Tiger Woods was the best golfer from 1996 to 2009
Debate Rounds (3)
Tiger woods won 14 which is second all time.
Contention 2: PGA tour wins
Tiger Woods won 71 events which is third all time
Contention 3: Grandslams
He has had three years when he has every major
Burden of con: To prove it false
First: The term "was" implies tw was always the best golfer during that timeframe, which i will disprove, so as long as i prove he wasnt always the best player during that time, i win the round. Tiger woods suffered an injury in 2008 taking him out for the season, and rendering him unable to play golf. Thus, if he was so injured he couldnt even play then obviously he wasnt always the best player duin that timeframe.
In order for pro to prove the resolution true, he first has to prove the term "best" can be evaluated. If the term "best" cannot be evaluated, then the resolution defaults to false as there is no way to prove the resolution true.
My sole argument is that best is open to one's perception
Example: Lebron James vs Kobe Bryant(who is better0
if we evaluate this based on sheer stats, people could argue "Kobe is more determined, or Kobe can knock down shots at the last second therefore he is better," thus making the "best player argument" all the more confusing. For example, lebron has the stats, but kobe has the ability to hit game winners. Even if we evaluated the term best based on game stats, the term would still be unable toe evaluated. For example, lebron might lead in the scoring field, but kobe can lead in the "Most championships or finals mvp department" thus the debate over who is best depends on an individual's perception of which stats matter the most. The only way my opponent can sqeeze out of this is if he somehow manages to prove tiger was so dominant during all of those years that he was in the lead in terms of stats every single year.
Second, i would say "best cant be evaluated because before we can determine who is best everyone has to have an equal headstart, while tiger woods started playing when he was twom giving him a huge start. Furthermore, his initial influence gave him huge sponsorhips allowing him better trainers, thus putting him way ahead of other small town boys who perhaps was equally talented but were unable to reach the same heights due to perhaps determinisitc factors.
If you ask anyone they'd probably say that Tiger Woods is the best golfer in that time period. Statistics tell that Tiger Woods has set a bunch of records therefore holding him in a higher position and place than other competetors.
To determine the best golfers they need to have better statistics, the amount of Majors won and PGA tour events won. Tiger Woods, on record, is the one with the most wins in both categories.
I am staying within your timeframe, however your argument implies tiger woods was ALWAYS the best player during that time, however since he sustained an injury during that month in your timeframe, he was unable to play, and thus cannot be considered the best player ALWAYS in the timeframe.
You say we need to look at the statistics, but who says which statistics are better? Use the example of kobe and lebron, i could say points are most important whereas you could say rebounds are more importamnt. For you to solely decide which stats matter most is unfair.
"Statistics tell that Tiger Woods has set a bunch of records therefore holding him in a higher position and place than other competetors."
First, you don't provide any amount of records he has had, furthermore, I still say "best" is in the eyes of the beholder. I can tell you think records determine who is best, I think effort and heart does(sorry if that sounds cheesy).
Furthermore, you can extend the fact I say best must be evaluated on equal grounds, so there is no way to evaluate it since different people start at different times. Tiger Woods started wen he was two, whats to say some other dude who played golf since he was two would not do better?
"To determine the best golfers they need to have better statistics, the amount of Majors won and PGA tour events won. Tiger Woods, on record, is the one with the most wins in both categories."
Once again, he's asserting his own standards of "best player, furthermore, he started playing alot earlier then rookies so its too early to tell.
One more thing I'm not saying which stats matter most. If you compare and contrast Woods with others he is still the better golfer.
Also you go on to say that their amount of skill can be determined upon when they started and you go on to say Tiger Woods at the age of two but just in case you forgot the resolution let me repeat it back to you, "Tiger Woods was the best golfer from 1996 to 2009." His starting at the age of two has nothing to do with it since we are debating the time frame i put up.
I don't provide any amount of records? Why don't you wikipedia it? Type in Tiger Woods in wikipedia and you will get your statistics.
Best player is evaluated on statistics and Wood's statistics are higher than everybody elses. Also judges don't let him try and say he started early so that was a determining factor. It was but that is not what we are debating. We are debating from the timeframe of 1996 to 2009.
200machao forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.