[DPCandND]

[quote name='adker' timestamp='1354110724' post='183478']
"....using the same Drive they have to do very good things for society (charitable work) with exceptional results.
And this is where we disagree...

Lastly, Golf has not had much of a dropoff....it's demise is bandied about in the media, but the attendance for major events is up, and
the attendance for events which Woods did NOT play in, well, it was also up in both 2010 and 2011. the PGA tour has no shortage of sponsors
who are chomping at the bit to get in, and international play is booming.

First, though (sorry to be writing this post like a Pulp Fiction scene)...while we all wanted LA's charitable "good things" to be genuine, it is now pretty clear that the charitable work was a front in order to further his reputation and preserve his image, as well as to enrich his pockets....well
past what we (society) would deem acceptable. My God, man, he got 1.5 million for a weekend of Livestrong charity rides, alone...
I shudder to think about how much cash Livestrong spun his way over the years! In contrast Woods did nothing of the kind, (that we know about...).
Livestrong is heavily rumoured to be sinking, and how long it remains as a functioning C-3 entity is up for speculation.

Because he never cheated, took drugs, tested positive, or "lost his license", Woods has made a comeback of sorts (because he is ELIGIBLE to compete!).
He won three times last year, is the world's #2 player, and appears (proof is in the pudding!) to be ready to
play his old dominant role. I am not a Tiger lover..in fact, I don't really like the guy too much, but
the comparisons you bring are rife with logical issues.

Lance was the most publicized rider of his era, but NOT the best...many believe (and believed) that his inability to win more
one day races/classics/short stage races and his failure to even attempt the hour record, or multiple Grand Tours
in the same season (on a consistent basis), was indicative of a void in his palmares. We now know why. He WAS the poster child for a troubled sport,
professional road cycling, and now we know that he was a fraud, and the sport (for the most part) over the last twenty years,
was also a fraud. Comparing Armstrong's issues to Woods or cycling's issues to PGA tour golf is missing the mark.

[adker]

I agree with you on the minutia level, there are a lot of ways you can pull it apart but I think these similarities are glaring

Both:
1. raised the viewers and prevalence of their respective sports to levels never previously achieved (at least in the US not the same world wide)
2. both used their Icon status to start huge charities that raised tons of money
3. both had a huge fall from grace that cost them sponsorship and viewer support
4. the departure of both created a huge decline in the ratings of both sports ( I don't know about galleries, but I know they PGA tour could not get any ratings numbers at all while Tiger was away from the sport)
5. Both are reported to be driven, narcissistic, and very difficult to deal with because they are so single minded
6. and both had huge character flaws that took them from beloved to befallen.

The PGA tour is desperate for Tiger to come back full strength and dominate or someone else to become the next Tiger (so much so that they have handed the torch prematurely to a couple of candidates) and I am sure the sport of cycling is desperate for a new fresh face that can crush the field and win the viewers hearts back

I do think there are a lot of parallels

[smug]

adker, on 28 November 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

My Woods/Armstrong parallel had to do more with the character issues of the most intense people. Woods did not cheat in his sport and Armstrong did, the connection I was making was that both of these people or intense, somewhat narcissistic, and driven individuals who have used those qualities to reach the pinnacle of their respective sports while at the same time having falls from grace for characters flaws (albeit in very different manifestations) while at the same time using the same Drive they have to do very good things for society (charitable work) with exceptional results. They are both tremendously polarizing and both of them as both of them of done good and bad at the same time. I agree Woods transgression had less of a negative impact on his sport. But both raised their sports dramatically and both sports have seen a huge fall off following their transgressions. I don't think the parallel is such a stretch.

no one now doubts the integrity of the results of golf. it's a terrible analogy.