U.S. Open

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

and I thought you knew what you are talking about!! Dont let Scuds influence you on this... There is NOBODY who has more shots than Tiger. Though Phil does have a lot of shots too.. he is not and never will be Tiger.

the analogy that you and kev are mixing up is talent and better

talent alone does not mean you are a better player

scuds never said tiger wasn't the better player , talent in golf is a subjective measure

tiger gets the ball into the hole better than anyone ever with the exception of perhaps Jack .

Phil in my opinon has more shots - he is more creative - he just doens't get the ball in the hole in some key spots , where as tiger always does

[GPK]

Originally Posted by gales0678

the analogy that you and kev are mixing up is talent and better
talent alone does not mean you are a better player

scuds never said tiger wasn't the better player , talent in golf is a subjective measure

tiger gets the ball into the hole better than anyone ever with the exception of perhaps Jack .

Phil in my opinon has more shots - he is more creative - he just doens't get the ball in the hole in some key spots , where as tiger always does

Im not mixing anything up, Phil is not as talented as Tiger with a golf club in his hand....plain and simple.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GPK

Im not mixing anything up, Phil is not as talented as Tiger with a golf club in his hand....plain and simple.

we just saw phil miss 2 putts from 6 feet and in when he was tied for the lead in the final round of the us open

tiger never ever ever misses those putts when he is on the lead that is why he is #1 and phil is #2 - that is why he is the better player , but none of that has to do with talent, it all has to do with mental makeup of the individual

[GPK]

Originally Posted by gales0678

we just saw phil miss 2 putts from 6 feet and in when he was tied for the lead in the final round of the us open

tiger never ever ever misses those putts when he is on the lead that is why he is #1 and phil is #2 - that is why he is the better player , but none of that has to do with talent, it all has to do with mental makeup of the individual

Making or missing that putt has nothing to do with talent. I maintain that OVERALL, Tiger is more talented than Phil. Phil has more talent with the wedges, but combining the entire package, Tiger is more talented that Phil.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GPK

Making or missing that putt has nothing to do with talent. I maintain that OVERALL, Tiger is more talented than Phil. Phil has more talent with the wedges, but combining the entire package, Tiger is more talented that Phil.

talent is subjective

scuds' statement cannot be factually proved to be wrong

[GPK]

Originally Posted by gales0678

talent is subjective

scuds' statement cannot be factually proved to be wrong

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.

[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

talent is subjective

scuds' statement cannot be factually proved to be wrong

I think Mine That Bird is more talented than Secretariat.

talent is subjective

my statement cannont be factually proven to be wrong.

[MaTH716]

Rootin for a double here for Glover in the worst way.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think Mine That Bird is more talented than Secretariat.

talent is subjective

my statement cannont be factually proven to be wrong.

now you are getting into different analogies

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by GPK

Making or missing that putt has nothing to do with talent. I maintain that OVERALL, Tiger is more talented than Phil. Phil has more talent with the wedges, but combining the entire package, Tiger is more talented that Phil.

I dont know about that when it comes to bunkers. Tiger is as good as it gets from the sand.. Maybe Lefty is equal on sand shots.


Remember last year before Woods took a half year off from golf... and according to the world rankings there was as much distance between the #1 golfer in the world (Woods) and the #2 golfer (Lefty) than #2 and like #1000.

Yeah, Lefty is more talented

[MaTH716]

that blows