rolling "dave zirin sons a sports writer/figure and my commie ass self-righteously otms him"

public opinion = his legacy

and if you don't think that athletes are influenced by public opinion, then you're crazy

his legacy = a lot of money

goddamn jordan you're such a sportswriter about tiger

lol iirc you and j0rdan actually share pretty similar opinions about tiger

udrc

are you trying to downplay the importance of tiger's legacy to tiger? i don't understand the idea that legacy is only important to old, fusty sportswriters

luv how simmons doubled down on this, anyone who spend enough time online will end up a troll

anything i've ever heard about him is how much he wants to over take nickalaus' record/be considered the greatest golfer ever

yeah I'm gonna remove my bookmark tbh before this ends up in the clusterfuck thread

maybe switch to the indie dancing in denver? thread

again what is this "hurdle" he has to clear? people don't like him as much (vvvvv debatable btw)? does anyone actually think he shouldn't be allowed to play golf anymore?

xp jordan so what other course of action is there to repair his legacy than to go back out and start winning again? and because he cheated on his wife, does that make him a worse golfer? do even people who read sports illustrated think this?

i mean to be real i don't think what simmons said is all that offensive, because as much as i love him he's a moron about a lot of things. but i can't believe we can't all just agree that what he said was wrong!

not "wrong" but RONG

ur forgetting something

fwiw I will be very surprised if tiger wins anything at all this year

the hearts of quasi whores everywhere

i don't nearly enough about muhammed ali to say whether i think simmons is right or not, i just think he makes really good points about the nature of paparazzi & the nature of golf wrt tiger

i think he is dumb but what else is new

kevin, your reaction appears rooted in one enormous mistake - that Simmons is comparing Ali 1967 to Tiger. He's not - he's comparing Ali 1970, who was making his comeback. Ali at that time was not "receiving death threats," and he had largely won his battle with the government. Ali's most difficult times as a fighter were years before his return (when he announced his membership in the NoI, renounced the name Cassius Clay and was widely despised) and years after (when his skills were in sharp decline).

Putting aside the social/turmoil issue, from a physical standpoint Ali was still in his boxing prime (28) and hadn't taken the physical punishment of boxing for over three years. Contrast to Tiger being on the way out of his golfing prime and coming back from a recent injury.

if they fought right now tiger would win, think abt it

"that Simmons is comparing Ali 1967 to Tiger. He's not - he's comparing Ali 1970,"

but isn't that unfair? isn't now (um) tiger's 1967? when ali was first barred from boxing, the road ahead probably looked far more difficult than tiger's does now.

But Ali wasn't making a comeback in 1967.

It's a tough example because of that difference in time frames, and I don't even know that I'd agree with Simmons on the relative difficulty. But kevin's (and Zirin's) outrage is only justified if you try to believe that Ali's situation didn't change between '67 and '70, and if you believe that Simmons is comparing the causes of their exiles. That latter, at least, is demonstrably untrue.

Tiger Woods will walk into Augusta with a crowd cheering for him for the most part, he will play golf (a game where you stroll around in a park and hit things sometimes), and then he'll answer questions from the golfing press, one of the most sycophantic of all sporting presses. Then he will get a big check and go home.

Pretty tough stuff there.

milo aside from you being an annoying libertarian all over the site recently tiger is not out of his prime, watch golf

polyphonic otm

i am not outraged! neither zirin nor i caught feelings over what simmons said, we're just pointing out that it was a dumb thing to say and it was doubly retarded that he didn't take it back when called on it

milo aside from you being an annoying libertarian all over the site

recently tiger is not out of his prime, watch golf

I don't think the hard thing for Tiger is to play, the hard thing is to play and be competitive and to win

i could just point out that most golfers enter their primes in their mid-30s, but i don't see what it would matter

Nicklaus's first and last major wins were separated by 24 years. Tiger Woods is in the 11th year of his pro career, and is in much better shape than Nicklaus ever was.

yeah, but you also pointed out that I'm a libertarian, so your points are pretty suspect

I know not your politics.

lol iirc you and j0rdan actually share pretty similar opinions about tiger

ur thinking of taylor swift here

xp - after Nicklaus turned 34 he won four majors for the rest of his career. He was deeply past his prime (as in being largely irrelevant for winning majors) when he was 40.

j0rdan and i share pretty similar opinions on EVERYTHING except for tiger woods

xp

both of you are basically saying "tiger needs to man up" itt

A golfer with 4 majors would be tied for the 19th-most in golf history, for what it's worth, and it's also how many Tiger needs to catch Jack.

I think he will get more than 4. Just a hunch!

no i dont think he can take the perez hilton posts, he definitely should retire

Some golfers who have not even won 4 majors in their entire careers: Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, Padraig Harrington, Nick Price, Greg Norman...

the most intriguing part of his whole comeback is whether or not someone in the gallery is gonna jeer him at a silent moment ("get in her hole!!") and whether that person will be beat out of consciousness by everyone else

btw the sports media is pissed at tiger for engineering the no-questions presser -- i wouldn't be surprised if they're tougher on him than yall are expecting

Remember when Alex Rodriguez was going to be a huge distraction last year?

lol i was going to mention that too, dude had an affair with MADONNA and no one gave a shit

a-rod was a distraction for the first month of the season when he was hitting .220

also it's a weird thing to compare cuz a-rod was able to be overshadowed in the baseball world by the natural occurrences of the sport -- 30 other teams are playing pretty much every night, but with tiger golf coverage pretty much begins and ends with him. there is nothing to overshadow him.

i think it's absurd to say that the first few weeks (if not longer) of tiger's return will not be a distraction to the sport

well i'm not a sportswriter so i'd never say anything would be a "distraction" with a straight face - there will be lots of media coverage for his first couple tournaments. if he plays well, it will subside

Some golfers who have not even won 4 majors in their entire careers: Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, Padraig Harrington, Nick Price, Greg Norman...

It would, but I think he'll win around eight more.

charles pierce weighs in again

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/pierce/2010/03/again_with_the_history_thing.html

strongly considered getting a boston.com commenting account just to mock pierce, but not worth it

it's kind of a sadly anonymous blog...

like i said, i read boston.com daily and didn't even know about it until this simmons thing happened