View Poll Results: Who's More Dominant
- Voters
- 44. You may not vote on this poll
-
Tiger Woods
30 68.18% -
Roger Federer
14 31.82%
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 85
Thread: Federer or TW
-
10-01-2006 06:28 PM #1
Federer or TW
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.
-
10-01-2006 06:39 PM #2
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!
-
10-01-2006 07:12 PM #3"Richard"Guest
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!
-
10-01-2006 07:16 PM #4
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.
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.
Mahatma Gandhi
-
10-01-2006 07:18 PM #5
Tiger, Tiger, Tiger. Take nothing away from Fed but hey this is a golf board so obviously I"m biased.
-
10-01-2006 07:24 PM #6
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.Donny Vantage NFL Guru, since 1974
Money won is twice as sweet as money earned
-
10-01-2006 07:30 PM #7
Where do I buy my Federer, Rackets, balls, clothes, video games etc. etc. etc. ??
-
10-01-2006 07:37 PM #8
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!!!
-
10-01-2006 07:41 PM #9Originally Posted by Hacker
-
10-01-2006 07:44 PM #10
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
[URL="http://www.TheGroutDoctor.ca"] [/URL]
-
10-01-2006 07:44 PM #11Originally Posted by SGHPinShark
[URL="http://www.TheGroutDoctor.ca"] [/URL]
-
10-01-2006 08:16 PM #12Originally Posted by SGH
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
-
10-01-2006 09:21 PM #13Originally Posted by Hacker
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.
-
10-01-2006 10:22 PM #14Originally Posted by SGH
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!!Last edited by davevandyk; 10-01-2006 at 10:32 PM.
-
10-02-2006 12:01 AM #15
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.
-
10-02-2006 12:03 AM #16Originally Posted by Hacker
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 )
-
10-02-2006 07:04 AM #17
and will prove himself superior to Nadal on ALL surfaces.
Not on red clay.Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.
Mahatma Gandhi
-
10-02-2006 08:02 AM #18
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
-
10-02-2006 10:08 AM #19
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.
-
10-02-2006 12:41 PM #20Originally Posted by SGH
-
10-02-2006 01:13 PM #21
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.
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent global warming.
-
10-02-2006 01:29 PM #22
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.
-
10-02-2006 01:31 PM #23Originally Posted by Hacker
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.
-
10-02-2006 02:07 PM #24
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.
-
10-02-2006 02:10 PM #25
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.
-
10-02-2006 02:13 PM #26
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??
-
10-02-2006 02:19 PM #27Originally Posted by dH
-
10-02-2006 02:19 PM #28
[quote=Hacker]Tiger has shown that he can win under any conditions.[quote]
Except match play and Ryder Cup right?
-
10-02-2006 02:23 PM #29
Crazy Crazy. This is one of those debatse with really no answer.
-
10-02-2006 02:43 PM #30Originally Posted by dH
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.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Federer: Tiger will soon be back
By Kilroy in forum Tour TalkReplies: 2Last Post: 01-17-2010, 01:55 AM -
Woods, Federer, Henry announce deal with Gillette
By Kilroy in forum Tour TalkReplies: 0Last Post: 02-04-2007, 07:40 PM