U.S. Open

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GPK

Very true...its all opinion.

That putt Phil hit on 17 has to be one of the worst putts ever. He left it short from 4 feet.

see we watch the tournaments and have our opinions formed based on watching tiger succeed and phil fail

i don't think anyone here has been with the 2 of them on the golf course with no spectators around , no cameras , around , just 2 guys out there hitting different shots from all over the place - until anyone of us is that lucky and can see it 1st hand it's still all very subjective and even after seeing it live it's still subjective - i have been lucky see phil at winged foot back in '92 , i have never been up close with tiger

part of sucds reasoning is probably based on the fact that he watches and see phils hit shots in events. kev you and i know tiger would never attempt some of these shots in an event as they carry to much risk for the reward. phil pulls these shots off and i am guessing that is why scuds made the statement. you can say scuds statement has a flaw to it , but, you can't factually prove it incorrect

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

see we watch the tournaments and have our opinions formed based on watching tiger succeed and phil fail

i don't think anyone here has been with the 2 of them on the golf course with no spectators around , no cameras , around , just 2 guys out there hitting different shots from all over the place - until anyone of us is that lucky and can see it 1st hand it's still all very subjective and even after seeing it live it's still subjective - i have been lucky see phil at winged foot back in '92 , i have never been up close with tiger

part of sucds reasoning is probably based on the fact that he watches and see phils hit shots in events. kev you and i know tiger would never attempt some of these shots in an event as they carry to much risk for the reward. phil pulls these shots off and i am guessing that is why scuds made the statement. you can say scuds statement has a flaw to it , but, you can't factually prove it incorrect

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.

[gales0678]

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