Tokyo Tony

#1 for me - suspending jerkbait. There's nothing like jerkin' it along super-fast, feeling an aggressive, line-stopping strike, then watching a p'd off smallie go airborn ;D

Congrats! Pharmacists make good money = baitmonkey has his eye on you A friend of mine decided to go into that field, and after his first chemistry class, decided it wasn't for him. Good luck with ORGO

Suave coconut for me

Well I've continued to use the Sufix I spooled up over a week ago, and although it's a little limper now that when I first used it, and there's no more yellow powder dye coming off of it, I still prefer Power Pro. Both are good lines, but like most other things, it comes down to personal preference. I don't know what you're diong that makes the line snap, but you're probably crimping the line when you pull out birds nests. IMO, Power Pro is a little softer than Sufix, and quieter (which is weird because one of the things people say about Sufix is that it's quieter than PP :-? ). Anyway, I won't be buying any more Sufix, but I'll keep using it until it needs to be replaced.

Mr. Hannon? Is that you in there? ;D

Ok, since you ask, I admit. Tak here. Berry prease to meet you

I have some secret spots, but not really on popular lakes. Most of them are small ponds I've found on Google Earth that no one else fishes, either because they don't know they're there, or because there's no boat ramp. A couple bigger ones, in particular, are great fisheries, but a real pain in the butt to access, even in a canoe. You have to drag the canoe through the woods, paddle through a small pond, then drag the canoe through more woods.

F'ing sickening

Nice man, those are about like the ones I've been getting lately. This early in the year, I'm just glad when it's a bass instead of a pickerel

Branuss, that's ridiculous. Great fish, and congrats ;D

WOW fourbizz, those are some great fish. Congrats, and keep it up

That's a nice fish there - all I've gotten lately are little ones in CT.

Well some of those guys are of an era before Nicklaus, and Bobby Jones was all but finished by the time Snead came around. Regardless, the players you mentioned were definitely great players, but most of them weren't peaking at the same time. Basically, although Nicklaus and Snead played against most of those players mentioned, they didn't play against them all at once, especially Snead. Nowadays there are many more "second-tier" golfers, so to speak, capable of winning tournaments than there were in the past, and there are arguably just as many if not more first-tier golfers. If it seems like there aren't as many great PGA golfers nowadays, it's because they pale in comparison to Tiger. And to name some great golfers that Tiger has been up against... Vijay Singh Phil Mickelson Ernie Els Jim Furyk Sergio Garcia Retief Goosen David Duval (before he began to suck) Davis Love III and some younger guys over the last few years... Justin Rose Adam Scott Charles Howell III Geoff Ogilvy If you think about it, some of these guys I mentioned would be considered really great golfers if Tiger hadn't been cramping their style over the last few years

Tiger's doing it in a much shorter time span. Nicklaus won his 18th major at 46, Tiger is 33 (I think) and has 13.

Well just going by stats, Tiger still has some tournaments and majors to win. However, if you consider the fields nowadays compared with the fields Nicklaus and Snead competed against, it makes Tiger's accomplishments even more impressive. It's also the manner in which Tiger wins. I have no doubt that Nicklaus would agree that Tiger now is better than Nicklaus ever was. In fact, Nicklaus may have already said that. Snead and Nicklaus mainly competed against a few top-tier professionals (although in Nicklaus' later days the competition did start to get tougher), whereas the tour nowadays has many more players capable of going on a 4 day hot streak and running away with it. As for the differing opinions in this thread, it really comes down to what you think the definition of an athlete is. What exactly an athlete is, is a matter of opinion to a certain extent anyway, so we'll never all come to the same conclusion

I understand both opinions - mine is that Tiger is the best athlete ever, but I totally understand how someone could disagree. However, Matt Fly, something that is not a matter of opinion: Tiger is not "good". He's at least very very very good. Other apt descriptions include: unbelievable, ridiculously unbelievable, super human, amazing, phenomenal, ridiculously phenomenal, etc. ;D

AMEN muddy - if you haven't played golf it's really tough to understand the skill it takes to play at the pro level, and it's tough (or impossible) for anyone to understand exactly what it takes to play at Tiger's level. I played a little baseball when I was younger, but wasn't at the age or level where we had to deal with curve balls or other tough pitches, so I admit I don't really understand the skill it takes to hit a pro-ball pitch. True, anyone can make contact with a golf ball on a tee, but that's not all Tiger is doing. He factors in the wind, weather, altitude of the golf course (the higher the elevation, the farther the ball travels), the lie (how the ball is sitting in the grass - down-grain or into the grain), how the ball is going to spin (less from the rough, more from the fairway), how much spin he chooses to put on the ball (does he want to cut it, draw it, etc.), what type of trajectory he wants for the shot (high, low, middle, under the tree, over the tree...), the firmness of the greens, the slope of the green, slope of the course (is the green uphill or downhill from where he is?), which side of the pin he wants to be on after the shot (to leave himself an easier putt), what side of the green is more forgiving if he does happen to miss the green, and I could go on and on. Tiger does all of this better than anyone has ever done. Point is, there's a lot more to this game/sport than meets the eye, and if I didn't play it myself, I'd probably think it's a stupid game for sissies

Lol, here's an oxymoron for you: Bragging about how humble you are. It sounds like you're quite an angler, but let's get serious.

I have one, but won't be buying anymore. I didn't dislike it, but it's nothing special and I just like the regular pointers. The jointed tail seems kind of pointless to me if you're gonna use it like a jerkbait, but if you're ever going to use a steady retrieve (I never do), the live pointer definitely has better swimming action.

Sorry about your day bud, but at least you learned about girls and shopping early. I remember exactly when I learned about it. Freshman year at college, two girls in my dorm asked if they could borrow my car to go get some dresses for a formal. Obviously that wasn't gonna happen (see thread on woman drivers ;D ), but since they were nice and extremely cute I offered to drive them to the store. They "only" took an hour and a half, but I'm pretty sure they "rushed" through it because I was stranded there, but that was a long wait for me in JC Penny, and I had no idea what I was getting into.

X2 IMO, "most dominating athlete of all time" is essentially the same as "best athlete of all time". If you're the most dominating athlete of all time, it means that you're better than any other athletes who play your sport by a larger margin than any other dominating athlete in his respective sport, ever. Saying that those two titles are different implies either that one sport has more competition than another sport, or that one sport takes more athletic skill than another. I don't think you could argue that either is true. Granted, golf doesn't require as much strength or endurance as football, for example. However, it at least makes up for that in that it requires more mental strength and hand-eye coordination as opposed to brute strength and speed, for example. That's not to say football doesn't require those things, but IMO golf requires them to a higher degree, just as football requires more strength even though golf requires strength. All I'm saying is that we could argue all day what sports are "tougher" or require more athletic prowess, but we'll get nowhere. I don't think anyone could say that one sport has more competition than another either. Therefore, if you say Tiger is the most dominating athlete of all time, or is on his way there, you're also saying he's the best athlete of all time, or that he's on his way there, no?

Congratulations

That's ridiculous. No way any other golfer has had anywhere near those odds With those odds I'd definitely bet against Tiger.

#1 that woman was really lucky that the boat ties were as tight as they were, otherwise she would have been in a really really bad situation, and we'd be looking at the photo under a Darwin Award thread.

x2, or +1, whichever you prefer 8-)