I hope you won't be judging any spelling bees..anyway, the year's not over, what if Phil wins the remaining two majors, the FEDEX cup and a few other tournaments???
The award is given for the best athlete of the previous sports season. '07 MLB, '07 NFL, '07 PGA, and '07-08 NBA. Next years awards, if Phil can play dominant, he could get the nomination. But the nomination is not only for these 4 sports. They pick any athlete out of any sports league or college team.
Your (You're) comparing Golf to Football. NO comparison. Its called "The Game of Golf." Not the Sport of golf. Im a die hard golfer, I dont consider it a sport.
By this logic, you must consider "sport fishing" to be a more athletic endeavor than golf. Oh by the way, it is called a football game.
Logic Busted...
In my opinion, if you can wake up and forget how to play (like most of us do on a regular basis) it requires athletic ability and therefore is a sport. Golden Tee is not a sport. Madden Football, not a sport. But, I have worked up a sweat playing golf, ping pong and frisbee golf. Without athletic ability, coordination and focus; you can't play these "games" well. (Even Football)
Exactly my thoughts. If you define the terms being debated...I think you can come to your own conclusion. Defintions provided by www.thefreedictionary.com.
Sport
1. a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
1 b. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
Athlete
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.
Based on the defintions, I would say that Golf is a sport...it's a physical activity that is DEFINITELY governed by a set of rules...is played competitively and involves physical exertion and skill.
If golf is a sport then Tiger is an athlete as he possesses natural and acquired traits necessary to perform competitively (exceedingly well) in his chosen sport.
Someone may have their own perspective on which sports require more skill or physical exertion, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that golf is a sport and Tiger is an athlete.
According to the AMA ( Australian Medical Association ) golf doesn't even rate as "exercise" (Activity that requires physical or mental exertion, especially when performed to develop or maintain fitness: took an hour of vigorous daily exercise at a gym ) , let alone "physical" (Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity ).
Golf does not encompass "endurance" (The act, quality, or power of withstanding hardship or stress: A marathon tests a runner's endurance ).
Strength is not a requirement to be able to play the game.
Skill is required to improve ones ability.
Tiger is the worlds best golfer and his physical attributes aside, but as a golfer he is not by definition an athlete.
cheers peter
Osi didn't say that golf wasn't a sport. He said golfers aren't athletes.
I agree and disagree
...a foundational piece to the definition of an athlete is in the determination of what constitutes a sport. For someone to be termed an athlete, he or she has to possess and utilize traits/skills necessary to perform competitively in physical exercise or a "sport".
So if golf ceases to be a sport, Tiger ceases to be an athlete. When people are justifying golf as a sport, they are justifying Tiger as an athlete.
I understand your side mate but we may have to agree to disagree
I believe that darts, bowling, snooker and pool would all be determined as sports. However, I don't believe the participants of these sports would be considered athletes.
Your (You're) comparing Golf to Football. NO comparison. Its called "The Game of Golf." Not the Sport of golf. Im a die hard golfer, I dont consider it a sport.
By this logic, you must consider "sport fishing" to be a more athletic endeavor than golf. Oh by the way, it is called a football game.
Logic Busted...
In my opinion, if you can wake up and forget how to play (like most of us do on a regular basis) it requires athletic ability and therefore is a sport. Golden Tee is not a sport. Madden Football, not a sport. But, I have worked up a sweat playing golf, ping pong and frisbee golf. Without athletic ability, coordination and focus; you can't play these "games" well. (Even Football)
Exactly my thoughts. If you define the terms being debated...I think you can come to your own conclusion. Defintions provided by www.thefreedictionary.com.
Sport
1. a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
1 b. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
Athlete
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.
Based on the defintions, I would say that Golf is a sport...it's a physical activity that is DEFINITELY governed by a set of rules...is played competitively and involves physical exertion and skill.
If golf is a sport then Tiger is an athlete as he possesses natural and acquired traits necessary to perform competitively (exceedingly well) in his chosen sport.
Someone may have their own perspective on which sports require more skill or physical exertion, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that golf is a sport and Tiger is an athlete.
According to the AMA ( Australian Medical Association ) golf doesn't even rate as "exercise" (Activity that requires physical or mental exertion, especially when performed to develop or maintain fitness: took an hour of vigorous daily exercise at a gym ) , let alone "physical" (Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity ).
Golf does not encompass "endurance" (The act, quality, or power of withstanding hardship or stress: A marathon tests a runner's endurance ).
Strength is not a requirement to be able to play the game.
Skill is required to improve ones ability.
Tiger is the worlds best golfer and his physical attributes aside, but as a golfer he is not by definition an athlete.
cheers peter
The problem isn't with the definition, it's with the bias we as people put on based on our exposure to what consider an exercise, a physical activity, a sport. For example, boxing and swimming are activities that require more physical exertion (and/or endurance) in a shorter period of time than other sports such as baseball or football. Does that diminish the fact that baseball or football are still sports...No. Both baseball and football might not require as much physical exertion in a short period of time, but they do involve some level of physical activity and skill to perform at a competitive level.
Golf may not require you to run from each shot and go balls-out on every swing, but physical exercise is involved and endurance does play a fator. Certain muscles are utilized (more than others) and will experience exhaustion from physical activity. If this were not the case, you wouldn't feel tired after walking 18 holes...and the next 36 wouldn't even be a thought. Your swing wouldn't be hampered with fatigue and you'd still be able to perform just as well on your last few holes as you did at the start.
If I'm right, Archery is technically considered a "sport"...does that require a lot of physical or mental exertion? Do people have to run and fetch the arrows so they can experience physical exertion and display endurance to have it considered a sport. No. Again, this sport does not require as much physical exertion or endurance as much as boxing or swimming, but yes...but do it long enough and fatigue will set in.
Nowhere in the definition does it state the amount of physical activity, exertion or endurance required to call it a sport and this is where people start adding in their own "perspective".
Osi didn't say that golf wasn't a sport. He said golfers aren't athletes.
I agree and disagree
...a foundational piece to the definition of an athlete is in the determination of what constitutes a sport. For someone to be termed an athlete, he or she has to possess and utilize traits/skills necessary to perform competitively in physical exercise or a "sport".
So if golf ceases to be a sport, Tiger ceases to be an athlete. When people are justifying golf as a sport, they are justifying Tiger as an athlete.
I understand your side mate but we may have to agree to disagree
I believe that darts, bowling, snooker and pool would all be determined as sports. However, I don't believe the participants of these sports would be considered athletes.
Agreed, we see each other's perspective and it is what it is.
As much as I hate to say it Tiger will win the award just because of his rescent happenings. But lets face it people retire to play golf everyday. Ever heard of anyone retiring to play football everday? Didn't think so. I have loads of respect for the "game" of golf as it is where I make my living to support my family, but it is just a game.
As much as I hate to say it Tiger will win the award just because of his rescent happenings. But lets face it people retire to play golf everyday. Ever heard of anyone retiring to play football everday? Didn't think so. I have loads of respect for the "game" of golf as it is where I make my living to support my family, but it is just a game.
You can take any sport and reduce it down to less activity and physical exertion...but that doesn't make it the same as what is done professionally? Same could be said about people who retire and play a lesiure game of tennis at the "club" everyday. Does that make professional tennis less of a sport? Of course not.
I could play touch-football with my buddies and set a ground rule where we must walk ...does that make professional football anything less? No...the context here is that professional golf requires physical exertion, endurance and a level of skill to compete competitively.
Your example is like comparing apples and oranges. Most of those who retire to play golf are doing so with little physical activity (carts) or skill. Not that it's a requirement, but in this context, they are more than likely not performing the activity in a competitive sense either.
Osi is using his definition of an athlete to being considered able to do athletic movements such as running jumping and moving side to side in an obstacle course, therefore under this assumption of his he would consider Tiger Woods and Tom Brady not athletic at all since they do neither of that.
so the bigger question is, what attributes do we consider athletic? And yes I am aware that this is a golf forum so our responses will be a little biased.
is golf a sport - yes
does it require athletic ability - imho, to an extent yes. but compared to many, many other sports not really
another thing worth mentioning is that golf can be mentally tougher than other sports being an individual sport. then again excelling at a team sport can be even more difficult, since in addition to playing well yourself, you have to make those around you better.
As much as I love golf, I agree with Osi. Golfers, for the most part, are not athletes. There is a minimal amount of physical exertion, involved. Golfers aren't running, they are not playing defense, etc.
Do you need to be highly skilled? Yes. Great hand to eye coordination? Yes. Flexibility? Yes. However, all those things are attributes of a plumber or carpenter. Are they athletes, too?
As for Tiger's knee, let's stick to the fact. He suffered the stress fracture, this year, while undergoing physical therapy for the ACL he tore, last year. Not to take anything away from him but I've seen quarterbacks and lineman play with broken legs (Donovan McNabb, Jack Youngblood, the QB from the Jacksonville Jaguars), I've seen running backs play with separated shoulders (Emmitt Smith), Ronnie Lott had part of his finger removed and went back to play, Kevin McHale of the Celtics played the entire 1987 post season with stress fractures in both feet. Let's not make it out like Tiger is superhuman because he played with a stress fracture of the tibia. He had also won 9 tournaments with the torn ACL. It's not like this was his first victory or tourney.
That said, it's still a great accomplishment. I'm not going to take anything away from him but I'm not going to put that in the pantheon of accomplishments. Especially when Tiger himself said that the pain would come and go and he would not know when it would strike. I would still vote for him for Athlete of the Year. Why? Because no one, regardless of sport, dominates the way he does. Period. I just don't get into making it more than it should be.
Great debate. Are golfers truly athletes? Is golf a sport? Good points on both sides. This argument has come up before and no doubt will come up again and again.....and again.
Funny thing to me, is that I don't even think Osi was trying to spark the debate at all (I haven't heard his entire comments in context). Sounds like he was just hating. I think a lot of these football guys gotta be pissed. I mean, here's Osi, a major defensive factor in the Giants' Super Bowl win, now THE main guy on defense after Strahan's leaving......and yet, only fans who follow football know who the heck he is. Tom Brady is a household name. Even Randy Moss is a household name. Phil Mickelson...household name. Tiger.....such a household name, he only needs one name.
Osi=hater. Or maybe he figured he better say something wild so people would know or learn who he is. Strahan was a bit of talker and definitely had some quotable bits. Maybe Osi is trying to get known. I put more stock in a GolfWRX member saying this rather than Osi.
Either way, the debate will go on forever. For what it's worth, I play basketball. I say golf is a sport and that Tiger is an athlete. Maybe not the strongest or fastest.....but definitely a athlete who is tune with his body possibly more than any other and who dominates his sport like no other.
Do you need to be highly skilled? Yes. Great hand to eye coordination? Yes. Flexibility? Yes.
However, all those things are attributes of a plumber or carpenter. Are they athletes, too?
Wow! What kind of house do you live in that requires a plumber or carpenter to have great hand-eye cooridination or flxibility to do their job?
As much as I love golf, I agree with Osi. Golfers, for the most part, are not athletes. There is a minimal amount of physical exertion, involved. Golfers aren't running, they are not playing defense, etc.
With that said...would you say that a goalie in hockey/soccer or a kicker in football are less of an athlete because their position requires less physical exertion (less running and/or physical activity) than their teammates?
I just stated that golfers don't play defense and you asked to compare it to a goalie in hockey. Did you bother to read before you responded?
Do hockey goalies play in shifts? No. Do they sit and rest for periods of time? No. They are constantly alert, working in small spaces and dealing with not only an offensive player standing in front of the crease but following the puck. Don't try to trivialize a hockey goalie or to even compare him to a golfer. When it comes to athleticism, it's not even close. A goalie is far more athletic than a golfer.
Do you need to be highly skilled? Yes. Great hand to eye coordination? Yes. Flexibility? Yes.
However, all those things are attributes of a plumber or carpenter. Are they athletes, too?
Wow! What kind of house do you live in that requires a plumber or carpenter to have great hand-eye cooridination or flxibility to do their job?
I take it you've never had a plumber crawl into a basement to fix piping? Or seen him work in a small area with a torch and not screw anything up. Or have a carpenter cut marble and stone to an exact specification while operating a machine that can take his hands off?
You're right, none of those things require hand-to-eye coordination. What was I thinking?
How athletic do you have to be to play on the line in football.......offense or defense????
You're kidding right? You'd be surprised to know that a lot of those 300lb+ guys can run a faster 40yd dash than the average male in the US, dunk a basketball and still be able to bench press 225lbs over 25 times. If that isn't athletic I don't know what is.
-r.
No kidding. Some of these guys are cracking me up. Tiger's in amazing shape, perfect for a golfer. But is he in this kind of shape?
It takes a special kind of athlete to bring that kind of power and speed at the same time. Tiger is perfect for golf-- the ideal golfer condition. But don't overlook the shape it takes to go a season in the NFL. It's unbelievably punishing.
Yes Tiger is up for Male Athlete of the Year. But also Lorena Ochoa is up for Female Athlete of the year. Oh yea so is Danica Patrick, a frickin' race car driver. So i think if a race car driver is up for athlete of the year, a golfer should definitely be in the mix.
Yes Tiger is up for Male Athlete of the Year. But also Lorena Ochoa is up for Female Athlete of the year. Oh yea so is Danica Patrick, a frickin' race car driver. So i think if a race car driver is up for athlete of the year, a golfer should definitely be in the mix.
driving a race car, or a street car on a racetrack is actually much more physically tireing (lol, tire ing)
than golfing is.
when you golf, you only have to concentrate when you're making a shot. Your get a mental rest between holes and between shots. Racecar driving takes much more concentration without breaks, for a longer period. How do you feel after a 400 mile road trip?
I would bet you've never taken your car to an auto-X or a racetrack or you'd know better than to make a silly comment like that.
How athletic do you have to be to play on the line in football.......offense or defense????
You're kidding right? You'd be surprised to know that a lot of those 300lb+ guys can run a faster 40yd dash than the average male in the US, dunk a basketball and still be able to bench press 225lbs over 25 times. If that isn't athletic I don't know what is.
-r.
No kidding. Some of these guys are cracking me up. Tiger's in amazing shape, perfect for a golfer. But is he in this kind of shape?
It takes a special kind of athlete to bring that kind of power and speed at the same time. Tiger is perfect for golf-- the ideal golfer condition. But don't overlook the shape it takes to go a season in the NFL. It's unbelievably punishing.
UMMMMMMMMMMMMMM YES HE IS
Tiger is not perfect for golf he's perfect for SPORT he has the body of an ATHLETE, and he is an ATHLETE...http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/athlete; the game or sport he plays doesn't require the same exertion as most others but it is a sport nonetheless. Swimming requires more exertion than football so how about Michael Phelps says that Osi is not an athlete ? It wouldn't fly, just because someone doesn't do exactly what you do doesn't mean they are not succeeding at an athletic endeavor. Michael Jordan is an athlete we know that, now are you not an athlete because you train for and play basketball, but can only play on the weekends because you have a day job ???????
I just stated that golfers don't play defense and you asked to compare it to a goalie in hockey. Did you bother to read before you responded?
Do hockey goalies play in shifts? No. Do they sit and rest for periods of time? No. They are constantly alert, working in small spaces and dealing with not only an offensive player standing in front of the crease but following the puck. Don't try to trivialize a hockey goalie or to even compare him to a golfer. When it comes to athleticism, it's not even close. A goalie is far more athletic than a golfer.
I can't believe you even asked such a question.
Alright, no reason to get insulting especially for being fairly new to this forum. Be respectful as my question had no personal attacks...just a question that expands on your perspective.
The question is VERY valid and there is a good reason I asked it. You're statement is placing personal, subjective perspective on what constitutes an athlete and the point of the question is to demonstrate that such perspective gets skewed when you look at other similar examples. The question wasn't to compare a goalie's athleticism to a golfer, but to bring the logical realization that the individual's perspective is adding a bias on the amount physical activity required to determine what is and what isn't an athlete. The basis of the question is that their positions (a goalie or kicker) require less physical exertion than other positions in the same sport, but that doesn't make them less of an athlete. There is no physical exertion threshold in the definition of an athlete.
A golfer may have less physical exertion to complete their task than a boxer or tennis player, but it doesn't remove the fact that they do have a physical task that does consume energy, requires skill and endurance to compete. When begin to set that threshold, you begin to see where the gray area comes in...how much running time is required, how much physical activity, how much skill is required to consider someone an athlete and how do you even compare across sports?
Do you need to be highly skilled? Yes. Great hand to eye coordination? Yes. Flexibility? Yes.
However, all those things are attributes of a plumber or carpenter. Are they athletes, too?
Wow! What kind of house do you live in that requires a plumber or carpenter to have great hand-eye cooridination or flxibility to do their job?
I take it you've never had a plumber crawl into a basement to fix piping? Or seen him work in a small area with a torch and not screw anything up. Or have a carpenter cut marble and stone to an exact specification while operating a machine that can take his hands off?
You're right, none of those things require hand-to-eye coordination. What was I thinking?
Take it easy...that was meant as a joke.
I have friends who are plumbers and carpenters and I have know what their jobs require, but I (or they themselves) have never considered them (as a whole) a model of exquiste hand-to-eye coordination or flexiblity. That isn't a knock at their profession or the skills required to do their jobs.
Why do so many people equate being in-shape as meaning you are a good athlete? You can have great athletic ability and not be "in-shape" or you can be in amazing physical condition and be a poor athlete. Several tour players are in poor shape but they have many great athletic skills. Coordination is paramount in golf and, in my mind, is the number one criteria for being an athlete.
Use of the term "athlete" has been incorrectly applied for so long now that use and acceptance has allowed the meaning to devolve into a lesser meaning.
In English, an athlete performed in track and field events, a title given denoting there field of excellence
Are infantry soldiers Athletes? They certainly meet all the criteria, no they are soldiers with the skills required!
Are footballers Athletes? They too meet the criteria, no they are footballers!
People who participated in a sport where known as Sportsmen/women denoted by the particular sport they played ( football etc. ).
The media is largely responsible in perpetuating the misuse, many will say to move with the times and I am fine with that, as rather like the thought of when I wake of a morning and stretch ( exercise ) and walk to the bathroom ( more exercise "endurance'' ) look in the mirror and scratch my chin ( mental exercise ) go to the fridge open the door and retrieve the milk ( physical exercise ), I am an athlete.
Alright, no reason to get insulting especially for being fairly new to this forum. Be respectful as my question had no personal attacks...just a question that expands on your perspective.
The question is VERY valid and there is a good reason I asked it. You're statement is placing personal, subjective perspective on what constitutes an athlete and the point of the question is to demonstrate that such perspective gets skewed when you look at other similar examples. The question wasn't to compare a goalie's athleticism to a golfer, but to bring the logical realization that the individual's perspective is adding a bias on the amount physical activity required to determine what is and what isn't an athlete. The basis of the question is that their positions (a goalie or kicker) require less physical exertion than other positions in the same sport, but that doesn't make them less of an athlete. There is no physical exertion threshold in the definition of an athlete.
A golfer may have less physical exertion to complete their task than a boxer or tennis player, but it doesn't remove the fact that they do have a physical task that does consume energy, requires skill and endurance to compete. When begin to set that threshold, you begin to see where the gray area comes in...how much running time is required, how much physical activity, how much skill is required to consider someone an athlete and how do you even compare across sports?
I stated my point of view on golfers and you asked me how I felt about hockey goalies. You did not ask me how I felt about goalies in comparison to their teammates. Again, though, a hockey goalie would exert more energy, considering he has more equipment on, he's playing an entire game as opposed to 20-23 minutes, the average amount of time a top hockey player is on the ice, per game. While he's not getting checked or banged into the boards, he's dealing with offensive and defensive players in the crease and a rubber puck traveling upwards of 90 MPH. So yeah, I think a hockey goalie is a great athlete. (I won't even get into getting down on the ice, sprawling saves, getting back up quickly, etc)
As for golfers, I don't see how "endurance" comes in. He's not carrying his bag, you can eat, drink, talk, laugh, take a bathroom break, all during the course of action. He's also walking, on average, five miles over a four hour period. He's also hitting one shot every three minutes (240 minutes/72 shots). He's also has time to think and plan for a shot, consult his caddie and watch someone else's approach before he committs to his own shot. This is for every single shot and putt. No other sport is afforded this luxury.
As much as I love golf, love playing and play it rather well, too, I won't categorize golfers as athletes. Yes, there is athleticism involved in a golf swing but that, in itself, is not enough for me to paint a broad brush and categorize all golfers as athletes.
I played baseball and believe me, I won't categorize a lot of those guys as athletes, either. Some of them can't run, can't throw, are poor hitters, etc. However, they have a particular skill that is better than the average joe. Same as golfers.
Is that particular skill enough for me to categorize them as an athlete? No. For you, perhaps it's enough and that's fine. I just don't and won't.
I stated my point of view on golfers and you asked me how I felt about hockey goalies. You did not ask me how I felt about goalies in comparison to their teammates.
Actually, that is exactly what I asked...would a particular player on team in a given sport be considered less of an athlete because of their role and the amount of physical exertion required for their role. Please see the underlined text in my original question.
Skaffa77, on Jul 4 2008, 08:09 PM, said:
With that said...would you say that a goalie in hockey/soccer or a kicker in football are less of an athlete because their position requires less physical exertion (less running and/or physical activity) than their teammates?
golf_junkie27, on Jul 6 2008, 04:38 PM, said:
Again, though, a hockey goalie would exert more energy, considering he has more equipment on, he's playing an entire game as opposed to 20-23 minutes, the average amount of time a top hockey player is on the ice, per game. While he's not getting checked or banged into the boards, he's dealing with offensive and defensive players in the crease and a rubber puck traveling upwards of 90 MPH. So yeah, I think a hockey goalie is a great athlete. (I won't even get into getting down on the ice, sprawling saves, getting back up quickly, etc)
As for golfers, I don't see how "endurance" comes in. He's not carrying his bag, you can eat, drink, talk, laugh, take a bathroom break, all during the course of action. He's also walking, on average, five miles over a four hour period. He's also hitting one shot every three minutes (240 minutes/72 shots). He's also has time to think and plan for a shot, consult his caddie and watch someone else's approach before he committs to his own shot. This is for every single shot and putt. No other sport is afforded this luxury.
As much as I love golf, love playing and play it rather well, too, I won't categorize golfers as athletes. Yes, there is athleticism involved in a golf swing but that, in itself, is not enough for me to paint a broad brush and categorize all golfers as athletes.
I played baseball and believe me, I won't categorize a lot of those guys as athletes, either. Some of them can't run, can't throw, are poor hitters, etc. However, they have a particular skill that is better than the average joe. Same as golfers.
Is that particular skill enough for me to categorize them as an athlete? No. For you, perhaps it's enough and that's fine. I just don't and won't.
I guess the whole point of my question was to illustrate my perspective that an athlete is an athlete if their sport requires physical exertion, skill and endurance to compete against others (whether defense is required or not) regardless of the amount of physical activity set forth by their role.
To me that same logic would then go beyond positions in a particular sport to all sports that require a physical exertion, skill and endurance to compete professional regardless of the quantity of those attributes. An athlete is an athlete...regardless of the sport.
We (individuals) may add our own "levels" to athleticism based on the amount of strength, flexibility, skill or endurance required to compete in a sport, but that doesn't take away the fact that someone is an athlete if his or her chosen sport requires some of those attributes to compete professionally. Otherwise, you'll never come to a consensus on what "level" of athleticism is required to constitute an competitive activity as a sport...baseball compared to swimming, football compared to boxing, etc...
With that said, I can appreciate and respect your last response. There is no right answer...just perspectives...
I'm not sure if he was nominated or not, but Roger Federed should win. If he wasn't nominated, then the list isn't worth a damn anyway. There's an athlete. Tennis is a great test of endurace, coordination, agility and skill; and nobody has been as dominant as Federer in the sport. Granted, Nadal has been great the last year as well (including his win over Federer over the weekend), but I believe Federer deserves this title.
Should Woods have been nominated, yes. Does he deserve to win.... not so much. I don't think Brady or Kobe deserve the title either. They're both great athletes though.
I also do not think race car drivers should be included.
I would like to see him play in the toughest golf tournament of the year on a fractured knee and still WIN!!!
Have you ever seen the injuries football players play with? Not taking anything away from Tiger, but NFL players play through pain every week and they don't have a caddie yelling at to shut up so they can concentrate.
I heard the interview and don't think Osi was 'bashing' Tiger, its all made up by the media. You can't compare any of those sports for 'hardness' or difficulty.
As I'm sure Osi would have a hard time shooting under par consisently, I'm sure Tiger would have some problems hitting an 89mph slider. Its all relative.
yes i do watch football religousally and i do know that players play with injuries all of the time. But most of the players do not play to there capabilities. Tiger WON the tournament on a fractured tibia. Winning and just competing are two seperate things.
Shooting is an Olympic sport. There is little heavy lifting or heavy physical exertion involved, but the marksman must control his or her fast-twitch muscles completely, and the fine motor skills required to shoot a perfect round are grueling. That's just one reason that beta blockers -- which make that control easier -- are banned substances.
Some sports require stamina, some strength, some require exceedingly fine muscle control, and some require a combination of those traits. Just because someone can play or perform the sport casually doesn't make the best of such performers of a sport a non-athlete.
BTW, some of your finest athletes are found in jai-alai frontons. Just a thought. Check it out.
Your (You're) comparing Golf to Football. NO comparison. Its called "The Game of Golf." Not the Sport of golf. Im a die hard golfer, I dont consider it a sport.
By this logic, you must consider "sport fishing" to be a more athletic endeavor than golf. Oh by the way, it is called a football game.
Logic Busted...
In my opinion, if you can wake up and forget how to play (like most of us do on a regular basis) it requires athletic ability and therefore is a sport. Golden Tee is not a sport. Madden Football, not a sport. But, I have worked up a sweat playing golf, ping pong and frisbee golf. Without athletic ability, coordination and focus; you can't play these "games" well. (Even Football)
It is hard to tell someone who plays a sport that is pretty much ALL physical athletism, that someone who plays a game that requires little athletism is an athlete. Football is strength, quickness, agility, etc. and golf doesn't require any of those, hand and eye coordination for the most part, thats why most pro athletes don't consider golfers athletes.
Working up a sweat doesn't make you an athlete. You sweat playing golf because it's hot outside, not because you swing a golf club once every 3-4 minutes.
IMHO only (some) golfers consider golfers athletes. I personally don't, but it also doesn't make the game any easier.
Sign In
Register
Help
jessicaalbatross, on Jul 3 2008, 07:07 PM, said:
Quote
