Honestly, does Phil Ivey really resemble Tiger Woods in anyway, other than looking like him? Don't get me wrong, Ivey is a phenomenal player, but he certainly does not dominate the poker world like Woods dominates the golf world.
I mean good lord, people have pretty much stopped caring about golf since Woods went on the DL, but I would guess that it would take at least a year for people to even recognize if Ivey vanished for whatever reason. Other than his hardcore fans. And barring any reason that would merit a front page story in the mass media.
But here's my point...
Other than poker players and those who follow the game, the name Phil Ivey doesn't mean a thing. You metion Tiger Woods ANYWHERE in the civilized world and some hermit would recognize the name.
Obviously Golf and Tiger Woods reach a much wider audience than poker, but his accomplishments on the course and in his field are much much greater than Phil Iveys do in poker.
Again, don't get me wrong, I love Phil Ivey. I think he is one of the best players in the game, but to be compared with the greatest golfer that ever picked up the working end of a golf club, and probably ever will be, is just retarded.
So, you can make the assumption that because they bare a similar resemblance that this is why the comparison is usually made. You can also argue that because they are both at the top of their fields, that the argument can be made.
But I disagree. Tiger is not at the top of his field. He is the field. He OWNS the field. Where else can you get odds on one player vs. the field?
And because the comparison is most likely based on resemblance, could the argument be made that it is a racist statement? To compare the two? Any lawyers, or litigators out there willing to make that argument?
I would love to see a back and forth between two good debaters on this subject. Woods and Ivey comparison is racist. Get after it. I wonder if James Carville is available?
To end this little discourse (rant), I would say that comparing the two is an insult to Tiger Woods. He has a level to his game that others can never, and will never phathom. Not even the second best player in the world.
I know its hard to argue the comparison between the sports as well because Poker has a luck factor. But if luck was taken out of the game, do you think Ivey would dominate? Do you think he would consistently beat the likes of Chan, Ngyun, Hellmuth, Negraneu, Lindgren, Seed, Forrest, lederer, (do I have to continue)?
Anyone agree? Anyone Disagree? Anyone else care?