NOT!!!
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?
~~~~~~~
9 comments:
I wholeheartedly agree, (yet really am quite indifferent to such a topic.) Real curious what prompted the post... someone really said this? Ridiculous.
I find it racist myself, as the ONLY real similiarity between them in respect to their individual competition is their race! ANY other comparison is asinine.
Annie Duke is the Annika Sorenstam of poker... Liz Lieu is the Michelle Wie... that Indian dude is the Vijay Singh... etc...
As the aforementioned litigator and the self-proclaimed Devil's Advocate of Poker Bloggers, I feel it my duty to provide a counterpoint. While I agree with you in principle, it is my nature to argue, and so...
Phil Ivey IS the Tiger Woods of Poker! It's true. The problem with your commentary is that you seem to take exception to the idea that Tiger Woods IS the Phil Ivey of Golf. And that, we can both agree, is false.
Phil Ivey is regarded as the Tiger Woods of poker for a couple of reasons. Certainly, race is a factor, but not in a negative way. Tiger Woods entered a sport dominated by the White Man and became an immediate challenge to the thrown, eventually toppling it and becoming a living legend in his own right. Similarly, Mr. Ivey entered the world of poker, which at the time was predominately played by the White Man. He, too, carved a place for himself and established himself as a living legend.
Their demeanor also has similarities. Ivey is known for his complete focus at the table, something akin to Woods' focus on the course. Neither are showboaters. They are there to play, and they play to win.
The major difference, and where you take exception, is the fact that Tiger Woods has utterly dominated golf, whereas Phil Ivey is often cited as amongst the best players but is not the undisputed best player. I have two responses to this issue, the first being that you should not discount Phil Ivey's accomplishments. He is widely regarded as one of the best cash players around in a variety of games, he has won 5 WSOP bracelets, including three in 2002 alone and his first in 2000 at the young age of 23, he won a WPT event, and holds the record for the most WPT final tables. While this may not be equivalent to Mr. Woods' golf accomplishments, in a game where the fields are significantly larger and luck plays a greater factor, Mr. Ivey's accomplishments are Herculean.
The second reason why it does not matter that Woods' success eclipses Ivey's is logic. "Phil Ivey is the Tiger Woods of Poker" is a lot different than "Tiger Woods is the Phil Ivey of Golf." And the first sentence does not mean the second.
When one says, "Phil Ivey is the Tiger Woods of Poker", it means that Phil Ivey is the top dog. It is an analogy as opposed to a direct statement of equivalence.
In contrast, "Woods is the Ivey of Golf," is just absurd. First, Ivey is not a good reference point for "top dog". Second, Woods IS above Ivey's statute. There is no denying that.
It essentially comes down to the literal vs. the figurative. Phil Ivey is NOT Tiger Woods, but he IS the Tiger Woods of Poker, insofar as he can be regarded as the best player around, with a cool demeanor, stealy focus, and a lot of success.
Who gives a ratz azz.........
Robots are robots!
I'll personally take a little personality any-friggin'-day.
I assume after tonights game on Stars..... Pauly is the Tiger Woods of bloggers?
Nah..... met the man....twice! Like I said. I'll take a little personality anytime! Tiger and Phil can both eat Pauly's dirty, been in Vegas for a million straight day's shorts.
But that's just the "class clown's" opinion.
BOOOOOOOOOOOM !
I disagree. Both are complete hacks, and are therefore equivalent!
I think the references to the two are because they look ALIKE no because both are black (or maybe tanish? Mauve? No wait thats purple). They really do have a similar look. So I doubt the comparisons are racist.
wawfuls is the sam grizzle of pokah
It's obviously racist, because seriously now Tiger Woods and Phil Ivey look exactly nothing alike. I mean it's not even remotely close.
And to anyone out there reading this who thinks I'm wrong -- you are a racist too.
These two guys don't even resemble each other a little bit. Their skin color isn't even that close for crying out loud.
Phil Ivey is the Dick Cheney of poker. He's got more information than you, and more money than you, and he won't give either to you, ever. Also, the shifty eyes.
Tiger Woods is the rake of golf. He is the house of golf. He is the Thor weilding his hammer Miljinour of golf.
Both Tiger Woods and Phil Ivey are skinny black fellows in their 30s. That's about the extent of the comparison. Ivey has an eighteen-head, Tiger has had his irises replaced with Nike swooshes. There are many other ways to tell them apart, but if you are still confused, try tickling them. Ivey will break into fits of laughter, Tiger will remain stonefaced but 15 days later you will be dead.
I agree with you Hoy. 100%!
The only thing that remotely makes them similar is the color of their skin. I guess I could have been more clear in the post about that,but that IS the reasn why it is a racist comparison. At least in my estimation.
Post a Comment