TIGER CUT STREAK > DIMAGGIO HUT STREAK

[judgesmails]

Tiger's streak is more impressive to me.

TSC makes a good point that I want to address though. Sure, Tiger just had to be above average to make the cut each week. But that is harder in golf than any other sport. One bad swing, one bad break, or a balky putter can take you out of a tourney.

In baseball, you can have a bad at-bat and still get a hit (swinging bunt, dying quail, ground ball with eyes, friendly scorekeeper), not mention gettting extra chances in extra innings.

Not to diminish Joe's streak at all, but because the luck factor is in the players favor in baseball, while working against the golfer at all times makes Tiger's accomplishment superior to me.

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are just being ridiculous.

DiMaggio had to be WAY above average during that streak. No one has come close to breaking his record.

Tiger simply had to be above average during his cut streak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q: Why is getting 1 hit in 4 tries WAY more impressive than making a cut?

A: it's not

[/ QUOTE ]why?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that Tiger's streak is more "important" due to the nature of it:

DiMaggio's streak, although impressive, doesn't portray the actual statistic - batting average - that is implied (there is no real display of batting "skill" in this stat - he could bat less than .250 and perform this streak).

Tiger's streak is directly related to the statistic - score - that is implied (he must be a better golfer than most each and every week for 250 straight weeks, i.e. have scoring "skill")

both are impressive, but not comparable - I'd be more impressed with someone hitting .450 for half the year than a hitting streak depending on specific single games.