More Dominant: Tiger or Federer? - Page 2 - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 01:20 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

I would agree that it is much harder to dominate golf than it is to dominate tennis. Whatever, both are definitely two of the very greatest of their sports.
thrust is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 01:23 PM
Registered User
 
Mistaflava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,451
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

You can learn how to play tennis at a 1 week day camp

You can't learn how to play golf even if you took a 1 month day camp

Golf and Tennis are completely different. However, it is much more difficult to dominate in Golf than it is in tennis. End of story.
Mistaflava is offline  
post #18 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 01:24 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,396
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

F Golf! boring crap.
uNIVERSE mAN is offline  
post #19 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 02:15 PM
Registered User
 
nanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,245
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Golf: a "sport" that only a select group of people (spoiled brats and semi-senile oldtimers with more money than sense) can play.
It only takes 1 man who is fit, has the right attitude to dominate those sorry excuses of "sportsmen".

Tennis: a sport that nearly everyone can play if he chooses to.

I vote for tennis.

Last edited by nanoman; 08-21-2006 at 02:18 PM.
nanoman is offline  
post #20 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 02:16 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,378
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanoman
Golf: a "sport" that only a select group of people (semi-senile oldtimers and spoiled brats) can play.
It only takes 1 man who is fit, has the right attitude to dominate those sorry excuse of "sportsmen".

Tennis: a sport that nearly everyone can play if he chooses to.

I vote for tennis.
So true!!!
FSRteam is offline  
post #21 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 02:22 PM
Registered User
 
mickymouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,185
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

I don't watch golf but I know Tiger Woods. And only Tiger Woods. My friends who don't watch tennis know Sampras and Agassi. And only Sampras and Agassi. Guess this answers the question to a certain extent.

But I do think what's Federer achieved is a lot harder than he's been given credit for. If he's an American or more limelight hogging, the hype would have been far far greater. And come on, playing tennis is a lot tougher physically than walking on a grass patch and swinging the club for a few times a day. Damn, the tennis players even have to carry their own bags.
mickymouse is offline  
post #22 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 02:39 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 45
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

In some respect winning a golf major tournament is harder but in some others it is easier.

Harder:
1. Your game should be better than the game of all 70 players that make the cut after the first two days. That means that any abnormally good performance by any of them may beat you if you play just your average game.

Easier:
1. Tournaments last four days. That is a long time. The longer the tournament goes the more likely the better player wins. (Note that this is true only for "regular tournaments" in the terminology of NBA and other sports leagues. It is not true for single elimination tournaments like tennis ones.)

2. The probability of a psychological meltdown by an unexpected low ranked leader in golf is high over the course of four days. In tennis you are never ahead of your opponent except during the game that lasts a few hours. The probability of choking is not that high. In golf a surprise leader may see himself ahead of the others for days. He is much more likely to crumble. In these conditions mentally tough best players may find it easier to hang in there until the low-ranked leader chokes away his lead.

3. In golf you don't have to be better than people you are paired with. In fact, theoretically you may lose all your matchups and still win the major. If I am not mistaken, Tiger happened to lose his last day matchups a couple of times but still won the major because he was in the lead before the final day.
densuprun is offline  
post #23 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 02:51 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Age: 43
Posts: 2,443
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

To simply answer the question as posed (which is more DOMINANT), it has to be Federer. I could list the win / loss record for Federer over the past 3 years and do the same for Tiger, but it is more instructive to think about it like this. When Federer goes up against ANYBODY (save Nadal on clay perhaps), he is the prohibitive favorite to win. If he loses, everyone is pretty surprised. With Tiger, though he is the favorite to win most any tournament he enters, when he doesn't, nobody is that surprised. Such is the nature of golf (when is the last time Tiger has won the Accenture match play event? What is Tiger's record in the Ryder Cup? How many tournaments does he win each year on average? How many majors do you EXPECT him to win (maybe 1 or 2 at most)? How many majors do you EXPECT Federer to win (probably all of them except for the French (which we are starting to expect he will win)).

However, given the nature of both sports, Tiger is the more IMPRESSIVE. In tennis (as has been pointed out), you only need to beat the opponent you are playing "right now". Further, the scoring system in tennis allows you to play many bad shots and lose points.....lose many bad points and lose games.....lose many games and lose a set or two. You simply need to win 2 of 3 / 3 of 5 sets. In golf, one bad shot can cost you and entire tournament, so you have to be "on your game" all the time.

I play both sports (though I am only average at both). Clearly tennis is the more physically demanding. Both are mentally demanding. Still, I have played some pretty bad tennis and still beaten some pretty good players. In golf, one or two bad shots hit out of bounds or a few bad putts can ruin an entire round.
r2473 is offline  
post #24 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 04:32 PM
Banned!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Uppsala
Posts: 3,123
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Golf is an elitist sports where proffesionals are often middle aged men from rich families. Just look at top golfer like Mickelson and say he looks like an athlete to you. Golf is not nearly as international as tennis aswell.

Yes you need to beat 140 opponents but that is not harder to do, then to beat one opponent in tennis. Because in golf you have 72 holes to play in 4 days and in avarage the best player should win, a tennis match is often decided in 1 or 2 games every set as it is so easy to hold your serve in modern tennis. In golf you do your thing without caring about your opponents, in tennis the opponents challenge you and you need to adapt to all different players and surfaces.

Golf may be harder to learn but you can never become an artist in golf. Federer mis not only an athlete but also an artist, a genius with the ball. I cant call Tiger Woods and artist or an athlete or a genius. He is a perfectionist, which all golf players are. You learn to do your swings and put the ball in the hole, there is no effort and no art or diversity. Mental strength and perfection is all there is. Just like bowling it is more a game than a real sport.

Last edited by marcRD; 08-21-2006 at 04:34 PM.
marcRD is offline  
post #25 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 04:50 PM
country flag dkw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,165
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by r2473
To simply answer the question as posed (which is more DOMINANT), it has to be Federer... When Federer goes up against ANYBODY he is the prohibitive favorite to win. If he loses, everyone is pretty surprised. With Tiger, though he is the favorite to win most any tournament he enters, when he doesn't, nobody is that surprised.
You're confusing me??... becasue by your own logic Tiger is not just the more impressive but also the more dominant player.

If you're saying even though he is the favorite to win nobody is surprise when he loses it must be becasue wining a golf tournament is way more difficult than wining a tennis tournament. And if this is the case, then the fact that Tiger has 12 majors (as opposed to Rogers 8 or 9) means he's more dominant over his competitors.

But who cares... I fed-up of seeing both their mugs!
dkw is offline  
post #26 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 04:55 PM
country flag dkw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,165
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcRD
Golf may be harder to learn but you can never become an artist in golf. Federer mis not only an athlete but also an artist, a genius with the ball. I cant call Tiger Woods and artist or an athlete or a genius. He is a perfectionist, which all golf players are. You learn to do your swings and put the ball in the hole, there is no effort and no art or diversity. Mental strength and perfection is all there is. Just like bowling it is more a game than a real sport.
You should do well in the Arse Clown competition
dkw is offline  
post #27 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 04:58 PM
_._._._._._
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 32
Posts: 72,524
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanoman
Golf: a "sport" that only a select group of people (spoiled brats and semi-senile oldtimers with more money than sense) can play.
It only takes 1 man who is fit, has the right attitude to dominate those sorry excuses of "sportsmen".

Tennis: a sport that nearly everyone can play if he chooses to.

I vote for tennis.
:retard:
adee-gee is offline  
post #28 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 04:59 PM
_._._._._._
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 32
Posts: 72,524
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcRD
Golf is an elitist sports where proffesionals are often middle aged men from rich families. Just look at top golfer like Mickelson and say he looks like an athlete to you. Golf is not nearly as international as tennis aswell.

Yes you need to beat 140 opponents but that is not harder to do, then to beat one opponent in tennis. Because in golf you have 72 holes to play in 4 days and in avarage the best player should win, a tennis match is often decided in 1 or 2 games every set as it is so easy to hold your serve in modern tennis. In golf you do your thing without caring about your opponents, in tennis the opponents challenge you and you need to adapt to all different players and surfaces.

Golf may be harder to learn but you can never become an artist in golf. Federer mis not only an athlete but also an artist, a genius with the ball. I cant call Tiger Woods and artist or an athlete or a genius. He is a perfectionist, which all golf players are. You learn to do your swings and put the ball in the hole, there is no effort and no art or diversity. Mental strength and perfection is all there is. Just like bowling it is more a game than a real sport.
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?
adee-gee is offline  
post #29 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 05:00 PM
Banned!
 
prima donna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,319
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Who cares, Tiger's streak is far more impressive. I'm pretty sure that even Roger would be willing to conceed this much.

Golf is Chess.
Tennis is Checkers.
prima donna is offline  
post #30 of 462 (permalink) Old 08-21-2006, 05:01 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 498
                     
Re: More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Tiger failed to win 10 majors in a row from 2002 to the end of 2004. This is a long time to not win anything of significance. I would give Federer the edge
All_Slam_Andre is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome