Comments on: Wal-Mart, Tiger, and Dominance

By: Landon

Landon — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:01:11 +0000

hmm… interesting topic. Although I love to see individuals aspiring to greatness and all that jazz, in the case of Tiger, his perpetual victories do take some of the fun out of the tournaments for me. But is it unfair that Tiger always wins? Absolutely not. I think he’s definitely earned his monopoly. But that also raises the question of whether or not humans are born with different capacities, and this always troubles me. Are all men (and women this time) really created equal? People obviously have varying capacities for intelligence, athletic ability, etc… but where do these capacities come from? are we born with them or do they emanate from the amount of time this individual has put in?
To me, Wal-Mart’s monopoly is a different scenario. In small towns like SS, the “competition” has to know that they will be out-produced by a multi-national corporation decades old. I think Wal-Mart realizes this, or they wouldn’t be exploiting the lack of labor laws in foreign countries and ignore the world current demand of free-range and free-trade products (which are more expensive and would cut their profits in half).
So for Tiger, I say yes, it’s ok for him to perform his best. Wal-Mart, I say no. There should be an equally profitable competitor anywhere a major corporation is planted, because technically, in SS, Wal-Mart IS a monopoly, which is illegal.
Maybe I’ll start blogging….

By: Kade Wimberley

Kade Wimberley — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:50:32 +0000

Dominance Isn’t Something That Anyone Is Born With.. I Think It Is a Great Thing Because ( Like The Newest Jordan Commercials Say) ” There Are No Cinderellas”. Dominace Is Payed For By Blood, Sweat , and Tears… And We’re Lucky To Be Able To See People Who Worked The Living Crap Out Of Themselves To Be Dominate In Anything They Do..

Personally I Find Lance Armstrong Amazing.. Anyone Who Influences Someone Else for the Good is doin somthing right..

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:57:40 +0000

I don’t necessarily see it as “Dominance” by Tiger & Wal-Mart, but a lack of effort by their competitors. Think about it. You can’t tell me Tiger’s talent is that much better than everone else’s. You wins because he works at it. If Phil Mickelson put in the hours that Tiger does, he would be at the top every week with him, but instead he has a gut and run out of steam by the end of the season. Wal-Mart vs. Mom & Pop is a little bit more complicated, but it’s still the same idea. I bet if Mom & Pop stores got creative then they could compete with the giants like Wal-Mart. They can reduce their overhead or even work together with other Mom & Pop stores to leverage buying power to buy goods cheaper.

As much as I hate Tiger winning every week and having to fight through all the people at Wal-Mart, I have to say it CAN be a good thing in the long run. The reason I say that is because it forces competitors to step it up which will create even greater competition and that greater competition will be able to benefit everyone involved.

By: Heather

Heather — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:12:40 +0000

I don’t think it’s a good thing for something/someone to be so much better than every single one of their competitors because the essence of complete dominance is that it elimates competition. This give way to more power than one thing or person needs and the ability to whatever they choose with that power. Its the same reason why our country made laws again monopolies. In a worldly sense, competition is a great thing and very necessary for our economy and government. Just think about the difference between the repulican side vs. the democratic side of the presidential race. Our vote practically didn’t count by the time Texas voted because John McCain already had it locked up; he had no competitors. Whereas, with Hilary and Obama every democratic vote counts because the race is so close. Just a thought.

However, I do think aspiring to be dominant in what ever you choose is good. We have to always push towards greatness. Some of us will reach it and some will not. I guess that’s it for now.

By: KYLE B.

KYLE B. — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:13:09 +0000

ehh..very good topic..i think i would have to yes and no!! yes, because its life!! everything and everyone has something else dominating them!! and thats how it is, its not the person or super centers fault that they are so good at what they do, maybe the smaller or less popular should see what the COULD have and strive to get better!! no in a sense that competion brings a lot of people down, im sure the other PGA golfers notice all of Tiger’s media coverage and succsess, but they cant let it get to them. in small towns, some people may like the homie touch to smaller sotres and the friendlyness, and others may prefer the “super” place that everyone goes to!! i dont know..thats what i had to say :]