With my newfound wealth of free time, I have come to accept that it will be spent on only a few select activities: catching up on my now large magazine collection, completely getting up to speed on the TV series' Lost & Dexter, attempting to finish a couple books, and becoming the most knowledgeable sports guru you know. With sports in mind, a recent ESPN debate sparked a fire in me, and compelled me to blog about it. Since my days consist of catching up on the plethora of sports shows ESPN offers (Sportscenter, ESPN First Take, Mike and Mike in the Morning, Outside The Lines, Jim Rome is Burning, Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption, I'm probably forgetting a few) - I feel that I've heard all angles of the argument.What's the argument you ask? Who is more dominant in the ESPN era, Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan? Before any side is even taken here, I disagree with the overall merit of this argument to begin with. This debate gained steam a couple years ago when analysts bored during the summer months tried to compare Roger Federer to Tiger Woods. Now, as Tiger once again makes the field look like the elementary school kids trying to play dodgeball against Billy Madison, analysts are forced to compare Tiger to some entity outside his sport. How do you compare chip shots to clutch shots, 20 foot putts to 20 foot fadeaway jumpers? More importantly, how do you line up a guy that had 14 others teammates on his roster that he consistently carried on his back - to a man that walks to the 18th green looking like the verizon guy; the spotlight aimed squarely on him. Regardless, the debate has spawned into something that isn't about difficulty of each others respective sport, individual achievements , style, grace, etc., but rather one word: dominance.
To state Tiger's claim, he came onto
the scene with a blistering '97 Masters that cemented
Tiger as a sort of Neo from the Matrix character, here to save Golf. And he did, for all intents and purposes. He has made golf relevant, and as much as Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, and Ian Poulter may wish Tiger would prove he is mortal so that they can take him down - they should be thanking him because without Tiger an extremely casual golf fan like myself wouldn't even know who those country clubbers are. Tiger takes the phrase "head and shoulders above the competition," and makes it laughable; His shoulders would need to be the size of mount rushmore for that to seem applicable. Tiger is currently playing as well as he ever has in his career, winning 5 straight events, and 8 of his last 9 - coming in 2nd in the 9th. More importantly, he doesn't just win, he embarrasses the competition. It's like the Harlem Globetrotters playing the Washington Nationals every single night, and no one ever gets bored of it. He has no real competitor that has ever emerged, and it is becoming increasingly blurry if that is a knock on the players in the field, or if it is just impossible to truly contend with Tiger for a substantial period of time. The scariest thing of all is that in the golf world Tiger is still young. In his early 30's, he can play into his 50's, 60's even if he continues onto the Senior Tour. It seems genuinely unfair what he is doing, and he will re-write every single record; it is just a matter of time.
But what about Michael? I am extremely biased in this argument because I grew up in awe of Michael Jordan as a die-hard Bulls fan. People claim that Tiger has the same competitive fire that Jordan has, but... really? I don't buy that. Jordan would rip your heart out at all costs, and there was nothing you could do about it. He would be double, triple teamed and still find a way to score. He would dunk on anyone, regardless of how big or strong you were. You could physically beat him up all game, but it wouldn't matter - just ask the Pistons of the late 80's. You can't say the same for golf. Sure, Tiger is competitive, but it's just not the same. Basketball is a different beast. Jordan won 6 championships in 8 years in what was a better period for the NBA than now. He won against Magic, Stockton & Malone, Barkley, Isiah, Ewing, Drexler, and the list goes on. He was borderline unbeatable, and yes, while he had good teammates, it wasn't like some of the team's today where there are 3 superstars carrying the load. Michael Jordan was the Chicago Bulls. You don't get a statue unless you are the franchise. He was the best player in the NBA in every single facet of the game: best scorer, best defender, best clutch shooter, and best passer and rebounder for his position.
While I don't like this argument in general because it inherently has to go here, but Michael wins the debate because it is genuinely harder to do what he did than what Tiger is doing. The snap judgement here is always to say, "well you think what Tiger is doing is easy??" No, absolutely not. It is mentally grueling, and requires Tiger to master his craft like no other. But, for Jordan, there are so many other variables that make it damn near impossible to dominate the way he did, and he did it on sheer will more than anything else. It is easy to pick the guy that is hot in the moment, and Tiger is blowing away the sports world, but back in the mid 90's people would trade their first born kid to be in the presence of Michael Jordan. True story.
Do you agree? Do you care?
3 comments:
Is this apples and oranges, Matt? You make the case for both in some ways, so this really is about the two different sports rather than the level of domination. Certainly Tiger has ruled golf over the last eight years as Jordan ruled basketball during his career. But the obstacles Jordan faced were inherent in the game he played. If basketball were only a shooting competition and all 350 pros participated, each trying to sink a shot as quickly as possible at eighteen different baskets, Jordan would be hard pressed to dominate the way Woods does in a similar contest--golf. But add teammates and x's and o's and defense and coaching and this becomes much more than a fine motor skills, hand eye coordination test. What Woods and Jordan do equally well is take control or, I guess, dominate. They control everything within their power to control--their own mental approach, their own preparation, and their own shotmaking and playmaking. Like UCLA of the sixties and seventies, both Jordan and Woods came to the realization that if they could control the variables within their own grasps, the rest would take care of itself. Who is more dominant? It is a wash. Which sport involves more variables and potential roadblocks to championships? Basketball. Who got suckered by the ESPN sports talk losers? #12.
I would not have left an anonymous post except I am not exactly sure what the heck I am doing. Coach
It's gotta be MJ. It just has to be. There's just something too leisurely about golf, whether it's Tiger or some drunk dudes on a Saturday.
MJ scared every single player he competed with. He scared them with his game, with his presence, with his trash-talk. And basketball, when played right, is the most beautiful sport on earth. The setting of a perfect screen? That's art that even the 18th hole at Augusta with a tie lead could not deliver.
Post a Comment