tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post7344355515250999506..comments2023-12-23T05:16:48.469-05:00Comments on Riggs' Nut Straight: Phil Ivey is the Tiger Woods of Poker!Riggstadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724818580402350984noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post-37583586377163898172008-08-07T10:19:00.000-04:002008-08-07T10:19:00.000-04:00I agree with you Hoy. 100%!The only thing that rem...I agree with you Hoy. 100%!<BR/><BR/>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.Riggstadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09724818580402350984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post-8033563227721568622008-08-06T17:14:00.000-04:002008-08-06T17:14:00.000-04:00Phil Ivey is the Dick Cheney of poker. He's got m...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.<BR/><BR/>Tiger Woods is the rake of golf. He is the house of golf. He is the Thor weilding his hammer Miljinour of golf.<BR/><BR/>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.Julius_Goathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01265326822534167730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post-21430660588447930072008-08-06T16:41:00.000-04:002008-08-06T16:41:00.000-04:00It's obviously racist, because seriously now Tiger...It's obviously racist, because seriously now Tiger Woods and Phil Ivey look exactly <B>nothing</B> alike. I mean it's not even remotely close.<BR/><BR/>And to anyone out there reading this who thinks I'm wrong -- you are a racist too.<BR/><BR/>These two guys don't even resemble each other a little bit. Their skin color isn't even that close for crying out loud.Hammer Player a.k.a Hoyazohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031535857121915911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post-32109747595564951542008-08-06T14:46:00.000-04:002008-08-06T14:46:00.000-04:00wawfuls is the sam grizzle of pokahwawfuls is the sam grizzle of pokahsmokkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13494763585388001041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post-19209244990114924682008-08-06T10:30:00.000-04:002008-08-06T10:30:00.000-04:00I think the references to the two are because the...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.SirFWALGManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01310209706844541719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post-2988589887258812872008-08-06T10:18:00.000-04:002008-08-06T10:18:00.000-04:00I disagree. Both are complete hacks, and are ther...I disagree. Both are complete hacks, and are therefore equivalent!Astinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04349033187012323688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post-36759876879418120262008-08-05T20:09:00.000-04:002008-08-05T20:09:00.000-04:00Who gives a ratz azz.........Robots are robots!I'l...Who gives a ratz azz.........<BR/><BR/>Robots are robots!<BR/><BR/>I'll personally take a little personality any-friggin'-day.<BR/><BR/>I assume after tonights game on Stars..... Pauly is the Tiger Woods of bloggers?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>But that's just the "class clown's" opinion. <BR/><BR/>BOOOOOOOOOOOM !BamBamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03016454443639006266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post-25738934286478519832008-08-05T18:13:00.000-04:002008-08-05T18:13:00.000-04:00As the aforementioned litigator and the self-procl...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...<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831176156389777158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6392901304932532948.post-5238287394555062852008-08-05T17:21:00.000-04:002008-08-05T17:21:00.000-04:00I wholeheartedly agree, (yet really am quite indif...I wholeheartedly agree, (yet really am quite indifferent to such a topic.) Real curious what prompted the post... someone really said this? Ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Annie Duke is the Annika Sorenstam of poker... Liz Lieu is the Michelle Wie... that Indian dude is the Vijay Singh... etc...RaisingCaynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14827163499901916297noreply@blogger.com