listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 7, 2009 Oh wow. Some crappy little tournament without Michelson. Big whoop. Some Crappy little tournament. Haha. Ok, conclusion, you are an idiot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 7, 2009 You realize Furyk was in the field and in it down the stretch right?I bet you don't think he is very highly accomplished. wait..not THE jim furyk? are you kidding me? why didnt i watch?...the bald white version of james blake?...whens the last time that jim actually won ANY tournament and wasnt just a NAME?...i know..i had to look it up... july of 07 at the bumfock canadian open...-16..which means we all wouldve shot about -9.... how longs it been since he finished in the top 2? cant believe tiger held him off.....fockin miracle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 7, 2009 fat and old people still watch... It is strange when talking Woods/Federline....in each post you find room to say fat old people watch to go to sleep. Does that have anything to do with anything? Just really showing you have no real backing to your side of the debate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 7, 2009 Some Crappy little tournament. Haha. Ok, conclusion, you are an idiot. of course it wasnt a small tourney....jimmy furyk was in it THE jim furyk... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 7, 2009 wait..not THE jim furyk? are you kidding me? why didnt i watch?...the bald white version of james blake?...whens the last time that jim actually won ANY tournament and wasnt just a NAME?...i know..i had to look it up... july of 07 at the bumfock canadian open...-16..which means we all wouldve shot about -9.... how longs it been since he finished in the top 2? cant believe tiger held him off.....fockin miracle Golf is a little different than Tennis. More people win, people you may never heard of. In golf not just 2 guys have a chance to win. It was simple when Nadal went out, opened the door for Fed to win his French. I mean its either or in tennis. You say golf has no field, yet Tennis everyone but Nadal and Fed are eliminated before it even starts. Explain that logic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IAMWood 6 Posted June 7, 2009 The prime years of a golfers life is 32 - 42. It's scary what Tiger is going to do to the reord book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted June 7, 2009 Not as weak as any tennis field without Nadal or Federer in it...Robin Freaking Soderling? Hah!!!! You realize Furyk was in the field and in it down the stretch right? I bet you don't think he is very highly accomplished. I haven't missed a golf tournament in years. When was the last time Jim Furyk did a damn thing? I've seen him choke away more tournaments than he's won. He's not a closer, he doesn't get it done very often. He hasn't won in nearly 2 years, you think that's an accomplished golfer? I guess by your definition, if Jack laced up the cleats, he would be an accomplished golfer too? Byrd had a 4 foot putt on 17 to get 1 back of Woods, not only did he gag that away, he got a 6 on the final hole. WAY TO CLOSE!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 7, 2009 I haven't missed a golf tournament in years. When was the last time Jim Furyk did a damn thing? I've seen him choke away more tournaments than he's won. He's not a closer, he doesn't get it done very often. He hasn't won in nearly 2 years, you think that's an accomplished golfer? I guess by your definition, if Jack laced up the cleats, he would be an accomplished golfer too? Byrd had a 4 foot putt on 17 to get 1 back of Woods, not only did he gag that away, he got a 6 on the final hole. WAY TO CLOSE!! neat post and all. But since when was needing to go birdie-birdie to get in a playoff considered "closing" ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Some Crappy little tournament. Haha. Ok, conclusion, you are an idiot. Was it a major? That's what I thought. Does anyone mention the non-majors that Federer wins? of course not. They don't mean sh!t. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 nah..im just copying you and being ignorant..i know the fields are decent....todays golf field as a whole surely doesnt compare to the 70s and 80s..but they are ok...fat and old people still watch... to come here and say haa to the person who finally beat nadal on clay shows why you shouldve quit this argument long ago.... rocco mediate is golfs version of justin gimelstob.... Yes...I laughed at a guy whose career has been pretty terrible...far worse than Rocco's who you keep bringing up...and he did not even beat Woods. Yet you whine about the field in Golf...when guys like Soderling are beating the best...you lose all ability to whine about Rocco. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 wait..not THE jim furyk? are you kidding me? why didnt i watch?...the bald white version of james blake?...whens the last time that jim actually won ANY tournament and wasnt just a NAME?...i know..i had to look it up... july of 07 at the bumfock canadian open...-16..which means we all wouldve shot about -9.... how longs it been since he finished in the top 2? cant believe tiger held him off.....fockin miracle Yes...the Jim Furyk...the guy that unlike Soderling has actually won quite a few tournaments and a major. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 I haven't missed a golf tournament in years. When was the last time Jim Furyk did a damn thing? I've seen him choke away more tournaments than he's won. He's not a closer, he doesn't get it done very often. He hasn't won in nearly 2 years, you think that's an accomplished golfer? I guess by your definition, if Jack laced up the cleats, he would be an accomplished golfer too? Byrd had a 4 foot putt on 17 to get 1 back of Woods, not only did he gag that away, he got a 6 on the final hole. WAY TO CLOSE!! Furyk has done more...more recently (until the French) than Soderling ever has is the point. Bmoney likes to whine about the field...but has nothing but excuses when its guys like Soderling in the finals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted June 8, 2009 Was it a major? That's what I thought. Does anyone mention the non-majors that Federer wins? of course not. They don't mean sh!t. This idiot thought that (not) winning the nothing tournaments was important. Since this was the first tournament for Tiger since this little gem, I think that Tiger may have "found it" Tiger Woods has definitely 'lost it'. Not only did he lose the Masters, but he can't even win these little nothing-tournaments anymore. His drives are all over the place, his middle game blows, and he can't putt to save his life.I can excuse the driving due to his recovery of knee surgery, but there ain't no way a knee injury affects your putting. I think he has teh early stages of a David Duvall-type of psychological-thing going on. Opponents no longer fear the Tiger-mystique, so there goes the advantage he'd always have on Sundays where his opponent choked and all-but gave Tiger the tournament. In most other eras, Woods might still be good enough to win, but since Michelson might well-be a top five ever golfer himself, I think the gauntlet has been handed over to Phil. Does anyone think Tiger will ever win another major? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 Was it a major? That's what I thought. Does anyone mention the non-majors that Federer wins? of course not. They don't mean sh!t. Do they even televise or report on the non-slam events in Tennis? Does anyone actually care to watch them? Do they report on the non-slam events that Roger has been getting ousted from? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Do they even televise or report on the non-slam events in Tennis?Does anyone actually care to watch them? Do they report on the non-slam events that Roger has been getting ousted from? No. They don't televise them. If they aren't a major, no one cares. Crap-ass-tournaments in golf get televised because fat old Buick-driving men love to sit on the couch and watch golf. But no one remembers who won the same tournament last year or teh year before. It means NOTHING. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 No. They don't televise them. If they aren't a major, no one cares. Crap-ass-tournaments in golf get televised because fat old Buick-driving men love to sit on the couch and watch golf. But no one remembers who won the same tournament last year or teh year before. It means NOTHING. Crap ass tournaments in golf get televised because people still care and watch them...hell, the end of the memorial probably had ratings close to the end of the french. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IAMWood 6 Posted June 8, 2009 Anyone who says Tiger has no competition doesn't understand how good Tiger is. Tiger is on Tier 1 by himself there is no Tier 2 Tier 3 is very small. Federer is in Tier 1 by himself, but there is a tier 2. Argument over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lionsjunkie 1 Posted June 8, 2009 The prime years of a golfers life is 32 - 42. Says who I don't buy that for one minute...maybe early 30's but I can't see late 30's and 40's Any linkage or just an opinion Anyone who says Tiger has no competition doesn't understand how good Tiger is. Tiger is on Tier 1 by himself there is no Tier 2 Tier 3 is very small. Federer is in Tier 1 by himself, but there is a tier 2. Argument over. Another opinion... I'll give you that Tiger is Tier 1 by himself but Tier 2 has several great golfers that can win any tourney. And I don't follow Tennis enough but I don't seem to think Federer is still in a Tier by himself .... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted June 8, 2009 Federer did it! Tied Sampras and Woods with 14 titles. And he's how many years younger than woods? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 8, 2009 Furyk has done more...more recently (until the French) than Soderling ever has is the point.Bmoney likes to whine about the field...but has nothing but excuses when its guys like Soderling in the finals. youre talking about jim furyk....soderling was 8 years old when furyk turned pro...I would HOPE that furyk has done more...and even though hes 14 years older and played many tourneys in the weak 90s, he doesnt have many wins....another argument that has backfired in your face... but yet you discount a guy who wiped nadal ON clay...THE streak... and you ignore that federer also had to beat a clay specialist on his home court, gael monfils..along with another frenchmen..2 others who do well on clay..haas and del potro... roger had to beat more than 1 guy to win the tourney... really..jim furyk....let me guess, he took tom watsons entry spot? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 8, 2009 Crap ass tournaments in golf get televised because people still care and watch them...hell, the end of the memorial probably had ratings close to the end of the french. worldwide, not even close..tennis blows it away... but in the US? I dont doubt that you are right...a lot of you old people arent even awake by the time the French was ending..and if they were, they were either out for breakfast at the cracker barrel...watching meet the press or looking for their car keys for an hour... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 8, 2009 No. They don't televise them. If they aren't a major, no one cares. Crap-ass-tournaments in golf get televised because fat old Buick-driving men love to sit on the couch and watch golf. But no one remembers who won the same tournament last year or teh year before. It means NOTHING. you can hear these fockers getting fatter just walking behind him at a tourney.....not sure about other tourneys but at whistling straits, 1 fatty after another tumbled down the hill because they tried to follow tiger like they were TMZ..but they couldnt get their lil sausage legs to move quick enough and gravity doesnt give a fock.... 1 by 1 these fatties rolled....suppertime in the usa..what else are these folks going to do? something athletic with their kids? haha..of course they watched the golf... i bet half the folks that post here also yell from home...get in the hole and youre the man everytime tiger hits a drive.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,792 Posted June 8, 2009 youre talking about jim furyk....soderling was 8 years old when furyk turned pro...I would HOPE that furyk has done more...and even though hes 14 years older and played many tourneys in the weak 90s, he doesnt have many wins....another argument that has backfired in your face... but yet you discount a guy who wiped nadal ON clay...THE streak... and you ignore that federer also had to beat a clay specialist on his home court, gael monfils..along with another frenchmen..2 others who do well on clay..haas and del potro... roger had to beat more than 1 guy to win the tourney... really..jim furyk....let me guess, he took tom watsons entry spot? The streak!@# Great, Soderling is Buster Douglas, or that wrestling guy who beat that Russian guy. I honestly can't believe that you continue to dis the competition in golf, or fail to understand the difference in difficulty of winning in golf vs. tennis. Let's look at tennis major winners over the past 5 years: YEAR TOURNAMENT WINNER RUNNER-UP 2009 French Open Roger Federer Robin Soderling 2009 Australian Open Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 2008 U.S. Open Roger Federer Andy Murray 2008 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 2008 French Open Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 2008 Australian Open Novak Djokovic Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 2007 U.S. Open Roger Federer Novak Djokovic 2007 Wimbledon Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 2007 French Open Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 2007 Australian Open Roger Federer Fernando Gonzalez 2006 U.S. Open Roger Federer Andy Roddick 2006 Wimbledon Roger Federer Rafael Nadal 2006 French Open Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 2006 Australian Open Roger Federer Marcos Baghdatis 2005 U.S. Open Roger Federer Andre Agassi 2005 Wimbledon Roger Federer Andy Roddick 2005 French Open Rafael Nadal Mariano Puerta One focking guy in 5 years won a major who wasn't named Federer or Nadal. And he beat the ever imposing Tsonga. That's competition? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 The streak!@# Great, Soderling is Buster Douglas, or that wrestling guy who beat that Russian guy. I honestly can't believe that you continue to dis the competition in golf, or fail to understand the difference in difficulty of winning in golf vs. tennis. Let's look at tennis major winners over the past 5 years: One focking guy in 5 years won a major who wasn't named Federer or Nadal. And he beat the ever imposing Tsonga. That's competition? You're confusing Federer's total domination as being due to 'lack of competition'. Samprass was quoted as saying that he is now officially teh best ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 Was it a major? That's what I thought. Does anyone mention the non-majors that Federer wins? of course not. They don't mean sh!t. Stay on topic. We were talking about how you said Fed is still winning majors and Tiger isn't. Although Tiger won a major within the last 2 he played in. If you are talking about yesturday then I guess I lost you. But it is funny/stupid to hear you say Fed is still winning majors and Tiger isn't. Makes no sense really. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Stay on topic. We were talking about how you said Fed is still winning majors and Tiger isn't. Although Tiger won a major within the last 2 he played in. If you are talking about yesturday then I guess I lost you. But it is funny/stupid to hear you say Fed is still winning majors and Tiger isn't. Makes no sense really. I am on topic. Tiger didn't win his last major. Federer did. Pwned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 I am on topic. Tiger didn't win his last major. Federer did. Pwned. And then you say Pwned. As if you said anything at all. Just like you said Tiger is on teh downside of his career, yet he has 14 majors at age 33 with 3 left to play in before he turns 34. And Jack had 12 by the time he got to age 34. Explain how any comments you made earlier make any sense what so ever? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IAMWood 6 Posted June 8, 2009 Says who I don't buy that for one minute...maybe early 30's but I can't see late 30's and 40's Any linkage or just an opinion Another opinion... I'll give you that Tiger is Tier 1 by himself but Tier 2 has several great golfers that can win any tourney. And I don't follow Tennis enough but I don't seem to think Federer is still in a Tier by himself .... The link is the thread you replied to. So much of golf is mental, at that age range hasn't dimished so much but your mental game has improved greatly. Nicklaus won the Masters at 42, O Meara two majors one year in his early forties, Kenny Perry almost won the Masters at 44. I am sure I could dig up stats, I know I am a better golfer than I have ever been at 38. I am sure I could dig up stats, but don't feel like it. I formed my opinion through personal observation, and I am good at it. Dismiss it if you want, but Tiger is going to excel for years to come, he will shatter all the records. No doubt. The senior tour starts at age 50, and the 50 year olds tend to dominate at first. Who would you put in Tier 2 in golf? I just don't see one. Yeah maybe I don't follow tennis enough to know the tiers there, I guess Nadal and Federer should be in Tier 1. But there is definitely a tier 2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 And then you say Pwned. As if you said anything at all. Just like you said Tiger is on teh downside of his career, yet he has 14 majors at age 33 with 3 left to play in before he turns 34. And Jack had 12 by the time he got to age 34. Explain how any comments you made earlier make any sense what so ever? Thread title is "Federer>>>>Woods" It's now been proven. Pwned again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 Thread title is "Federer>>>>Woods" It's now been proven. Pwned again Grown man still going into forums yelling "Pwned" after he says close to nothing. Sad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Grown man still going into forums yelling "Pwned" after he says close to nothing. Sad. I didn't yell it. (this would be yelling: PWNED) I said it very matter-of-fact. You, my friend, have been pnwed. See, nice and calm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 I didn't yell it. (this would be yelling: PWNED) I said it very matter-of-fact. You, my friend, have been pnwed. See, nice and calm. So instead of explaining your dumb comments about Tiger on teh downside and what not, you want to just say "Pwned" in each post? I didn't even know people still said that? You bring nothing but telling me that Federer just beat some guy and that it was a major. And that Tiger didn't win the Masters. You have no point, again you bring nothing worthy of debate so I will just let you say "Pwned" and get out of your way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 So instead of explaining your dumb comments about Tiger on teh downside and what not, you want to just say "Pwned" in each post? I didn't even know people still said that? You bring nothing but telling me that Federer just beat some guy and that it was a major. And that Tiger didn't win the Masters. You have no point, again you bring nothing worthy of debate so I will just let you say "Pwned" and get out of your way. Yesterday was the first time all year that Tiger looked like he was a 'great' golfer. If he didn't pull that great round out of his ass yesterday, he would have finished, yet again, below a bunch of guys no one ever heard of. (Ok, I admit. I remember hearing about Furyk back in the 90's). He has a long way to go until anyone (not including guys like you who'd love to have his cack permanently stapled inside your ass) is going to say he's near what he was in his dominant years. And ypou love to discredit Federer's French Open win by saying he played "some guy", but 'that guy' beat the world's second best player. Woods win yesterday (in a non-major, by the way) didn't even have Phil Mickelson in it. So big deal. Woods won some puny little tournament (of which the tennis-equivalent wouldn't have even been televised) against a field that didn't include his best competitor. I'm really impressed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 Yesterday was the first time all year that Tiger looked like he was a 'great' golfer. If he didn't pull that great round out of his ass yesterday, he would have finished, yet again, below a bunch of guys no one ever heard of. (Ok, I admit. I remember hearing about Furyk back in the 90's). He has a long way to go until anyone (not including guys like you who'd love to have his cack permanently stapled inside your ass) is going to say he's near what he was in his dominant years. And ypou love to discredit Federer's French Open win by saying he played "some guy", but 'that guy' beat the world's second best player. Woods win yesterday (in a non-major, by the way) didn't even have Phil Mickelson in it. So big deal. Woods won some puny little tournament (of which the tennis-equivalent wouldn't have even been televised) against a field that didn't include his best competitor. I'm really impressed. You are the only one making a big deal out of the tourney yesturday, not me. In golf you play the course, not just 1 guy in front of you but 100 guys. Maybe it is the first time he looked real good all year, he is coming off of major surgery so what in the hell do you expect? Yea no Phil, but in golf that doesn't matter that much. Take Nadal out of Tennis and it is Feds to win. You can't say that about golf. The same guys don't win everything. Phil or no Phil Tiger shot 7 under from what four or five back and went birdie-birdie to close the thing out. No one is claiming that tourney was more than what it was. I am not taking much away from Feds win. He won against a guy that I do not know. The only people that knew who he was were the Tennis fanatics (BMoney and Jocstrap) Doesn't take much away from anything. But that is tennis, if its not Nadal its Fed and Vice Versa. Everyone talks about golf's field, however other guys than Tiger win tourneys, because golf is a different animal where players can get hot for a week and win. Players do not have to be all time greats. When you have 100 players, a handful are going to have a good weekend and compete. Federer won his French, good for him. Nothing taking away, but once Nadal went out, it was obvious who would win. Not many other sports including golf can myself (not the biggest fan of tennis by any means) and people like me pick 2 guys/teams and know they are the only ones with a chance. Can't say it at the beginning of the football season, NBA, NHL, MLB, Golf, Nascar...anything. But in Tennis you can. Nadal or Federer. To me that isn't exciting and doesn't point to having a stronger field than Golf. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted June 8, 2009 Roger Federer has been to 21 straight Semi Finals in a major. The next highest after that was 11 in a row. Best tennis player ever and it's not even close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted June 8, 2009 I will say this though. We as sports fan are very lucky to be able to watch these 2 all time greats competing at the same time and even able to have this discussion. When all is said and done. Roger Federer will be the greatest tennis player ever without question. Tiger Woods will be the greatest golfer ever without question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 youre talking about jim furyk....soderling was 8 years old when furyk turned pro...I would HOPE that furyk has done more...and even though hes 14 years older and played many tourneys in the weak 90s, he doesnt have many wins....another argument that has backfired in your face... but yet you discount a guy who wiped nadal ON clay...THE streak... and you ignore that federer also had to beat a clay specialist on his home court, gael monfils..along with another frenchmen..2 others who do well on clay..haas and del potro... roger had to beat more than 1 guy to win the tourney... really..jim furyk....let me guess, he took tom watsons entry spot? Yes...Jim Furyk...keep knocking him while defending the chump Federer just beat. And yes...Roger had to beat more than one guy...none of which rank all that high or have anything near the resume of Furyk or Davis Love or some of the others that were in it down the stretch at the Memorial. Talka bout an argument backfiring...you keep digging yourself in a hole in these conversations because you love tennis so much...but the fact remains that outside of the top 2...there really is nothing there. You can try saying the same about Golf...but there are plenty there that have accomplished quite a bit that challenge Tiger every week. I discount a guy who beat Nadal because of his career to that point is nothing. 3 wins...3rd round being his best finish in a slam event (and oh by the way now Nadal is hurt?) Oooh...a clay specialist...what is his career record? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Yes...Jim Furyk...keep knocking him while defending the chump Federer just beat.And yes...Roger had to beat more than one guy...none of which rank all that high or have anything near the resume of Furyk or Davis Love or some of the others that were in it down the stretch at the Memorial. Talka bout an argument backfiring...you keep digging yourself in a hole in these conversations because you love tennis so much...but the fact remains that outside of the top 2...there really is nothing there. You can try saying the same about Golf...but there are plenty there that have accomplished quite a bit that challenge Tiger every week. I discount a guy who beat Nadal because of his career to that point is nothing. 3 wins...3rd round being his best finish in a slam event (and oh by the way now Nadal is hurt?) Oooh...a clay specialist...what is his career record? At least Federer's next closest competitor was in the tournament. Mickelson was nowhere to be seen yesterday. Woods practically won by default. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 worldwide, not even close..tennis blows it away... but in the US? I dont doubt that you are right...a lot of you old people arent even awake by the time the French was ending..and if they were, they were either out for breakfast at the cracker barrel...watching meet the press or looking for their car keys for an hour... I don't give a rat's ass about world wide. World wide soccer does well. Who gives a damn. But keep thinking its just all old people watching. I looked at the crowd at the memorial...quite a bit of younger folk there. Yet another of your arguments that has no merit whatsoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 You're confusing Federer's total domination as being due to 'lack of competition'. Samprass was quoted as saying that he is now officially teh best ever. Just as you are confusing Tiger's domination as being due to lack of competition. I think Roger probably is the best ever (though...I would have loved to have seen some of the past guys with the bigger rackets and such). But I think until the last few years with Nadal...he really has had little to get in his way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
