Just over two months removed from surgery that is keeping him out of golf for the rest of the year, Tiger Woods announced that his wife is pregnant with the couple's second child.
According to a posting on Woods' website, the baby is due in "late-winter." Woods and his wife, Elin, had their first child just after the 2007 U.S. Open.
In the wake of Tiger's gritty 2008 U.S. Open victory, it was revealed that he would need surgery on the knee that clearly was affecting his game--nearly keeping him from holding off Rocco Mediate on Sunday and in the Monday playoff.
While the golf world has since been forced to watch Padraig Harrington succeed in two Tiger-less majors, Tiger's been becoming the father figure that we all know he idolized his Dad to be.
"While my injury has been disappointing and frustrating," Woods writes, "it has allowed me to spend a lot of time watching [1st child] Sam grow."
Despite being perphaps the world's most successful individual athlete of all time, he's a good dad to boot.
Keep up the good work, Tiger. And your wife is pretty hot, too.
Showing posts with label tiger woods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tiger woods. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Re: Re: The Greatest Athlete of All Time
I find it necessary to similarly weigh in on this topic, in the wake of Phelps winning his 7th gold medal in 7 tries.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with both of you. Phelps? Greatest swimmer of all time, that's certainly possible. Greatest athlete? Hold the phone. We don't even know what the term means.
D.R.W. contends that in order to be considered the greatest athlete of all time, you must be competing against something other than simply the game itself. That is, you need to beat "someone" as opposed to "something" to hold that title. I consider that a valid argument, but I again respectfully disagree.
Phelps and Tiger Woods would both be eliminated from discussion here simply because their games don't involve direct competition, when clearly, these names deserve to be included in the debate simply because, as K.L. said of Phelps "everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time." This can, of course, also be applied to Woods with respect to winning golf tournaments. Very rarely does he fail to deliver. Their presence makes the rest of the field nervous--and perform differently.
However, does that make these athletes the "greatest of all time"? Maybe, but it's not that simple.
As D.R.W. argued, Michael Jordan must stare down the defense before he drives the lane, Barry Bonds must hit that 90 mph fastball, and Wayne Gretzky must get the puck past the aggressive goalie, but then again, their successes also tend to rely on not only their teammates' performance but also the ability of their defenders. When the defense plays miserably, does that mean the Jordans and Gretzkys of the world are truly the best?
While this may not hold true for the baseball players in the group (Ruth and Bonds, for example) baseball's comparatively low standards put it in a different tier, in my opinion (that is, more than 65% of the time, Bonds made an out, yet he's regarded as perhaps the greatest hitter ever).
So, what does it all mean?
All I'm saying is that it's a difficult, slippery slope of an argument to get into. The fact that these people all compete in different events, with different factors contributing to their success and failure makes this debate nearly impossible to have.
Phelps and Woods are in a category of their own: most intimidating, perhaps most successful individual athletes of all time.
Jordan, Gretzky, Bonds, Ruth, Brady, etc. join them in the category in contention for the title of "greatest athlete of all time" due to their successes and outstanding abilities.
But, do we have an answer? Of course not. As D.R.W. said, "greatest athlete of all time" can mean many things. Each of these athletes are indeed incredibly successful and all ought to be regarded for the things they've done. One can't quite stand above the other, because the comparisons across sports are impossible.
Not quite the satisfying answer everyone was hoping for, but it had to be said.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with both of you. Phelps? Greatest swimmer of all time, that's certainly possible. Greatest athlete? Hold the phone. We don't even know what the term means.
D.R.W. contends that in order to be considered the greatest athlete of all time, you must be competing against something other than simply the game itself. That is, you need to beat "someone" as opposed to "something" to hold that title. I consider that a valid argument, but I again respectfully disagree.
Phelps and Tiger Woods would both be eliminated from discussion here simply because their games don't involve direct competition, when clearly, these names deserve to be included in the debate simply because, as K.L. said of Phelps "everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time." This can, of course, also be applied to Woods with respect to winning golf tournaments. Very rarely does he fail to deliver. Their presence makes the rest of the field nervous--and perform differently.
However, does that make these athletes the "greatest of all time"? Maybe, but it's not that simple.
As D.R.W. argued, Michael Jordan must stare down the defense before he drives the lane, Barry Bonds must hit that 90 mph fastball, and Wayne Gretzky must get the puck past the aggressive goalie, but then again, their successes also tend to rely on not only their teammates' performance but also the ability of their defenders. When the defense plays miserably, does that mean the Jordans and Gretzkys of the world are truly the best?
While this may not hold true for the baseball players in the group (Ruth and Bonds, for example) baseball's comparatively low standards put it in a different tier, in my opinion (that is, more than 65% of the time, Bonds made an out, yet he's regarded as perhaps the greatest hitter ever).
So, what does it all mean?
All I'm saying is that it's a difficult, slippery slope of an argument to get into. The fact that these people all compete in different events, with different factors contributing to their success and failure makes this debate nearly impossible to have.
Phelps and Woods are in a category of their own: most intimidating, perhaps most successful individual athletes of all time.
Jordan, Gretzky, Bonds, Ruth, Brady, etc. join them in the category in contention for the title of "greatest athlete of all time" due to their successes and outstanding abilities.
But, do we have an answer? Of course not. As D.R.W. said, "greatest athlete of all time" can mean many things. Each of these athletes are indeed incredibly successful and all ought to be regarded for the things they've done. One can't quite stand above the other, because the comparisons across sports are impossible.
Not quite the satisfying answer everyone was hoping for, but it had to be said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
