Federer or TW

**SGH** · 10-01-2006 06:28 PM

Pretty simple - who's more dominant, and why?

This came up in another thread, and thought I'd move the discussion here rather than threadjack.

In my opinion, Roger Federer is on another planet. Without him in the field, anyone can step up and win a WTP event. Throw him in the mix, and it's a whole other story.

Tiger's a great golfer, no question. However, I believe Federer is more dominant.

**davevandyk** · 10-01-2006 06:39 PM

I think Feds for one simple reason, its a matchplay tourney every single tourney!! He has to win 6 seperate matches every single tourney. Tiger can have a mundane 71 one round, then blast out with a 63 to get the lead, or get back into contention. For Feds, a "61" in tennis is just as good as a "71" performance if the opponent is not on top of his game.

I put Feds as the best single pro in the world, and really believe that he will go down as the best tennis player in the world, if not the best athlete of all time!

"Richard" · 10-01-2006 07:12 PM

wrong (IMO). When you compare people from different spots you don't compare them to eachother but to the greats of their own sport. Compare fed to sapras, becker, lendal, agasi.. and all the other greats and see how he compares to them. Then compare tiger to the greats of golf. How can you compare a tenis player to a golfer? A tennis player will play 6 guys to win... a golfer has to beat 150 golfers!

**Chieflongtee** · 10-01-2006 07:16 PM

Fed has lost twice to Nadal on clay earlier this year(Italian open and French open) That being said I think both are dominant in their own sport. In one you play against an opponent while in the other you play against a course. If Fed loses a set he can still come back while you may never recuperate from a triple bogey.

dH · 10-01-2006 07:18 PM

Tiger, Tiger, Tiger. Take nothing away from Fed but hey this is a golf board so obviously I"m biased.

**fundonny** · 10-01-2006 07:24 PM

I will say that they both will go down as the greatest ever in their sport. Tennis is so much harder on the body and so much more difficult to dominate over a substantial length of time.
When Federer breaks Sampras' record, he will be like Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky and Joe Montana. Same with Woods. They will be the BIG five.

**Hacker** · 10-01-2006 07:30 PM

Where do I buy my Federer, Rackets, balls, clothes, video games etc. etc. etc. ??

**davevandyk** · 10-01-2006 07:37 PM

its hard to compare the two, Federer has won 8 times in 15 tourneys that he has played, while Woods has won 7 times in 17 events that he has played. Both players are out of this world, i think we can all agree on that!!!

**SGH** · 10-01-2006 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Hacker

Where do I buy my Federer, Rackets, balls, clothes, video games etc. etc. etc. ??

From the same place as Tiger's - the sponsors. Nike being the major sponsor for both atheletes.

**Pinshark** · 10-01-2006 07:44 PM

We can all agree they are the best in their sport but I guess I have a better understanding of golf and believe it to be the harder sport. My vote goes to TW

**Pinshark** · 10-01-2006 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by SGH

From the same place as Tiger's - the sponsors. Nike being the major sponsor for both atheletes.

Do you think they are this good thanks to Nike? This cannot be a coincedence.

**Hacker** · 10-01-2006 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by SGH

From the same place as Tiger's - the sponsors. Nike being the major sponsor for both atheletes.

How come I don't see RF merchandise on TV every time I turn it on? Sport is a business these days and IMO you have to factor that into the equation. Tiger is by far the most dominant athlete in the world today when it comes to the business side of things. He is #5 on Forbes List of Top Celebrities - Federer doesn't rank in the top 100

http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/12/06c...list_land.html

...and I will repeat my main point for the 3rd time - the strength of the Men's Tennis field is very weak at this particular point in time. I'm not taking anything away from Federer, but he really doesn't have much competition

**SGH** · 10-01-2006 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Hacker

How come I don't see RF merchandise on TV every time I turn it on? Sport is a business these days and IMO you have to factor that into the equation. Tiger is by far the most dominant athlete in the world today when it comes to the business side of things. He is #5 on Forbes List of Top Celebrities - Federer doesn't rank in the top 100

http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/12/06c...list_land.html

...and I will repeat my main point for the 3rd time - the strength of the Men's Tennis field is very weak at this particular point in time. I'm not taking anything away from Federer, but he really doesn't have much competition

Alright, first of all, who's the biggest celbrity has nothing to do with dominance. Second of all, the quality of the tennis field can only be considered on relative terms. By that I mean, the field is judged against the greatest current player. Therefore, the tennis field is only weak as compared to Mr. Federer. Perhaps ten to fifteen years ago this field would be competetive against the likes of Sampras. There is no way to be sure.

I still don't understand why merchandise is of such importance to you. The poll is in regards to dominance on the court/course - not the retail stores and ebay. Regardless, Federer is the victim of an unpopular sport in the US. Otherwise, Federer's gear would be on the TV everytime you turn on the TV.

**davevandyk** · 10-01-2006 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by SGH

Alright, first of all, who's the biggest celbrity has nothing to do with dominance. Second of all, the quality of the tennis field can only be considered on relative terms. By that I mean, the field is judged against the greatest current player. Therefore, the tennis field is only weak as compared to Mr. Federer. Perhaps ten to fifteen years ago this field would be competetive against the likes of Sampras. There is no way to be sure.

I still don't understand why merchandise is of such importance to you. The poll is in regards to dominance on the court/course - not the retail stores and ebay. Regardless, Federer is the victim of an unpopular sport in the US. Otherwise, Federer's gear would be on the TV everytime you turn on the TV.

I'm in agreement with you. If you judge by merchandise or by strength of field, would that mean that Nicklaus' 18 majors are equal to about 6 in today's game because the field was poor compared to the level of players today?
As far as the popularity of the player having anything to do with it, Tiger is american, while Feds is Swiss. I would hazard to guess that Rog is bigger in Switzerland than Tiger is. People need to remember that Feds is not american, the bulk of the tennis tourneys do not take place in the states, like the PGA tour does, and the sport is not huge like golf is right now. I can promise you that there would be much more press/advertising for Feds if he was american, so you can't really use his media presense as a barometer. If Roddick was #2 in the world, you would get to see a lot more of Feds on TV because there would be an american at or near the top. Not many yanks like to see their best hope make it all the way to the final and get beat 6-2, 6-3, 6-1 to a superior man from a different country almost everytime they play!!!

Both athletes are completely amazing. If you watch both of them play a tourney when they are firing on all cylinders, you wonder if the rest of the competitors are really just muni golfers/ park tennis players who have a striking resemblance to Furyk/Mickelson... or Nadal/Roddick.

Enjoy both because i really feel that you will never see anyone like them again!!

**jonf** · 10-02-2006 12:01 AM

Federer is unreal. He is miles above everyone else in the sport. He will break Sampras' major record, and throw in a few French opens for good measure. Watching the guy play is just incredible. He can do ever part of the game better than anybody else ever has. I would say he's a better serve and volleyer than Sampras, has better groundstrokes than Agassi, and will prove himself superior to Nadal on ALL surfaces.

Tiger is incredible...don't get me wrong. He is one of the best, if not the best golfer, to ever play the game. But when I watch a golf tournament, I don't look at the field, see Tiger, and say "well, it's a race for second". With Federer, I do. The way I look at it, to put money on anybody but Federer is sheer stupidity, but you can justify putting money on golfers other than Tiger.

**jonf** · 10-02-2006 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Hacker

How come I don't see RF merchandise on TV every time I turn it on? Sport is a business these days and IMO you have to factor that into the equation. Tiger is by far the most dominant athlete in the world today when it comes to the business side of things. He is #5 on Forbes List of Top Celebrities - Federer doesn't rank in the top 100

http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/12/06c...list_land.html

...and I will repeat my main point for the 3rd time - the strength of the Men's Tennis field is very weak at this particular point in time. I'm not taking anything away from Federer, but he really doesn't have much competition

Advertising is irrelevant.

As for Federer, he wouldn't have had competition in ANY era. The only player who could ever have come close to him was Sampras, but Federer would have won that matchup too (especially on clay

)

**Chieflongtee** · 10-02-2006 07:04 AM

and will prove himself superior to Nadal on ALL surfaces.

Not on red clay.

**Hacker** · 10-02-2006 08:02 AM

In today's world I think you are being idealistic if you don't think that the business side of sports should factor in to any equation about who is the greatest. Tiger woods single handedly (IMO) put golf back on the map and is responsible for the current state of the game. To me that counts for a lot

Federer may, over time, do that but he hasn't done it yet IMO.

Tiger has won 2 career Grand Slams but Federer as yet to win the French so while he very well may be the most dominant in his sport of all time he isn't yet and his record proves that

**SGH** · 10-02-2006 10:08 AM

The question is "who's more dominant" not "who's the greatest". As such, business side has no place in the debate.

As for Federer not winnning the French - it's important to distinguish just how different clay and grass/DecoTurf really are. Imagine playing one golf tournament on grass and the next in the desert. I realize that's a bit extreme, but so is the difference in styles of play. And no, I don't think it's fair to compare the french open to the British, and the US to the US, and Wimbledon to the Masters and so on - I don't really think that's a fair comparison.

I'm not saying you're completely off point; however, when you compare the stats, Woods and Federer are relatively neck-to-neck in regards to accomplishments. I just think Federer makes it look a little easier compared to TW.

**Hacker** · 10-02-2006 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by SGH

The question is "who's more dominant" not "who's the greatest". As such, business side has no place in the debate.

As for Federer not winnning the French - it's important to distinguish just how different clay and grass/DecoTurf really are. Imagine playing one golf tournament on grass and the next in the desert. I realize that's a bit extreme, but so is the difference in styles of play. And no, I don't think it's fair to compare the french open to the British, and the US to the US, and Wimbledon to the Masters and so on - I don't really think that's a fair comparison.

I'm not saying you're completely off point; however, when you compare the stats, Woods and Federer are relatively neck-to-neck in regards to accomplishments. I just think Federer makes it look a little easier compared to TW.

You're right, we are debating very small points (business side of things aside because we obviously disagree on that point) - but until Roger wins the French he can't be considered as dominating as Tiger is because there is something still there for Roger to capture where as Tiger has already won ever "Major" title multiple times

**Shivas Irons** · 10-02-2006 01:13 PM

Nobody dominates their respective sport the way Woods dominates golf. Federer isn't even in the same realm as Woods. I'm not even convinced Federer is that much better than Nadal, he certainly isn't on clay. Some call Woods the most dominant athlete of all time. Woods hands down, no contest.

**SGH** · 10-02-2006 01:29 PM

some food for thought: http://www.startribune.com/692/story/680290.html

It's obvious that Federer's inability to beat Nadal on clay is hurting his chances here. The question remains whether there was as high quality a clay player as Nadal during Sampras' time? I don't think so personally, but it's a subjective area for sure.

**davevandyk** · 10-02-2006 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Hacker

You're right, we are debating very small points (business side of things aside because we obviously disagree on that point) - but until Roger wins the French he can't be considered as dominating as Tiger is because there is something still there for Roger to capture where as Tiger has already won ever "Major" title multiple times

Do you consider Agassi better than Sampras? Agassi won the grand slam, and Sampras never could win the French so Agassi would be superior correct? Do you consider Marino inferior to Brad Johnson because the Bucs won the Bowl and Marino didn't? I think its easier to win the Grand Slam in golf because the PGA, British and US Open are always on different courses. Like they said "Different courses for different horses" Perhaps Roland Garros is Feds "Carnoustie". I know some might say that its easier to win playing the same arenas every year, but that is only the case if the location suits you.

If Tiger played Augusta, Carnoustie, Whistling Straits and Shinnecock he might only win ten, 6-7 coming at Augusta, while if they were always at Augusta, St. Andrews, Medinah and Pebble Beach he might win 30!! The point is that Rog has to learn to win at Rolan Garros, like players must learn to win at Augusta. Its not like he gets knocked on in the first round, he has made it to the finals.

dH · 10-02-2006 02:07 PM

I'd bet on Feds or Tiger anytime... Tiger has won his last 6 now, how many has Feds won? Also whats feds overall PERCENTAGE record of wins to entry?? Tiger is a whopping 25.?% He wins just over 1/4 of all professional starts. That is ridiciulous! Also how long has Feds been pro?

Also; the courts change in Tennis, but you dn't have to factor WIND like you do in Golf. Really it's a hard comparison.

**jonf** · 10-02-2006 02:10 PM

another interesting point when considering clay is that Federer is still damn good on clay. Sampras never got anywhere in the French, whereas Federer consistently finds himself in semis and finals. It just so happens that he ran to a guy who is an absolute machine on clay. That said, I'm sure that Federer has the game to take home a couple French opens.

**Hacker** · 10-02-2006 02:13 PM

My criteria for dominance is that you can win consistently under any conditions. Federer hasn't shown that he can win on clay....Tiger has shown that he can win under any conditions.

You also losing sight of the fact that the same golf course can play vastly different from morning to afternoon based solely on the weather. Weather does play a role in a tennis match, but not nearly to the same degree that it does in golf. Roland Garros will always play pretty much the same, give or take a little, but a golf course will vary by the hour, the round and certainly by the year..........have they tried to Federer-proof any tennis courts??

**jonf** · 10-02-2006 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by dH

I'd bet on Feds or Tiger anytime... Tiger has won his last 6 now, how many has Feds won? Also whats feds overall PERCENTAGE record of wins to entry?? Tiger is a whopping 25.?% He wins just over 1/4 of all professional starts. That is ridiciulous! Also how long has Feds been pro?

Also; the courts change in Tennis, but you dn't have to factor WIND like you do in Golf. Really it's a hard comparison.

that info is up there somewhere....Federer is 8/15, Tiger is 7/17...so 53% versus 41%.

**SGH** · 10-02-2006 02:19 PM

[quote=Hacker]Tiger has shown that he can win under any conditions.[quote]

Except match play and Ryder Cup right?

dH · 10-02-2006 02:23 PM

Crazy Crazy. This is one of those debatse with really no answer.

**davevandyk** · 10-02-2006 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by dH

I'd bet on Feds or Tiger anytime... Tiger has won his last 6 now, how many has Feds won? Also whats feds overall PERCENTAGE record of wins to entry?? Tiger is a whopping 25.?% He wins just over 1/4 of all professional starts. That is ridiciulous! Also how long has Feds been pro?

Also; the courts change in Tennis, but you dn't have to factor WIND like you do in Golf. Really it's a hard comparison.

I don't know Feds actual percentage, but he is 70-5 this year and 463- 125 in his career and the points race, which is like the FedEx Cup will be he has 1324 points, while Nadal has 825 and is in 2nd. Federer has won 8 tourneys out of 16 this year making him 50% this year, while Tiger is 8 for 16 if you include the 15 on the tour plus the HSBC Matchplay.

You'd be surprised how much wind factors into tennis matches when you are playing in stadiums where the wind swirls so much. It is much more difficult than you would assume.

Like i have said, i love this discussion, but it is WAY too difficult to determine who is more dominate in their sport.

View Poll Results: Who's More Dominant

Thread: Federer or TW

Thread Tools

Display

Federer or TW

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Federer: Tiger will soon be back

Woods, Federer, Henry announce deal with Gillette

Posting Permissions