Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
I would like to see/hear some examples. I've seen Phil take some seriously stupid risks that Tiger would not do, simply because Tiger is not that stupid. That is not grouds for saying Phil is more talented.
Like that risk Phil did at the Open when he was leading going into the final hole.. and stupidly hit a driver, which Tiger never would have done, again cause he's not that stupid.. and the ball went into the rough and Phil lost the tourney.
I feel like a moron throwing out cliche after cliche but Lefty = Andy Roddick & Tiger = Roger Federer.
I mean for real.. We've heard some dumb things on this board but Lefty being more talented than Tiger takes the cake.
Lets see, Tiger Woods: 14 Majors, 3 US Amatures, 67 wins on the tour. 33 years old
Lefty: 3 Majors, 1 US Amatures, 36 wins on the tour. 39 years old.
|
lori both palyers have
talent , an abundance of it
to say 1 is more talented than the other is a subjective opinion - it can't be factually proven wrong either way
as for the
better palyer - there is no question tiger is the better player - the
results bore that out and the results become the
fact