)

Bama Gambler

[jets fan]

Until Tiger breaks Nicklaus's record, he is not the best ever. At this point in time, Jordan is the best ever, so I will go with Jordan for #2, #3 and #4. But since Jordan retired for the 2nd time, and now is half his old self, I'll say Tiger for #1.

[Patience]

1) World Wide - Tiger. Golf is more international
2) Tiger
3) Jordan - though Tiger should surpass
4) Jordan - hitting a golf ball can only bring so much excitement

btw. Ali best known figure world wide at his peak & probably still today

[Mr. Grim]

1) Jordan is much more well known- only Ali was more known. Golf is more international, give me a break - nobody watches golf.

2) Jordan

3) Tiger

[sb_jim]

1-4: El Tigre

Didn't he get about $40 million right when he turned pro from Nike? Not to mention he was winning pro tournaments as an amateur too. He owns the sport. That tournament in Germany pays him $5 million in appearance money and then he always takes the first place $1 million for good measure. At age 26 there is no way you can't call him the best there ever was, something that is always debatable in hoops.

[Drzy]

At age 26 there is no way you can't call him the best there ever was, something that is always debatable in hoops.
Oh yeah? Watch me! :P

I can absolutely say that at age 26 he is NOT the best that ever was. He's *headed* that way, yes, but definitely, definitely, definitely not the best ever. For proof, look to Bobby Jones.

[sb_jim]

Can you honestly answer questions 1-4 in favor of Bobby Jones? I don't know him, don't want to see him, and don't have much regard for records set in the dark ages of a sport. He didn't leave much of a marketing or showmanship legacy behind and probably died poor. Hogan is a more recognized name in those regards.

As a Laker fan I don't want to see any Bull or Wizard play. Oprah's empire is bigger than Jordan's. Jordan's best team would lose to Kobe and Shaq, they're not even mentioned in the best ever champions debates. (Houston 1995 comes up a lot)

If you live close to Chicago I can see how Jordan would have more of an influence but most of the world has forgotten him. Ali does live on. Golf is almost year around, basketball is only about 2 months of playoffs dominated by the Lakers throughout much of recent history.

[Mr. Grim]

Is the previous poster clueless or just from Southern Californa?

[sb_jim]

I'm very opinionated and really don't care much for professional basketball unless the Lakers are playing and in the playoffs only.

Should everyone have to like Mike? Given two choices such as these, is there only one right answer? Can you support your opinion?

[Bama Gambler]

"Jack Nicklaus is by far the greatest player, record-wise, of all time," said Mark O'Meara, Woods' close friend. "But in my estimation, and from what I've seen in the last 20 years, Tiger Woods is the greatest all-around player ever.

"He may never match Jack Nicklaus' records, but there is no player who can drive it like Tiger Woods -- as far, as straight -- draw the ball, cut the ball, (hit it) high, low, short game, mental toughness . . . if you're going to build the complete golfer, you build Tiger Woods."

[Mr. Grim]

In my lifetime I have traveled deep and far into foreign lands and into hidden jungles. I was loathe to discover youngsters wearing MJ uniforms in the depths of the jungle. basketball is a much more popular spectator sport than golf. I have not yet seen an African youngster teeing up a coconut.

[Bama Gambler]

Well said Grim :D

[sb_jim]

What about senior citizens? My parents arrived the night of game 4 of the NBA finals and didn't care at all about the game. They were interested all weekend in how Tiger was doing and watched quite a bit of it. (they do know exactly who Shaq and Kobe are but never once mentioned Michael)

Do Americans spend more on golf equipment or basketballs annually?

I've seen kids all over the world in Hard Rock Cafe tee shirts, most of them don't know what it even says and they did not buy their shirts. Most of the kids in the world are poor and are lucky to have shirts given to them that didn't sell in the wealthier nations.

[Dooby Scoo]

Tiger, Tiger, Tiger, Tiger. He has not hit his prime yet. There will be many more years of Tigerball.

[Franchise]

A couple of questions:

1. Who is more well know world-wide right now?

2. What about during their peaks (assuming this is Tiger's peak)?

3. Who dominated his sport more?

4. Who would you rather watch (during peak)?

Bama Gambler

1. Tiger
2. Jordan
3. Tiger
4. Tiger

A couple of comments on a few other things I saw.

Golf is more international, give me a break - nobody watches golf.

Pardon me? Did Jordan ever have people paying him $2M just to show up at their tournaments? Tiger plays all over the world to packed courses. They can't sell enough tickets.

Not to mention he was winning pro tournaments as an amateur too.

Tiger never won a pro tournament as an amateur. He won very soon after turning pro and actually secured his card and made the Tour Championship in the span of about 7 events, but all his victories have been as a pro.

Can you honestly answer questions 1-4 in favor of Bobby Jones? I don't know him, don't want to see him, and don't have much regard for records set in the dark ages of a sport. He didn't leave much of a marketing or showmanship legacy behind and probably died poor. Hogan is a more recognized name in those regards.

For one, he didn't say he'd answer all four as Jones. He just said that he considers Jones better than Tiger, which is arguable. Jones was very much a showman, and by far the best golfer of his day. After completing the Grand Slam at age 28, he immediately retired as there was nothing left for him to accomplish. His records would be even more impressive if he had played into his 40s and 50s like people do now. Also, he was quite the showman. When he retired, he went to Hollywood and produced many videos on golf that were quite popular.

He also did not die poor in the slightest. He was a founding member of Augusta National, which you might have heard of :P.

[urysohn]

Do Americans spend more on golf equipment or basketballs annually?

A five dollar basketball or a $200 set of (cheap) clubs plus greens fees. Hmmm, good comparison. But it does bring up the good point that golf is a rich white man's sport and basketball appeals to almost everybody.

I'd say: MJ for all the public appeal stuff, Tiger for dominating his sport. But only because MJ didn't have the option of playing 1-on-1 ball.

[Mr. Grim]

Sorry, I just can't buy it. If we took a survey of the whole world's population. I would guarantee that more people know MJ than Tiger. Of course, Pele or Ronaldo would beat them both easily.

[gloid]

Ask that question in 10 years. Tiger is too young for a golfer to be talking about his prime, he still has a good 14 years until he hits 40. It would be like asking about MJ before when he was 22.

But, MJ is probably more well known now, I would rather watch MJ's dunks than Tiger's drives, but Tiger's all-around game I dinf more enjoyable. Tiger will not surpass MJ's prime I think only because Tiger wins a lot, but not every tournament - unlike MJ winning the NBA Finals every year for 5 seasons (Except his baseball excursion).

[wally world]

Just to clarify...Jordan won six titles in two three-peats, separated by the two-year reign of Akeem and the Rockets, not five years in a row.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't make it to the Finals the year Jordan came back in the middle of the season, did they?

[Bama Gambler]

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't make it to the Finals the year Jordan came back in the middle of the season, did they?

They lost to Shaq (Orlando) in the conference semifinal.

[DW Simpson]

sb_jim said: Jordan's best team would lose to Kobe and Shaq

Jordan's best team would take the Lakers in 5 or 6. Shaq wouldn't get the calls he gets now, and Jordan would take Kobe to school. Kerr or Paxton raining threes, Pippen shutting down Horry, it's too brutal to even contemplate.

[gloid]

Just to clarify...Jordan won six titles in two three-peats, separated by the two-year reign of Akeem and the Rockets, not five years in a row.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't make it to the Finals the year Jordan came back in the middle of the season, did they?

Wally, my point was that the separation of the threepeats was not a two year reign of Akeem, but rather MJ taking two years off for baseball. Akeem was just in the rigth place at the right time.

My point was also that Tiger will not win every Major he enters for 3 straight years

[Anonymous]

He'll lead in earnings for at least those 3 years though ... isn't that the true equivalent ? Even the Bulls didn't win every game they played during those Jordan years.

[Ducky]

He'll lead in earnings for at least those 3 years though ... isn't that the true equivalent ? Even the Bulls didn't win every game they played during those Jordan years.

Good point S'daddy. Take it easy on gloid though....it appears he has trouble with reality... :D

[Bama Gambler]

gloid wrote:Wally, my point was that the separation of the threepeats was not a two year reign of Akeem, but rather MJ taking two years off for baseball. Akeem was just in the rigth place at the right time.

My point was also that Tiger will not win every Major he enters for 3 straight years

Winning a major >= winning the nba title
72 (75 for pga championship and 45 for masters) golfers compete for a major while only 29 teams compete for NBA championship

Therefore, Tiger winning 4 in a row is much more impressive than Jordan winning three in a row.

Bama Gambler

[Brad Spirrison]

Which team would Phil Jackson coach in that matchup of Bulls vs. Lakers?


That only goes to show the silliness of comparing teams from different eras.

[sb_jim]

Robert Horry was comparing the lineups of the 95 Rockets and the 02 Lakers. Since he was on both teams it was kind of funny when he got to himself.

[urysohn]

He'll lead in earnings for at least those 3 years though ... isn't that the true equivalent ? Even the Bulls didn't win every game they played during those Jordan years.
This would be equivalent to winning the regular season title. There is no equivalent in golf. The only equivalent would be if they had one tournament at the end of each golf year where only the top 16 (how many NBA teams make the playoffs?) earnings leaders were invited.

And most of the 72 players in a tournament have no realistic shot at winning it, so comparing 29 NBA teams to 72 players is also unrealistic. The Bulls chances would have been just as good if the league had an additional 43 Clippers-quality teams in it (the Clippers from the Bulls run - not sure if they are actually any better nowadays or not).

[Drzy]

The Bulls chances would have been just as good if the league had an additional 43 Clippers-quality teams in it (the Clippers from the Bulls run - not sure if they are actually any better nowadays or not).
[small tan]They're better nowadays... one of the most explosive, unpredictable, and exciting teams in the NBA, but still only good for about a .500 record. They'd beat great teams who were playing great one night, then lose to a basement-dweller the next. Lots and lots of energy, they're actually my favorite team to watch now. Go Clips![/small tan]

[Rockhound]

A five dollar basketball or a $200 set of (cheap) clubs plus greens fees. Hmmm, good comparison. But it does bring up the good point that golf is a rich white man's sport and basketball appeals to almost everybody.


I'd have to say basketball is a poor black man's sport.

[Rockhound]

Until Tiger breaks Nicklaus's record, he is not the best ever. At this point in time, Jordan is the best ever, so I will go with Jordan for #2, #3 and #4. But since Jordan retired for the 2nd time, and now is half his old self, I'll say Tiger for #1.

Because Jordan ranks where...fifth in points scored?

[Troy McClure]

Jordan's best team would lose to Kobe and Shaq, they're not even mentioned in the best ever champions debates. (Houston 1995 comes up a lot)


Was that the Houston team that went 72-10 for the best record in history?

No wait, I must be thinking of a different team - the one you are pointing out as possibly the best ever went 47-35, was a sixth seed, and took 7 games to beat Phoenix in order to get to the championship. Or were you kidding?

[Radioactive Man]

A five dollar basketball plus $150 Nikes.

[gloid]

Please don't even put the current Lakers in the same category as the Bulls of the 90's - at least not yet. They just beat an awful Nets team, and only beat the Kings because the Kings choked - look at all those airballs in Game 7 of the Wetern Conference Finals. They are definitely the best team out there right now, but besides Kobe and Shaq they have nothing besides a good role player in Robert Horry. By the way, the Bulls are the team that went 72-10 and had the best record ever.

As for Tiger, he is the best champ out there right now, look at the records he has set at the Masters, US Open a couple of years ago, the British Open a couple of years ago. However, unlike basketball, he can be the best golfer, and he may go a couple of years without a major, that is why the comparison to Jordan is difficult....

[Botsy]

Until Tiger breaks Nicklaus's record, he is not the best ever. At this point in time, Jordan is the best ever, so I will go with Jordan for #2, #3 and #4. But since Jordan retired for the 2nd time, and now is half his old self, I'll say Tiger for #1.

Because Jordan ranks where...fifth in points scored?

Rockhound,

I think jets fan has a point. Nicklaus' record shows dominance over an extended period. Similarly, Jordan was the undisputed best basketball player in the world for a long time. Tiger's accomplishments, at this point, show that he is the best golfer for only the last 3-4 years.

[Summer]

Jordan, of course. Maybe I don't follow golf enough, though...

[Rockhound]

Until Tiger breaks Nicklaus's record, he is not the best ever. At this point in time, Jordan is the best ever, so I will go with Jordan for #2, #3 and #4. But since Jordan retired for the 2nd time, and now is half his old self, I'll say Tiger for #1.

Because Jordan ranks where...fifth in points scored?

Rockhound,

I think jets fan has a point. Nicklaus' record shows dominance over an extended period. Similarly, Jordan was the undisputed best basketball player in the world for a long time. Tiger's accomplishments, at this point, show that he is the best golfer for only the last 3-4 years.

I was taking his comments to mean that Woods can't be the greatest in his sport until he holds the most important record. By that measure, Jordan is not the most important in his sport.

[Guerilla poster]

not really sure how you can compare a team sport participant to an individual sport. if the NBA was a one on one league, I expect Jordan would have won most games.

[DW Simpson]

Troy McClure wrote: No wait, I must be thinking of a different team - the one you are pointing out as possibly the best ever went 47-35, was a sixth seed, and took 7 games to beat Phoenix in order to get to the championship. Or were you kidding?

One of the most amazing feats I've ever seen in sports was that Rockets team beating the 1,2 and 3 seeds on the road in the West. This has nothing to do with what teams are better than whom, but I thought I'd throw that out there. They were defending champs and they were ticked off.

[jets fan]

I was taking his comments to mean that Woods can't be the greatest in his sport until he holds the most important record. By that measure, Jordan is not the most important in his sport.

I think we have to bring in the team sport vs. individual sport idea here. Teams win NBA Championships, individuals win Golf Majors. Therefore a basketball player can be the best ever without holding a record for his teams winning the most NBA titles - all you have to do is look at his supporting cast. Because of this, the number of titles won is not an apples comparison between golf and basketball. In golf, there is no supporting cast - it's just the one person, therefore I don't see any better measure of how great a golfer is than the number of titles won. If Tiger doesn't win a tournament, he can only blame himself - i.e. it's not like he can say his teammate committed a stupid flagrant foul that lost them the game. Since Tiger is directly responsible for not winning, so is he directly responsible for winning, so the number of titles won measure becomes the best measure of how great a golfer is. By this measure he is well on his way to being the best of all time, and I congratulate him. But at this particular point in time, I have to give that honor to Nicklaus.

[Quasi]

not really sure how you can compare a team sport participant to an individual sport. if the NBA was a one on one league, I expect Jordan would have won most games.

You mean it's not a one on one league?....certainly not a true five on five league either....