PPM self proclaimed "the greatest event in the history of Poker"

[jojobinks]

moronic. it's not like people just started playing poker either. but they did just start going crazy about it. and in 1995 (or whenever tiger went nuts), there was a boom in new golfers.

of course not you. we get it. but it's still true that tiger made a big difference to people who hadn't previously played golf for fun, or at all. kinda like...hey, kinda like moneymaker!

[Vee Quiva]

Moneymaker's win was better because ESPN added Norman Chad. He was leaps and bounds better than Mr. Kotter on the poker commentary.

[heavybody]

[ QUOTE ]
launched golf as a popular sport

[/ QUOTE ]

your words, no way is Woods responsible for launching something that was already hugely popular. Here's what Moneymaker laaunched dude..the idea that any [censored] can get themselves a computer go online for a little while ,never play live poker and go win the biggest prize poker has to offer with little work or effort. Nobody in there right minds thinks there gonna win the Masters without years of effort. This is why I didn't think the comparisons wre appropriate. By the way I am not a moron nor was my post moronic. your rude.

heavily bodied

[jojobinks]

i'm rude, but you can't spell.

while i agree that moneymaker made people believe it was possible for any chump to win, and agree the same is not true of tiger, just because things are different doesn't mean they can't be compared. yes, they're different. any two things are different.

tiger helped to popularize the sport outside of its base; country club crackers. he interested young folk that wouldn't otherwise play. he got people out to see events that normally wouldn't have gone. he was young, black (that was/is important), and he's athletic, not some redneck chubber.

moneymaker got people interested that wouldn't have formerly been interested.

Woods got people interested that wouldn't have formerly been interested.

notice: not the same. similar.