On ESPN’s Mike & Mike yesterday they were debating who was the more dominate player in their respective sport and which was more impressive. Beside the fact that this is just a stupid discussion and why ESPN analyst want to continually compare apples to oranges is beyond me. In my humble experience, getting to the point where I could play tennis to a competitive level against the next average joe was much easier than golf in fact I would say I am not their yet. It seems like I start over every spring (maybe I should start using the Golf dome). All that being said Dicky V. (Who I, unlike some people, thoroughly enjoy) attempted to make the point that Tiger competes against the whole field where Roger only has to play seven matches and that if PGA was a match play format he would basically never lose. The fallacy in this is that with match play you can never be off your game. All it takes is one player to have the game of his life to knock you out of the tournament one loss and you’re out. With golf if a player has a bad Round, (as long as they make the cut) they can make up for it the next day. Also, the black spot in Tigers record has been the Ryders Cup.. Which is what? That’s right match play which according to wikipedia his record is 7-11-2. So, Dicky V I love ya but think about what you are saying before you spout.