A couple of things you can't do: compare the athletic ability. Compare the sports. Compare the marketing. The question is who is better? Is Tiger a better golfer than Jordan is (was) a basketball player. Its not about who is in better shape. If you took both guys at 30 and gave them a competition of twenty different sports, Jordan wins easily. The question though is who is better at their craft. This is tough on so many levels because you first have a great distinction in the nature of the sports (and yes golf is a sport, I've been once to a driiving range, and trust me its a physical activity) anyway, basketball is team, golf is individual. They both excelled in college they both have been universally recognized as the best in the game during their era's. But beyond that you can't really quantify it in wins and losses or even in popularity. Take the socail issues out, because Tiger's impact is far greater in that respect. Cablanasian my ass society (and the world) sees a black man. In fact they have way too much in common I almost wonder if they aren't the same being hmmm...maybe Supreme Power is onto something.... anyway with this question I think it comes down to pure subjectivity, and while Mike was a reason to watch basketball games, Tiger is the only reason I watch golf. So by a .000000000000000000001 I say Tiger. In terms of ability in his sport I think he has at least matchd Mike's dominance and Tiger has not yet piqued and will end his career as the greatest ever to play the game by far. Whereas reasonable people frequently disagree about whether Mike was the greatest ever. I say Tiger. Although I never had a Tiger poster on my wall but had a few of Mike's.
