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

More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Pages : 1 [2]

elessar
02-28-2008, 04:32 PM
Golf is more popular than tennis :lol:
I probably prefer tennis as a sport, but more people watch and play golf than they do tennis. There's a lot more money in golf too.
From wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf
In 2005 Golf Digest calculated that there were nearly 32,000 golf courses in the world, approximately half of them in the United States.
Golf is extremly popular in Anglo Saxons countries but not as much in the rest of the world. I couldn't find the numbers on wikipedia but I doubt more people play golf than tennis.


Incredibly easy draw, exactly. It doesn't happen in golf, because you're always going to have some players in the field who play well. Hence you have to be on the top of your game the whole time. This example was just a recent one, you can't honestly tell me Federer hasn't played at least 5-10 poor matches in his Grand Slam wins.

And you can't honestly tell me Tiger hasn't played some poor rounds in his GS wins either. Although maybe you can since Tiger's pretty bad in come from behind victories :scratch:

elessar
02-28-2008, 04:37 PM
I think the conclusion we can draw from this thread are that Fedtards are absolutely deluded when it comes to their man. :shrug:

:lol: I don't remember saying Federer was better/more dominant/dominated easier, just that it was impossible to know. What I think we can conclude however is that when Adam know he's lost an argument (or gets bored with it) he resorts to ad hominem attacks.

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 04:38 PM
oh good lord, just when I thought I had seen it all in this thread we have THAT bestowed upon us:worship:

unfortunately I have the feeling that ol' Nic Escude just said that to be funny - in which case he far and away exceeded his goal:worship: - and not in seriousness.He had overtaken him by the late 90's but then got injured .. we'll never know :confused:

also, Dave has shot 59 ........... has Eldrick ever done that?

:lol:

some GOAT

I think the conclusion we can draw from this thread are that Fedtards are absolutely deluded when it comes to their man. :shrug:Stop your clowning around ... the thread raised a valid question, so the ppl who say Roger - they are only saying that because they are Fedtards :lol:

well big surprise you dont agree considering you are the biggest Woodstard around here!

but facts are facts ..

lets take it from the last 5 years

who's been longer at no.1, who has won the most majors in that time and the most tournaments overall? how many events has Tiger failed to win in those 5 years compared to Federer?

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 04:40 PM
From wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf

Golf is extremly popular in Anglo Saxons countries but not as much in the rest of the world. I couldn't find the numbers on wikipedia but I doubt more people play golf than tennis.

And you can't honestly tell me Tiger hasn't played some poor rounds in his GS wins either. Although maybe you can since Tiger's pretty bad in come from behind victories :scratch:
I'm 100% sure more people play and watch golf than tennis. I have no idea where you get stats, but it's pretty obvious. If tennis is more popular why is there so much money in golf? Probably Asia plays a huge part, but golf is a lot more popular there and that accounts for a large part of the world.

It's absolutely inconceivable that Tiger could outscore 150 people in every round he plays. The tennis equivalent would be for someone to win a tournament without dropping a game.

Seriously, I don't think who don't play golf realise how hard it is to win a tournament.

zcess81
02-28-2008, 04:43 PM
Yes golf is more popular. Yes there's more money in it. Not sure what's harder to dominate but I do know this: Golf is not a sport. It's bunch of old, overweight, chain-smoking men riding (now even walking) in carts! It's as much of a sport as darts and bowling. You CAN NOT even compare Tiger and Roger when it comes to athleticism, stamina and endurance.

P.S.

Some of the outfits golf players wear would have even Elton John scream "dear god, man, what are you wearing?!"

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 04:43 PM
If tennis is more popular why is there so much money in golf?

:scratch: Golf top pros earn more than soccer's... Is that because more people play golf than soccer and golf's more popular?

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 04:46 PM
:lol: I don't remember saying Federer was better/more dominant/dominated easier, just that it was impossible to know. What I think we can conclude however is that when Adam know he's lost an argument (or gets bored with it) he resorts to ad hominem attacks.
I've won the argument, I'm bored because I'm debating with delusional fans who can't see past their god.

The most valid points in this thread were made by ExcaliburII - a guy who plays tennis and golf, and has no favouritism towards Woods or Federer.
but facts are facts ..

lets take it from the last 5 years

who's been longer at no.1, who has won the most majors in that time and the most tournaments overall? how many events has Tiger failed to win in those 5 years compared to Federer?
Why are you going back to this argument?

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=6641993&postcount=188

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 04:47 PM
If tennis is more popular why is there so much money in golf? More corporate sport.... all the old billlionaire over 40/50 men in the world

coz they are way past their strong powerful athlete days - for a real sport - LIKE TENNIS.

The most valid points in this thread were made by ExcaliburII - a guy who plays tennis and golf, and has no favouritism towards Woods or Federer.:lol:

the Cabreratard.

another big surprise that one

elessar
02-28-2008, 04:48 PM
I'm 100% sure more people play and watch golf than tennis. I have no idea where you get stats, but it's pretty obvious.
I just gave you the link, they're from wikipedi. Where do your "100% sure" stats come from ?

If tennis is more popular why is there so much money in golf? Probably Asia plays a huge part, but golf is a lot more popular there and that accounts for a large part of the world.
Once again what are your sources ? just because you think something or would like to believe it doesn't make it true. Besides it has nothing to do with the thread which just proves my point : nobody can say who's more dominant

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 04:48 PM
:scratch: Golf top pros earn more than soccer's... Is that because more people play golf than soccer and golf's more popular?
There's more money in football :shrug:

Only Woods earns more than top footballers. Most golfers can't compete with £120,000 a week.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 04:50 PM
You CAN NOT even compare Tiger and Roger when it comes to athleticism, stamina and endurance.

insane asylum time for you, my friend

I can't even describe - and therefore will not attempt to - how much better of an athlete Tiger is than Federer.

zcess81
02-28-2008, 04:51 PM
I think this arguments kills the discussion cause it's 100% true and makes Woods the more dominant...
Although this also means the 2 sports are just too different to be compared. In Golf you play against the entire field, in tennis just against 6 or 7 players...(I do think that Federer would beat all 127 players on wimbledon though :P)

yes but to dominate in tennis you need to have overall most number of points in any given year, so in that sense YOU ARE playing against every ATP ranked player. Also your argument is bull cause you say golf is harder to dominate because "you play against the entire field, in tennis just against 6 or 7 players."

In a same way I can put counter argument saying "tennis is harder to dominate cause as well as being competitive and mentally challenging PHYSICAL FITNESS IS CRUCIAL to success, something that fat golf players don't have to worry about."

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 04:52 PM
insane asylum time for you, my friend

I can't even describe - and therefore will not attempt to - how much better of an athlete Tiger is than Federer.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

now i know who is really not taking this serious anymore.

elessar
02-28-2008, 04:53 PM
insane asylum time for you, my friend

I can't even describe - and therefore will not attempt to - how much better of an athlete Tiger is than Federer.

Based on what ? his ability to walk from his golf cart to the tee ? His muscle flex during a fist pump ?

zcess81
02-28-2008, 04:53 PM
insane asylum time for you, my friend

I can't even describe - and therefore will not attempt to - how much better of an athlete Tiger is than Federer.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

you're kidding right???? Better athlete? HOW? What athleticism does he demonstrate on a golf course??? Oh, yeah, riding that gold cart in his jumper is so TOUGH!!! Have you ever seen him break a sweat???

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 04:53 PM
how much better of an athlete Tiger is than Federer.

:spit: :haha: :haha:

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 04:55 PM
also, Dave has shot 59 ........... has Eldrick ever done that?

you base you conclusions off one day, I base my conclusions of years and years of hard facts.

And yes we will know. Duval is awful, that's a proven fact. Tiger is the GOAT, that's a proven fact. So don't come to me with all this we'll never know if Duval would have been better than Tiger. It's a proven fact that he isn't - and the reason goes far beyond the fact that Duval got "injured."

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 04:56 PM
wait are you people actually being serious? You think Fed is a better athlete than TIGER WOODS?!??!

:confused:

zcess81
02-28-2008, 04:57 PM
insane asylum time for you, my friend

I can't even describe - and therefore will not attempt to - how much better of an athlete Tiger is than Federer.

I hope for your sake that you're kidding.

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 04:58 PM
wait are you people actually being serious? You think Fed is a better athlete than TIGER WOODS?!??!

:confused:

Daly is a better athlete than the Fed...

tennizen
02-28-2008, 04:58 PM
wait are you people actually being serious? You think Fed is a better athlete than TIGER WOODS?!??!

:confused:

Golf players are not athletes:rolleyes:

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 04:59 PM
you base you conclusions off one day, I base my conclusions of years and years of hard facts.

And yes we will know. Duval is awful, that's a proven fact. Tiger is the GOAT, that's a proven fact. So don't come to me with all this we'll never know if Duval would have been better than Tiger. It's a proven fact that he isn't - and the reason goes far beyond the fact that Duval got "injured."I think you'll find Jack 'The Golden Bear' Nicklaus is the GOAT

Palmar is the King

and Tiger is the Prince

zcess81
02-28-2008, 04:59 PM
wait are you people actually being serious? You think Fed is a better athlete than TIGER WOODS?!??!

:confused:

OK, just for fun, tell me why you think Tiger is better athlete than Federer? Based on what facts? I'm not gonna laugh...I'll be as serious as I can.

elessar
02-28-2008, 04:59 PM
Tiger is the GOAT, that's a proven fact."
No it isn't, once again you're confusing opinions and facts
wait are you people actually being serious? You think Fed is a better athlete than TIGER WOODS?!??!

:confused:
Tell me how exactly do you know he's a better athlete ? When have his physical strengh and endurance ever been tested ? In what shape would Tiger be at the end of a 5 hours match on clay vs Nadal :scratch: ?

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 05:00 PM
I think you'll find Jack 'The Golden Bear' Nicklaus is the GOAT

Palmar is the King

and Tiger is the Prince

Very true, mate ;)

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 05:00 PM
Daly is a better athlete than the Fed...:lol:

Daly and Montgomerie would own Fed and Rafa in a doubles match ..

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 05:00 PM
I just gave you the link, they're from wikipedi. Where do your "100% sure" stats come from ?

Once again what are your sources ? just because you think something or would like to believe it doesn't make it true. Besides it has nothing to do with the thread which just proves my point : nobody can say who's more dominant
The stat was the number of golf courses :confused: I struggle to see what this proves.

As I said, I don't have stats. I don't think you have conclusive stats either, so no point to this.

elessar
02-28-2008, 05:01 PM
OK, just for fun, tell me why you think Tiger is better athlete than Federer? Based on what facts? I'm not gonna laugh...I'll be as serious as I can.

:secret: Don't make promises you can't keep, this is Dominator we're talking about

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 05:01 PM
wait are you people actually being serious? You think Fed is a better athlete than TIGER WOODS?!??!

:confused:
Of course, Federer could drive the ball 500 yards :o

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 05:03 PM
I thought I wouldn't have to resort to second-grade dictionary material with you Fedtards, but it looks like that's what it has come to:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/athleticism

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ath·let·ic /æθˈlɛtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ath-let-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child.
2. of, like, or befitting an athlete.
3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training.
4. for athletics: an athletic field.
5. Psychology. (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure. Compare asthenic (def. 2), pyknic (def. 1).

Now comparing those definitions head-to-head:

1. extreme check mark to Tiger
2. irrelevant
3. strength: Tiger, agility: POSSIBLY Fed, although Tiger is not allowed to show it given the restrictions of his sport, stamina: Tiger
4. irrelevant
5. COMPLETE check mark to Tiger

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
athlete [ˈӕθliːt] noun
a person who is good at sport, especially running, jumping etc

it says "sport" in general, not "a sport." Federer is good at one sport. There is no doubt in my mind he is HORRIFYINGLY bad at every other sport. There is no doubt in my mind Tiger could have gone pro in countless other sports, including tennis.

elessar
02-28-2008, 05:06 PM
The stat was the number of golf courses :confused: I struggle to see what this proves.
It just proved that, if more than half the the courses are un the US, it can't be such a global sport

As I said, I don't have stats. I don't think you have conclusive stats either, so no point to this.
You were 100% sure but you have no facts to support this :scratch:
Let's call it a tie then :hug: I'm glad you came around to my way of thinking :hug:

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 05:08 PM
GSM Dimonator obv :worship: :worship:

:tape: :tape: :lol: :lol:

elessar
02-28-2008, 05:08 PM
I thought I wouldn't have to resort to second-grade dictionary material with you Fedtards, but it looks like that's what it has come to:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/athleticism

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ath·let·ic /æθˈlɛtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ath-let-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child.
2. of, like, or befitting an athlete.
3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training.
4. for athletics: an athletic field.
5. Psychology. (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure. Compare asthenic (def. 2), pyknic (def. 1).

Now comparing those definitions head-to-head:

1. extreme check mark to Tiger
2. irrelevant
3. strength: Tiger, agility: POSSIBLY Fed, although Tiger is not allowed to show it given the restrictions of his sport, stamina: Tiger
4. irrelevant
5. COMPLETE check mark to Tiger

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
athlete [ˈӕθliːt] noun
a person who is good at sport, especially running, jumping etc

it says "sport" in general, not "a sport." Federer is good at one sport. There is no doubt in my mind he is HORRIFYINGLY bad at every other sport. There is no doubt in my mind Tiger could have gone pro in countless other sports, including tennis.
Total :bs: but funny anyway

zcess81
02-28-2008, 05:13 PM
I thought I wouldn't have to resort to second-grade dictionary material with you Fedtards, but it looks like that's what it has come to:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/athleticism

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ath·let·ic /æθˈlɛtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ath-let-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child.
2. of, like, or befitting an athlete.
3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training.
4. for athletics: an athletic field.
5. Psychology. (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure. Compare asthenic (def. 2), pyknic (def. 1).

Now comparing those definitions head-to-head:

1. extreme check mark to Tiger
2. irrelevant
3. strength: Tiger, agility: POSSIBLY Fed, although Tiger is not allowed to show it given the restrictions of his sport, stamina: Tiger
4. irrelevant
5. COMPLETE check mark to Tiger

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
athlete [ˈӕθliːt] noun
a person who is good at sport, especially running, jumping etc

it says "sport" in general, not "a sport." Federer is good at one sport. There is no doubt in my mind he is HORRIFYINGLY bad at every other sport. There is no doubt in my mind Tiger could have gone pro in countless other sports, including tennis.

how are 1,3 and 5 relevant to Tiger? all the characteristics of an athlete described above do not apply to golf as almost non of them are applied during play. OK he whacks the ball and you need to have the strength for that, I'll give you that...but THAT'S IT! That's as physical as golf gets! In tennis virtually every muscle in your body works non stop at SCORCHING HEAT for 4-5 hours!

And also, in tennis players 28-30 are considered old. THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS SO PHYSICALLY DEMANDING. Peak age is 20-25...it's a young men's game. Can you say the same thing about golf?

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 05:15 PM
I'll agree on the fact we can't necessarily say who the better athlete is. Woods couldn't do some things Federer can do and vice versa.

However, the way Woods has revolutionalised golf with his training methods is something Federer hasn't done.

Sunset of Age
02-28-2008, 05:15 PM
it says "sport" in general, not "a sport." Federer is good at one sport. There is no doubt in my mind he is HORRIFYINGLY bad at every other sport. There is no doubt in my mind Tiger could have gone pro in countless other sports, including tennis.

Thanks for the laughs, priceless. :worship:

I might be wrong here but I well remember Feds was also a very good football player in his youth and actually had to chose between playing tennis and football. He's a pretty good skier as well, and let's not even discuss his poker abilities! :lol:

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 05:17 PM
how are 1,3 and 5 relevant to tiger? all the characteristics of an athlete described above do not apply to golf as almost non of them are applied during play. OK he whacks the ball and you need to have the strength for that, I'll give you that...but THAT'S IT! That's as physical as golf gets! IN tennis virtually every muscle in your body works non stop at SCORCHING HEAT for 4-5 hours!

it's not Tiger's fault the sport of golf doesn't make him "virtually work every muscle in his body non stop AT(:confused::confused:) scorching heat for 4-5 hours"

have you ever seen Tiger play a 4-5 hour tennis match? If not, you have no grounds for saying he wouldn't be able to.

elessar
02-28-2008, 05:17 PM
However, the way Woods has revolutionalised golf with his training methods is something Federer hasn't done.

Too bad he didn't want to share them with his buddy Phil :sad:
http://img.timeinc.net/golf/i/tours/2007/09/sept3_mickelson_299x322.jpg

zcess81
02-28-2008, 05:19 PM
And I'm not just talking about Federer being better athlete than Tiger, ANYONE in Top 100 is better athlete than any golf player! They have to be cause for them to be in top 100 they have to be in a GREAT physical shape.

zcess81
02-28-2008, 05:22 PM
it's not Tiger's fault the sport of golf doesn't make him "virtually work every muscle in his body non stop AT(:confused::confused:) scorching heat for 4-5 hours"

have you ever seen Tiger play a 4-5 hour tennis match? If not, you have no grounds for saying he wouldn't be able to.

You're right, it's not...BUT HOW CAN YOU THEN SAY THAT HE IS A BETTER ATHLETE WHEN YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT HIS PHYSICAL ENDURANCE IS NOT DEMONSTRATED DURING PLAY??? Do you know him personally? Did you see him in a gym working out? Well?

And no I haven't seen him play 5hrs tennis match...but I have seen Federer do it year after year, and I know he can...Tiger hasn't demonstrated it, has he? If you take than argument I can say I'm a better athlete than Federer, I just don't wanna demonstrate it...BUT I AM...HONEST!

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 05:22 PM
Thanks for the laughs, priceless. :worship:

I might be wrong here but I well remember Feds was also a very good football player in his youth and actually had to chose between playing tennis and football. He's a pretty good skier as well, and let's not even discuss his poker abilities! :lol:

:smash:

the only reason Tiger didn't have to choose between so many sports is because he was already dominating one when he was 3 years old. That's not complicated to figure out.

Federer was decent at soccer when he was 10? Big deal, so was every other non-American. And this for a whole different discussion, but Nadal was much better at "futbol" back in the day than Feds.

elessar
02-28-2008, 05:24 PM
:smash:

the only reason Tiger didn't have to choose between so many sports is because he was already dominating one when he was 3 years old. That's not complicated to figure out.


Now that's trully GOAT stuff

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 05:24 PM
And I'm not just talking about Federer being better athlete than Tiger, ANYONE in Top 100 is better athlete than any golf player! They have to be cause for them to be in top 100 they have to be in a GREAT physical shape.

third dumbest comment of this entire thread, behind the Duval comment and the inhuman "Tiger is bad at match play" comment

i just don't understand at ALL how u can ASSUME all golfers are bad athletes. They don't become golfers BECAUSE they are bad athletes. It doesn't work that way in case you truly haven't figured that out yet.

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 05:24 PM
Too bad he didn't want to share them with his buddy Phil :sad:
Tiger hates Phil ;)

Apparently when someone asked him why Mickelson wasn't playing a tournament, he said "he's probably at home breastfeeding" :lol:

Tiger - the greatest sportsman of our generation, gracious in victory or defeat, a pretty wife, and funny....Federer could learn a lot from him :awww:

camnation
02-28-2008, 05:25 PM
And I'm not just talking about Federer being better athlete than Tiger, ANYONE in Top 100 is better athlete than any golf player! They have to be cause for them to be in top 100 they have to be in a GREAT physical shape.
But this isn't even about how athletic they are, it's about how dominant they are in their respective tours. No one is even close to being in the same league as Tiger. You can't say the same thing about Roger. Yes, he is the best on the ATP tour but he is challenged more times than Tiger is.

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 05:26 PM
And this for a whole different discussion, but Nadal was much better at "futbol" back in the day than Feds.

:scratch: you're a soccer expert as well? :worship: I'm learning a lot today, thanks ;)

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 05:26 PM
But this isn't even about how athletic they are, it's about how dominant they are in their respective tours.

it's become both now, apparently.:wavey:

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 05:27 PM
No one is even close to being in the same league as Tiger. You can't say the same thing about Roger. Yes, he is the best on the ATP tour but he is challenged more times than Tiger is.

Plain BS. Check out the 5 past years stats... ;)

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 05:29 PM
:scratch: you're a soccer expert as well? :worship: I'm learning a lot today, thanks ;)

lol:worship:

I'm not. I only watch the big matches. Certainly not expert. Nadal's soccer exploits have been well-documented; I know that being a tennis fan, not a futbol fan. If Fed had been any good on the pitch, his exploits also would have been well-documented. As far as I know, they are not (other than that brief message by some poster on this thread a few minutes ago).

elessar
02-28-2008, 05:30 PM
Tiger hates Phil ;)

Apparently when someone asked him why Mickelson wasn't playing a tournament, he said "he's probably at home breastfeeding" :lol:

Tiger - the greatest sportsman of our generation, gracious in victory or defeat, a pretty wife, and funny....Federer could learn a lot from him :awww:
I'm no too fond of their friendship. Since they started hanging out Roger's been much more sloppy :mad:: not training as much, losing matches even *gasp* in GSs. I blame Tiger for that, probably couldn't handle not being the best sportsman in the world anymore

Sunset of Age
02-28-2008, 05:30 PM
:scratch: you're a soccer expert as well? :worship: I'm learning a lot today, thanks ;)

Not just that, apparently he also witnessed Rafa and Rogi play soccer as kids... he must be a youth talent scout or something! :worship:

zcess81
02-28-2008, 05:31 PM
third dumbest comment of this entire thread, behind the Duval comment and the inhuman "Tiger is bad at match play" comment

i just don't understand at ALL how u can ASSUME all golfers are bad athletes. They don't become golfers BECAUSE they are bad athletes. It doesn't work that way in case you truly haven't figured that out yet.

Well if they don't need athleticism to play golf then how can YOU ASSUME that they ARE good athletes??? Are you retarded or something??? I'm telling you that it's FAR MORE REASONABLE AND LOGICAL TO SAY THAT TENNIS PLAYERS ARE BETTER ATHLETES BECAUSE MAJOR PART OF THE SPORT DEMANDS IT! Golf is about mental strength, skill etc. you become good golfer by being mentally tough, talented, working on your technique etc...NOT BEING IN THE GYM 5 hrs a day!

camnation
02-28-2008, 05:32 PM
Plain BS. Check out the 5 past years stats... ;)
Can stats even be compared, since they're calculated differently and don't even pertain to the same sport? ;) Personally I don't think so. This argument is never going to be resolved so I'm just happy to agree to disagree.

zcess81
02-28-2008, 05:33 PM
But this isn't even about how athletic they are, it's about how dominant they are in their respective tours. No one is even close to being in the same league as Tiger. You can't say the same thing about Roger. Yes, he is the best on the ATP tour but he is challenged more times than Tiger is.

I was not talking about dominance, I was simply saying that Federer is better athlete than Tiger...full stop.

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 05:34 PM
:lol: Tiger has never liked Mickelson because for all his domination, he cant get the love and warmth from the galleries that Mickelson has always got, and Phil is more of a genuis with the short game :worship:

altho Mickelson is one of the biggest phonies you'll ever see, that sheepish look he always gives when he makes a birdie , that "when i was a little kid i dreamed about this.." he begins EVERY interview with


I'm no too fond of their friendship. Since they started hanging out Roger's been much more sloppy :mad:: not training as much, losing matches even *gasp* in GSs. I blame Tiger for that, probably couldn't handle not being the best sportsman in the world anymoreproud of ya !! ;)

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 05:41 PM
Well if they don't need athleticism to play golf then how can YOU ASSUME that they ARE good athletes??? Are you retarded or something??? I'm telling you that it's FAR MORE REASONABLE AND LOGICAL TO SAY THAT TENNIS PLAYERS ARE BETTER ATHLETES BECAUSE MAJOR PART OF THE SPORT DEMANDS IT! Golf is about mental strength, skill etc. you become good golfer by being mentally tough, talented, working on your technique etc...NOT BEING IN THE GYM 5 hrs a day!

what!?!?!?!? I don't assume any of that. Tiger is BY FAR the best athlete among golfers. Almost all of the rest are mediocre AT BEST.

i DO agree that tennis players IN GENERAL are better athletes than golfers. Tiger is simply the exception.

And i guarantee Tiger spends more time "in the gym" than Feds, although I have no idea why you brought that subject up. Tiger is more naturally athletic and simply even MORE athletic due to how much harder he works.

camnation
02-28-2008, 05:58 PM
I was not talking about dominance, I was simply saying that Federer is better athlete than Tiger...full stop.
Well, to be fair, you can't really assume Roger is a better athlete than Tiger (even if it could be the case). Golf is a vastly underrated sport in terms of athletic ability.

LinkMage
02-28-2008, 06:11 PM
I thought I wouldn't have to resort to second-grade dictionary material with you Fedtards, but it looks like that's what it has come to:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/athleticism

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ath·let·ic /æθˈlɛtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ath-let-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child.
2. of, like, or befitting an athlete.
3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training.
4. for athletics: an athletic field.
5. Psychology. (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure. Compare asthenic (def. 2), pyknic (def. 1).

Now comparing those definitions head-to-head:

1. extreme check mark to Tiger
2. irrelevant
3. strength: Tiger, agility: POSSIBLY Fed, although Tiger is not allowed to show it given the restrictions of his sport, stamina: Tiger
4. irrelevant
5. COMPLETE check mark to Tiger

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
athlete [ˈӕθliːt] noun
a person who is good at sport, especially running, jumping etc

it says "sport" in general, not "a sport." Federer is good at one sport. There is no doubt in my mind he is HORRIFYINGLY bad at every other sport. There is no doubt in my mind Tiger could have gone pro in countless other sports, including tennis.


:haha: :haha: :haha:
:rolls: :rolls: :rolls:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's some funny shit!
You should win the ACC this year.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 06:17 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha:
:rolls: :rolls: :rolls:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's some funny shit!
You should win the ACC this year.


already forgot what that was. Pray tell.

cmurray
02-28-2008, 06:32 PM
O.M.G. :tape:

tennizen
02-28-2008, 06:37 PM
OMG, this thread is hilarious:haha: Some random things I learnt from this thread

1) Tiger Woods was dominating golf since he was three years old. Beats every single child prodigy I have known.

2) Only Tiger Woods is a better athlete than Federer. The rest of tennis players are better athletes than golfers

3) Tiger Woods could have dominated in countless other sports.

4) The dictionary definition of an athlete

5) English Grammar from the American Master:worship:

Next time some one tells me MTF is a waste of time. I will quote my own post:haha:

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 06:41 PM
OMG, this thread is hilarious:haha: Some random things I learnt from this thread

one thing you did not learn: grammar:worship:


in all seriousness, I have no idea what's so hard to believe about Learned Thing #2

:confused:

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 06:45 PM
one thing you did not learn: grammar:worship:


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=45245&dict=CALD

UK also learnt

Clay Death
02-28-2008, 06:45 PM
Well, to be fair, you can't really assume Roger is a better athlete than Tiger (even if it could be the case). Golf is a vastly underrated sport in terms of athletic ability.


horse shyttt. you need upper body strength to drive the ball a few hundred yards but you certainly dont need the movement of a great tennis pro or any tennis pro for that matter.

they have 60 year olds playing on the senior circuit and making a ton of money. Tiger may very well be a good athlete but, on the average, golf does not require the athletic ability that a being a tennis pro requires.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 06:48 PM
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=45245&dict=CALD

UK also learnt

WOW. I must admit that while I had been near flawless on this thread up to this point, Antonius Pius just dominated me.:worship:

tennizen
02-28-2008, 06:50 PM
one thing you did not learn: grammar:worship:

Ok we could go into another discussion about the use of learnt but you are giving me so much knowledge on the Tiger Woods subject, I prefer to stick to that. But to acknowledge your greatness in other areas, I will edit my post to include grammar:worship:

in all seriousness, I have no idea what's so hard to believe about Learned Thing #2

:confused:


No its not hard to believe. You just enlightened me on the matter. Did I say it was hard to believe:confused:

tennizen
02-28-2008, 06:52 PM
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=45245&dict=CALD

UK also learnt

Thanks JM:hug: I was about quote a link too and was deciding on which one to select:hug:

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 06:57 PM
No its not hard to believe. You just enlightened me on the matter. Did I say it was hard to believe:confused:


it was a question posed not the general MTF population, not just you. Although I wouldn't mind getting a real answer out of you as well!

tennizen
02-28-2008, 07:02 PM
it was a question posed not the general MTF population, not just you. Although I wouldn't mind getting a real answer out of you as well!


I already gave my serious reply a little while ago. Just to be clear: I don't consider golf players to be athletes. And even if they could be considered that by some twisted interpretation of your dictionary definition, I think every single tennis player is still a better "athlete" than a golf player and that includes Tiger Woods:wavey:

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 07:12 PM
I already gave my serious reply a little while ago. Just to be clear: I don't consider golf players to be athletes. And even if they could be considered that by some twisted interpretation of your dictionary definition, I think every single tennis player is still a better "athlete" than a golf player and that includes Tiger Woods:wavey:

ok that's what i wanted. Then we simply agree to disagree (STRONGLY disagree I might add).

But one more thing - do you REALLY think that, say, CHRIS GUCCIONE is a better athlete than Tiger Woods? Do you REALLY? Is Ivo Karlovic a better ATHLETE than Eldrick Woods?

AlexNYR
02-28-2008, 07:12 PM
cmon lets be real. golf is such a lazy man's game that they pay some sap to carry around the golf bag..the tennis player carrying his bag to and from the locker room and jumping up and down during the coin toss is more strenuous than 99% of golf, where the top 6 most physically demanding things are:
1)hitting a ball with a club
2)walking
3)bending over to get the ball from the hole and to read the greens
4)lifting up your pants so they don't get wet or filled with sand while in a water hazard or bunker
5)adjusting your cap/visor and belt
6)signing the scorecard

seriously, 60 year olds and out of shape (and in some cases completely out of shape)people can play this game professionally.

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 07:13 PM
I want Mirkaland here to vote, she likes both

and whoever she says, i will agree with

:singer: are you around Mellow Yellow?

Clay Death
02-28-2008, 07:22 PM
I want Mirkaland here to vote, she likes both

and whoever she says, i will agree with

:singer: are you around Mellow Yellow?


does anybody even know what GOLF stands for?

goofballs only ladies forbidden.

seriously, it stands for gentlemen only ladies forbidden. when the game was first invented in Scotland, ladies were not allowed to play.

they still have a ton of clubs there where the ladies are not allowed to join.

in any case, its not a sport.

tennizen
02-28-2008, 07:23 PM
ok that's what i wanted. Then we simply agree to disagree (STRONGLY disagree I might add).

But one more thing - do you REALLY think that, say, CHRIS GUCCIONE is a better athlete than Tiger Woods? Do you REALLY? Is Ivo Karlovic a better ATHLETE than Eldrick Woods?

Was any part of my post unclear?

Thanks for giving me some names of tennis players and some names of golf players and really bullying me with "really" but I still have the same answer to give:wavey:

Clay Death
02-28-2008, 07:26 PM
Was any part of my post unclear?

Thanks for giving me some names of tennis players and some names of golf players and really bullying me with "really" but I still have the same answer to give:wavey:


tennizen it looks like we have something in common. keep up the good work.

luvly1
02-28-2008, 07:32 PM
But one more thing - do you REALLY think that, say, CHRIS GUCCIONE is a better athlete than Tiger Woods? Do you REALLY? Is Ivo Karlovic a better ATHLETE than Eldrick Woods?[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't confuse having a fit physique with being athletic.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 07:33 PM
Was any part of my post unclear?

Thanks for giving me some names of tennis players and some names of golf players and really bullying me with "really" but I still have the same answer to give:wavey:

ok, that's all I wanted to know.

In other words yes, Karlovic, Gucc, and everyone else is a better athlete than Tiger Woods.:eek::worship:

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 07:34 PM
But one more thing - do you REALLY think that, say, CHRIS GUCCIONE is a better athlete than Tiger Woods? Do you REALLY? Is Ivo Karlovic a better ATHLETE than Eldrick Woods?

I wouldn't confuse having a fit physique with being athletic.[/QUOTE]

so you are arguing that not only is Tiger Woods a worse athlete than Karlovic and Gucc, but he is a flat out BAD athlete?

luvly1
02-28-2008, 07:39 PM
I wouldn't confuse having a fit physique with being athletic.

so you are arguing that not only is Tiger Woods a worse athlete than Karlovic and Gucc, but he is a flat out BAD athlete?[/QUOTE]

No, Tiger might well be very athletic however he does not display this on the golf course because it is not a part of the game. I feel that because he does not display athleticism when he plays his sport you can not jump to the conclusion that is his athletic based on his physique.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 07:45 PM
No, Tiger might well be very athletic however he does not display this on the golf course because it is not a part of the game. I feel that because he does not display athleticism when he plays his sport you can not jump to the conclusion that is his athletic based on his physique.

Hell just froze over. A coherent argument in this thread:scared::woohoo:

l_mac
02-28-2008, 07:59 PM
Hell just froze over. A coherent argument in this thread:scared::woohoo:

For Hell to freeze over, a coherent argument from you would be required. I don't think Old Nick needs to be buying ice skates anytime soon.

Federer is more dominant than Woods. :)

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 08:02 PM
Federer is more dominant than Woods. :)
:kiss::kiss::kiss::kiss::kiss:

thats

Scots [tennis] 2 - 1 [golf] Scots
Escude .....................Adeegee
l_mac

and we know best since Scotland is the home of golf.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 08:07 PM
I don't think Old Nick needs to be buying ice skates anytime soon.

Actually we all might in less than 30 minutes. That's right, Donald Young is about to make an ATP quarterfinal.

Oh wait, he will choke. No skates necessary.:fiery:

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 09:18 PM
thats

Scots [tennis] 2 - 1 [golf] Scots
Escude .....................Adeegee
l_mac

and we know best since Scotland is the home of golf.
Actually it's 3-0 if we're debating who's more dominant.

Linda didn't say Federer's achievements are more impressive, which is what my argument is ;)

denisgiann
02-28-2008, 10:29 PM
For you people who still think that golf is a sport... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Are you really serious about golf players being athletes? its just a game like bowling darts snooker and the likes.Of course golf requires skills in order to succeed but certainly not athletic skills... so its not a sport.So with your type of thinking a dart player with for example 20 world championships can actually be compared with an athlete like a tennis player who has to be in great shape all the time...sustain injuries...etc.. thats insane.
golf is just a game for those overweight yappie like lard asses who are only fit to change channels with their remote controls.if you still think that is a sport what can i say... go have a nice workout in a golf course(:p:p:p) so you can be fit enough next time you need to use the remote.

l_mac
02-28-2008, 10:33 PM
Actually it's 3-0 if we're debating who's more dominant.

Linda didn't say Federer's achievements are more impressive, which is what my argument is ;)

Correct, I did not.

If you are talking about achievements I would argue Woods is more impressive. And if you factor in the relative importance of each in their respective sports and the larger sporting world, then Tiger demolishes Federer. :)

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 10:45 PM
For you people who still think that golf is a sport... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Are you really serious about golf players being athletes? its just a game like bowling darts snooker and the likes.Of course golf requires skills in order to succeed but certainly not athletic skills... so its not a sport.So with your type of thinking a dart player with for example 20 world championships can actually be compared with an athlete like a tennis player who has to be in great shape all the time...sustain injuries...etc.. thats insane.
golf is just a game for those overweight yappie like lard asses who are only fit to change channels with their remote controls.if you still think that is a sport what can i say... go have a nice workout in a golf course(:p:p:p) so you can be fit enough next time you need to use the remote.
Hey Tiger, can we see some videos of you playing golf? :worship:
Correct, I did not.

If you are talking about achievements I would argue Woods is more impressive. And if you factor in the relative importance of each in their respective sports and the larger sporting world, then Tiger demolishes Federer. :)
Suck on that Mikey :sport:

Apemant
02-28-2008, 10:48 PM
Kasparov was the best athlete.. I know for a fact he used to workout a lot to be ready for extremely (physically) demanding matches.

There is no sport with more athletic guys than chess...


:silly:

Oh and BTW Kasparov dominated chess for 15 years. Beat that :ras:

Brains beat muscles any day of the week. Chess >>> golf and tennis combined. It's not chess' fault that people today are so shallow that they worship general noones like Tiger & Roger and not paying enough adulation to giants like Kasparov, Fischer, Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Karpov, Tal, Spassky, Petrosian, Rubinstein, Korchnoi, Tarrasch and other legends of chess.


:devil:

Farenhajt
02-28-2008, 10:51 PM
The answer is easy: does Tiger have his Novak to demolish him in forseeable number of months? No? There you go.

Marek.
02-29-2008, 12:27 AM
The answer is easy: does Tiger have his Novak to demolish him in forseeable number of months? No? There you go.

:lol:

Sunset of Age
02-29-2008, 01:45 AM
Kasparov was the best athlete.. I know for a fact he used to workout a lot to be ready for extremely (physically) demanding matches.

There is no sport with more athletic guys than chess...

Oh and BTW Kasparov dominated chess for 15 years. Beat that :ras:

Brains beat muscles any day of the week. Chess >>> golf and tennis combined.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

Just arrived home from a Bridge tournament. 58% - SECOND, shit!
Heh. :silly:

calvinhobbes
02-29-2008, 01:50 AM
I put this question in these terms: Golf is man against field. Tennis is man against man. There is a bigger complexity in the latter, as you must read and overcome the physical, psychical and agonistic attitude of your opponent in a short time interval. You must struggle against a highly transient enemy that can use your same weapons to defeat you. In golf, the enemy is a static and most foreseeable scenario, and you can study it again and again.
It is mostly a task of patience and concentration, some kind of combinatory intuition, as chess is. If you fulfill your task in an acceptable way, the rest of the herd will come behind you. You don't need even look at them. No handshaking across the net.....:eek::eek:

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 02:02 AM
I put this question in these terms: Golf is man against field. Tennis is man against man. There is a bigger complexity in the latter, as you must read and overcome the physical, psychical and agonistic attitude of your opponent in a short time interval. You must struggle against a highly transient enemy that can use your same weapons to defeat you. In golf, the enemy is a static and most foreseeable scenario, and you can study it again and again.
It is mostly a task of patience and concentration, some kind of combinatory intuition, as chess is. If you fulfill your task in an acceptable way, the rest of the herd will come behind you. You don't need even look at them. No handshaking across the net.....:eek::eek:

In tennis you can control what your opponent does. Tiger has no control over someone else shooting a 59. Yet he still dominates all.

Corey Feldman
02-29-2008, 02:10 AM
Linda didn't say Federer's achievements are more impressive, which is what my argument is
Suck on that Mikey :sport::lol:

Coz he's been around longer!! and that wasnt the thread title either

so Linda's still on my team :nerner:

Corey Feldman
02-29-2008, 02:11 AM
The answer is easy: does Tiger have his Novak to demolish him in forseeable number of months? No? There you go.never in doubt

theprodigy
02-29-2008, 02:10 PM
Golf is like taking a difficult test while Tennis is like debating formally (British Parliamentary and stuff).

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 03:42 PM
the comparison between golf and tennis is a much different one than the comparison between Tiger and Federer

I agree tennis is a much more physically demanding sport (who wouldn't?) even though golf is a far more difficult sport (in terms of being able to be decent at it).

But just because you PLAY golf doesn't mean you WOULDN'T be able to play a sport that IS physically demanding. Why would Tiger NOT play a sport he will be the best ever at and play a different sport that he could only be very good at?

Apemant
02-29-2008, 03:49 PM
In tennis you can control what your opponent does. Tiger has no control over someone else shooting a 59.

That's like saying that Morgenstern has no control over someone jumping 250 meters for a change - and yet he dominates all.

Or, how about Blanka Vlasic having no control over some nameless girl jumping 210 or above?

Etc etc. That argument is nonsensical. He can't indeed control what his opponents do, but guess what, the same holds true in the opposite direction as well: his opponents can't prevent him of giving his best. Not true in tennis, where you can come across someone who is particularly bad matchup for you.


Having said that, I feel golf is harder to master like that because it requires incredible precision in your strokes. But it has nothing to do with the field of 120 as you seem to think (you make it sound as if it was some kind of pivotal argument when it actually doesn't make any sense at all). Did Ingemar Stenmark have to worry about every one of 60 skiers who were competing in the same event? No, perhaps one or two who could actually challenge him, but that's about it. The others just weren't that good, and golf is no different. Shooting a 59 isn't something any kid from the neigborhood can do just like that, as you seem to imply above.

Black Adam
02-29-2008, 03:50 PM
Tiger crushes his opponents.
Federer's opponents just bend over for him. When they don't they beat him.

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 03:55 PM
That's like saying that Morgenstern has no control over someone jumping 250 meters for a change - and yet he dominates all.

Or, how about Blanka Vlasic having no control over some nameless girl jumping 210 or above?

Etc etc. That argument is nonsensical. He can't indeed control what his opponents do, but guess what, the same holds true in the opposite direction as well: his opponents can't prevent him of giving his best. Not true in tennis, where you can come across someone who is particularly bad matchup for you.


Having said that, I feel golf is harder to master like that because it requires incredible precision in your strokes. But it has nothing to do with the field of 120 as you seem to think (you make it sound as if it was some kind of pivotal argument when it actually doesn't make any sense at all). Did Ingemar Stenmark have to worry about every one of 60 skiers who were competing in the same event? No, perhaps one or two who could actually challenge him, but that's about it. The others just weren't that good, and golf is no different. Shooting a 59 isn't something any kid from the neigborhood can do just like that, as you seem to imply above.

59 was an example - illustrating the fact that Tiger has no control over what his opponents do (except the ones in his playing group, as we all know how that always turns out).

That was a fair argument until the end. I don't understand how you discount the fact that Tiger has to beat all "120" players he faces, all of whom are capable of winning tournaments. At most Federer has to beat 7 players to win a tournament, and the first 2 players are always worthless.

Apemant
02-29-2008, 03:59 PM
Tiger crushes his opponents.
Federer's opponents just bend over for him. When they don't they beat him.

There's no way anyone will take your words seriously, because diehard Roddick fans just aren't able to talk sensibly about Federer. It probably has something to do with the numbers 15 and 1.

Apemant
02-29-2008, 04:10 PM
I don't understand how you discount the fact that Tiger has to beat all "120" players he faces, all of whom are capable of winning tournaments. At most Federer has to beat 7 players to win a tournament, and the first 2 players are always worthless.

All 120 players are capable of winning tournaments? And it means what, that he must 'worry' about them?

Let me repeat my own question which you elegantly jumped over: did Ingemar Stenmark have to worry about every one of 60+ skiers who participated in the same event as him? Were all 60 'capable' of winning the event?

I'm not sure if you understand my point here - if you consider this number (120) to be a strong argument just because of its magnitude, as compared to 'only 7' - then the very same argument, if somewhat weaker, is also valid in alpine skiing. Stenmark had to 'beat' all 60 skiers, lucky Federer just 7 of them. How unfair, eh?

Just try to realize that you are comparing apples and oranges here. Neither Stenmark nor Tiger have to 'beat' anyone, the way Federer has to - face to face, with each other's game influencing the other. It's a direct contest - while golf, skiing, athletics just don't have that kind of contest.

El Magnifico
02-29-2008, 04:14 PM
Awful comparison. Golf is a sport where you have endless number of players who can win the slams, whereas tennis has a select few that you could count on one hand. I'm not saying everyone in a tournament can win a gold tournament, but there are so many more contenders because of the sport requirements. Golf also requires much more mental strength. But, golf is a lot less demanding physically.

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 04:14 PM
All 120 players are capable of winning tournaments? And it means what, that he must 'worry' about them?

Um no. It means he has to play well to beat them. Tiger worries about nothing. And certainly about nobody.

did Ingemar Stenmark have to worry about every one of 60+ skiers who participated in the same event as him?

:worship:

Apemant
02-29-2008, 04:33 PM
Um no. It means he has to play well to beat them.

Right. So when he does indeed play well, since he is so much better than the others, he will often win. Just like Stenmark in his days. So what is the importance of '120 other' people? They often mean very little. Of them 120 only a few are actually threatening, and more often than not, the same holds true for tennis, as those dangerous tend to go deep into the draw so you have to eliminate them yourself, sooner or later.

Like I said, I also believe golf is metally tougher because every single shot requires utmost precision and concentration, whereas in tennis there is a great number of average, plain shots with little or no importance at all. So I guess mental focus is much more important in golf than in tennis. But that is due to the nature of the game itself, not due to 120 other people. So the argument '120 vs. 7' is simply a false trail, it's an invalid comparison. Non-substantial argument which attracts you because it is simple and 'sounds' devastating - but it's just not the case. To win a golf tournament wouldn't be much (if any) easier if they played it just like tennis: 7 rounds of 1-on-1 elimination matches. You would still have to worry about the most dangerous few of the lot.

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 04:38 PM
To win a golf tournament wouldn't be much (if any) easier if they played it just like tennis: 7 rounds of 1-on-1 elimination matches.


um, it's much HARDER to win a golf tournament that way.:retard:

clearly you didn't watch last week:rolleyes:

Apemant
02-29-2008, 04:41 PM
Awful comparison. Golf is a sport where you have endless number of players who can win the slams,

If there is an endless number of actual contenders for a golf slam, I'm sure it would be no problem for you to name a small quantity of them, say 30. Piece of cake.

Anyway, all that is perfectly true for snooker as well, for example. Often you can't tell whether someone will win World Championship or bail out in the 1st round. There are hardly overwhelming favourites, and even if the favourite loses, it's never a big surprise. Anyone in the top 32 can beat anyone else in the top 32 on a given day. So I guess Stephen Hendry in the '90s was as least as incredibly dominant as Tiger Woods?

Apemant
02-29-2008, 04:44 PM
um, it's much HARDER to win a golf tournament that way.:retard:

clearly you didn't watch last week:rolleyes:

No, I didn't. But, let me see if I understood you correctly:

it would actually be HARDER to win a golf tournament, if you only had to beat 7 of them, and not 'all 120'?

Well, that pretty much directly contradicts your awesome '120 vs 7' argument from earlier in this thread. Way to make yourself look :silly:

adee-gee
02-29-2008, 04:47 PM
Right. So when he does indeed play well, since he is so much better than the others, he will often win. Just like Stenmark in his days. So what is the importance of '120 other' people? They often mean very little. Of them 120 only a few are actually threatening, and more often than not, the same holds true for tennis, as those dangerous tend to go deep into the draw so you have to eliminate them yourself, sooner or later.
This is absolute nonsense and shows you've probably not watched much golf.

There are so many surprise winners of golf tournaments. Someone who starts the tournament as a 100/1 outsider winning a tournament isn't completely unusual.

I've still yet to get an answer to my question.....when was the last time we had a big surprise as a winner of a slam? Tojo? Goran?

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 04:49 PM
No, I didn't. But, let me see if I understood you correctly:

it would actually be HARDER to win a golf tournament, if you only had to beat 7 of them, and not 'all 120'?

Well, that pretty much directly contradicts your awesome '120 vs 7' argument from earlier in this thread. Way to make yourself look :silly:

expected response. You are trying to make a ridiculous comparison between tennis and golf. The two sports could not be more different. The standards are not the same.

It's much harder to win a beat-7 match play event than a beat-120 stroke play event. BOTH are MUCH harder than winning a beat-7 tennis tournament.

Apemant
02-29-2008, 04:54 PM
This is absolute nonsense and shows you've probably not watched much golf.

Come on. Several times I explicitly stated that I understand that it's much harder to master golf in such a way to be as clearly superior to everyone else, as people in some other sports do, like skiing for example. That covers for the surprises you talk about, and which I am very much aware of, thank you, even though it's really true that golf in general doesn't interest me much.

But it quite obvious that, for example, if Blanka Vlasic is just physically capable of jumping over 205 cms, while 95% of the other jumpers can't even clear 200, that it's not that big of a surprise that she wins every event she participates in. Of course that Tiger can't really guarantee he's going to hit eagle after eagle, no matter how good he is. So in that sense it is really more impressive, I never argued that.


There are so many surprise winners of golf tournaments. Someone who starts the tournament as a 100/1 outsider winning a tournament isn't completely unusual.

I've still yet to get an answer to my question.....when was the last time we had a big surprise as a winner of a slam? Tojo? Goran?

Irrelevant. In snooker, for example, there are almost no 'surprises' at all, because whoever wins it it won't be THAT much of a surprise - practically everyone in the top 32 is a contender. Thats how hard it is to win a ranking event in snooker.

Apemant
02-29-2008, 05:06 PM
expected response. You are trying to make a ridiculous comparison between tennis and golf. The two sports could not be more different. The standards are not the same.

Ah, so you finally realized that? :devil: Took you some time...


It's much harder to win a beat-7 match play event than a beat-120 stroke play event. BOTH are MUCH harder than winning a beat-7 tennis tournament.

Never did I claim otherwise, now did I? I was just trying to show you that 'beating 120 people' means nothing per se - it's the nature of the game itself, where every stroke is much more important than your average tennis shot - that makes it much easier to 'slip' in golf than in tennis. That's why suprises are way more often in golf, not because of 120 people. There are 128 people in a tennis GS as well, after all.

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 05:09 PM
Ah, so you finally realized that? :devil: Took you some time...

far from it. I simply thought this was common knowledge and therefore felt I didn't have to explain, but SHOCKINGLY it has become apparent that some people here don't understand how different golf and tennis are.:eek:

Kitty de Sade
02-29-2008, 05:10 PM
If I wanted to catch up on what is going on here, is it necessary to go back the whole way and read?

Which side is ahead at this point? :)

Apemant
02-29-2008, 05:20 PM
far from it. I simply thought this was common knowledge and therefore felt I didn't have to explain, but SHOCKINGLY it has become apparent that some people here don't understand how different golf and tennis are.:eek:

How similar are tennis and giant slalom, then? :devil:

I mean, of course they are completely different. Most sports are quite different from one another. What is the point of this thread then, which you seem to happily participate in? As far as I'm concerned, it's simple and I agree with adeegee: Federer was more dominant 2004-2007 than Tiger, but I agree that dominating golf that way is harder than tennis - or high jump, skiing, jumping and many other physically demanding sports as well - so I guess Tiger's achievement is indeed more impressive.

adee-gee
02-29-2008, 05:28 PM
But it quite obvious that, for example, if Blanka Vlasic is just physically capable of jumping over 205 cms, while 95% of the other jumpers can't even clear 200, that it's not that big of a surprise that she wins every event she participates in. Of course that Tiger can't really guarantee he's going to hit eagle after eagle, no matter how good he is. So in that sense it is really more impressive, I never argued that.
I see what you're getting at, but it's not really similar. In high jumping, there aren't many outside factors. If you're the best at it, you're simply the best and can jump higher than others. If people can't reach that level then you're going to win the majority of the time. Golf there are many factors to consider....different courses, wind, types of shot etc.

Pretty much any professional golfer can shoot a 62/63 on their best day. This wouldn't really happen in high jumps, people have their personal bests and will extremely rarely go a lot higher than that.
Irrelevant. In snooker, for example, there are almost no 'surprises' at all, because whoever wins it it won't be THAT much of a surprise - practically everyone in the top 32 is a contender. Thats how hard it is to win a ranking event in snooker.
You still get more shocks in snooker than you do in tennis :shrug: It could be argued that mainly this occurs in matches which have a lower number of frames, but it still happens more than tennis.

Corey Feldman
02-29-2008, 06:18 PM
If I wanted to catch up on what is going on here, is it necessary to go back the whole way and read?

Which side is ahead at this point? :)Tennis, my team ;)

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 06:35 PM
If I wanted to catch up on what is going on here, is it necessary to go back the whole way and read?

Which side is ahead at this point? :)

Tiger vs. Fed (original question): Tiger winning

questions that arose during discussion (all answers that are winning are the ones you would expect):

Tennis vs. Golf (Harder to Dominate): Golf

Tennis vs. Golf (More Physically Demanding): Tennis

Tiger vs. Federer (Better Athlete): Federer (EXTREMELY wrong IMO)


that said, it's still most likely necessary to read the whole thread if not for anything other than the sheer entertainment value of it

Kitty de Sade
02-29-2008, 06:41 PM
Tennis, my team ;)

:lol: Thank you for the 411, Mikey.

Tiger vs. Fed (original question): Tiger winning

questions that arose during discussion (all answers that are winning are the ones you would expect):

Tennis vs. Golf (Harder to Dominate): Golf

Tennis vs. Golf (More Physically Demanding): Tennis

Tiger vs. Federer (Better Athlete): Federer (EXTREMELY wrong IMO)


that said, it's still most likely necessary to read the whole thread if not for anything other than the sheer entertainment value of it

Thank you for the synopsis. :hatoff:

GRRRRRRRR. I hate reading. Okay, checking the whole thread then, just for clarification purposes. :smooch:

camnation
02-29-2008, 06:46 PM
Tiger vs. Fed (original question): Tiger winning

questions that arose during discussion (all answers that are winning are the ones you would expect):

Tennis vs. Golf (Harder to Dominate): Golf

Tennis vs. Golf (More Physically Demanding): Tennis

Tiger vs. Federer (Better Athlete): Federer (EXTREMELY wrong IMO)


So... the argument is settled now right? Please? :p

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 06:53 PM
So... the argument is settled now right? Please? :p

Nope! He asked who was winning, not who won!;)

stebs
02-29-2008, 07:02 PM
Tiger vs. Fed (original question): Tiger winning

That's certainly not true if by original question you mean who is more dominant. Federer is more dominant has been agreed by almost everyone in this thread and yes that includes many people who still call what Tiger has done more impressive.

Tiger vs. Federer (Better Athlete): Federer (EXTREMELY wrong IMO)

What is your case for Federer not being a better athlete?

camnation
02-29-2008, 07:04 PM
Nope! He asked who was winning, not who won!;)
Lol, I was foolish in thinking that this argument could ever end.

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 07:10 PM
What is your case for Federer not being a better athlete?

see the rest of the thread

adee-gee
02-29-2008, 07:11 PM
That's certainly not true if by original question you mean who is more dominant. Federer is more dominant has been agreed by almost everyone in this thread and yes that includes many people who still call what Tiger has done more impressive.
What's your take on the question stebs? :)

I want a full breakdown please :hatoff:

stebs
02-29-2008, 07:21 PM
see the rest of the thread

It wouldn't take long to outline your reasoning in a post and it will probably be more cohesive that way. Is it too much effort?

For my part -

Woods is a lot of things but athletic golf is not and somebody who has to perform athletic feats and is the best in the world at performing them is surely a better athlete than someone who does not. I am not saying Woods is unfit but I doubt he is unusually fit whereas obviously almost all tennis players (even Nalbandian :p) are going to be extraordinarily fit.

stebs
02-29-2008, 07:23 PM
What's your take on the question stebs? :)

I want a full breakdown please :hatoff:

I know very little about golf and for that reason I would likely make a fool out of myself if I tried to discuss it. As far as numbers go it is certainly true that Federer is more dominant (as you agree?) but the questions seems to have shifted to whose acheivements are more impressive based whose are harder to acheive and that would take knowledge of golf which I do not have.

See my above post for why I am fairly confident Federer is a better athlete than Woods.

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 07:23 PM
It wouldn't take long to outline your reasoning in a post and it will probably be more cohesive that way. Is it too much effort?

no that's what I wanted to do. You left me in a no-win situation. Either I upset the rest of this forum by ranting what I've already ranted about too many times, or I upset you by declining to to rant about what I've already ranted about too many times.

I choose upsetting you rather than the entire rest of the forum.:eek:

That specific argument is probably like 4 or 5 pages back if you want to see it.

stebs
02-29-2008, 07:27 PM
no that's what I wanted to do. You left me in a no-win situation. Either I upset the rest of this forum by ranting what I've already ranted about too many times, or I upset you by declining to to rant about what I've already ranted about too many times.

I choose upsetting you rather than the entire rest of the forum.:eek:

That specific argument is probably like 4 or 5 pages back if you want to see it.

Okay. Send me a PM and I will reply to it. It will take far less time for you to put your thoughts into words than it will for me to piece together your argument from debates you have had previously.

adee-gee
02-29-2008, 07:36 PM
I know very little about golf and for that reason I would likely make a fool out of myself if I tried to discuss it. As far as numbers go it is certainly true that Federer is more dominant (as you agree?) but the questions seems to have shifted to whose acheivements are more impressive based whose are harder to acheive and that would take knowledge of golf which I do not have.

See my above post for why I am fairly confident Federer is a better athlete than Woods.
Fair enough, honest answer :hatoff:

I had you down as a probable golf fan, don't ask me why :lol:

stebs
02-29-2008, 08:03 PM
Over half an hour since I last posted to you Dimonator. No PM, No response, no argument. Either you are compiling one hell of an argument ready to overwhelm me or you have decided against bringing one forth at all.

stebs
02-29-2008, 08:06 PM
Fair enough, honest answer :hatoff:

I had you down as a probable golf fan, don't ask me why :lol:

I'm sure we could find somewhere to disagree if I did have an opinion but I don't like feeling stupid and I probably would if I entered a debate without knowing both sides of the story.

Apemant
02-29-2008, 08:55 PM
I see what you're getting at, but it's not really similar. In high jumping, there aren't many outside factors.

Hey! :eek: Knock knock, read my post again, we are in agreement, in fact I said the same thing as you, only in different words. Namely, Blanka simply can jump higher than anyone else and there is almost no other factors involved, except she being sick or somesuch. So you can take her winning almost for granted and it won't be so far off.

So I agreed with the claim that you simply can't dominate golf in such a way because it's impossible to guarantee that your every shot will be of such high quality, that it is cleary superior to anyone else in the field, all the time (or at least most of the time).



You still get more shocks in snooker than you do in tennis :shrug: It could be argued that mainly this occurs in matches which have a lower number of frames, but it still happens more than tennis.

I have a sliiight feeling that you were half asleep reading my post because you interpreted it the wrong way again. :devil:

Pushkin
02-29-2008, 10:08 PM
What is this question??? One guy never runs and plays a game comparable to Chess Darts etc. Please give me a break and stop comparing apple to oranges. Roger has won the Sportman of the Year for the past 4 years so stop making stupid threads like this. Compare the other guy to the current Chess champion or Poker champ. Tennis is a sport to be compared with football basketball for exemple...

Dimonator133
02-29-2008, 11:29 PM
What is this question??? One guy never runs and plays a game comparable to Chess Darts etc. Please give me a break and stop comparing apple to oranges. Roger has won the Sportman of the Year for the past 4 years so stop making stupid threads like this. Compare the other guy to the current Chess champion or Poker champ. Tennis is a sport to be compared with football basketball for exemple...

expected comment from someone who hasn't been following the thread:wavey:

the question is not about golf and tennis

the question is about Federer and Woods. Tiger is a better athlete and more dominant at his sport. If you care to disagree, feel free. But don't come on here and try to stir something up about a comparison between tennis and golf because 1) that's not the question:retard: and 2) everyone already knows tennis is more physically demanding even though it's much easier to be good at.

World Beater
03-01-2008, 12:21 AM
Federer was two matches away from the double grandslam. federer is closer to perfection in tennis than tiger woods is in golf. As far as their legacies are concerned, i am pretty sure we will see another player achieve better results than tiger woods in golf. I think it will be a lot longer for someone to do the same to federer. But we still dont know.

therefore, it is hard to say at this point who is more impressive. If someone else comes along and does better than tiger or federer, we will have a better answer. To me the person who is able to compile a legacy that stands out in history in his respective sport is a sign of how impressive he was. the odds are in federer's favor (the records are with federer) but time is on tiger's side(he has another ten years to play his best golf).

stebs
03-01-2008, 03:07 PM
Tiger is a better athlete

You continue to say this but I'm still waiting for anything even approaching a reason as to why you think that.

l_mac
03-01-2008, 03:12 PM
Federer was two matches away from the double grandslam. federer is closer to perfection in tennis than tiger woods is in golf. As far as their legacies are concerned, i am pretty sure we will see another player achieve better results than tiger woods in golf. I think it will be a lot longer for someone to do the same to federer. But we still dont know.

therefore, it is hard to say at this point who is more impressive. If someone else comes along and does better than tiger or federer, we will have a better answer. To me the person who is able to compile a legacy that stands out in history in his respective sport is a sign of how impressive he was. the odds are in federer's favor (the records are with federer) but time is on tiger's side(he has another ten years to play his best golf).

You think Federer's legacy is going to eclipse Tiger's? :spit:

adee-gee
03-01-2008, 03:19 PM
Federer was two matches away from the double grandslam. federer is closer to perfection in tennis than tiger woods is in golf. As far as their legacies are concerned, i am pretty sure we will see another player achieve better results than tiger woods in golf. I think it will be a lot longer for someone to do the same to federer. But we still dont know.
One of the most ludicrous posts in this thread, and that's saying something.

Tiger's legacy will live on so much longer than Federer it's untrue. I'd be willing to put my life on the line. If you go to a major, the crowds which follow Woods are unreal, no-one cares much about the rest. The Nike stalls are jam packed and the rest are quiet. The guy has completely changed the sport. Federer might go on to be the greatest tennis player ever, but he hasn't changed the sport like Woods has.

It's very unlikely anyone will ever get close to the records Woods will set, certainly not in my lifetime. On the other hand, I'd imagine tennis will be dominated again by someone very soon after Federer retires.

anon57
03-01-2008, 03:25 PM
I can't say much about whether Federer or Woods has been more dominant or about which of their respective accomplishments are more impressive since I don't follow enough golf to be able to judge Woods' dominance or accomplishments. But I do agree that Woods has had a much bigger impact on golf compared to Federer's impact on tennis. And therefore Woods' legacy will probably last longer.

Dimonator133
03-01-2008, 03:53 PM
I can't say much about whether Federer or Woods has been more dominant or about which of their respective accomplishments are more impressive since I don't follow enough golf to be able to judge Woods' dominance or accomplishments. But I do agree that Woods has had a much bigger impact on golf compared to Federer's impact on tennis. And therefore Woods' legacy will probably last longer.

coherence is extremely underrated in this thread.:worship:

World Beater
03-02-2008, 02:32 AM
You think Federer's legacy is going to eclipse Tiger's? :spit:

you misunderstand the way i am using "legacy".

if "legacy" to you is about $$$ and all this other stuff, then obviously tiger takes the cake.

but if you squarely compare by results and who is more dominant, then at THIS POINT, i would say roger has the edge.

im talking only about results here. None of this other extraneous stuff for which the media likes to hype on.

World Beater
03-02-2008, 02:40 AM
One of the most ludicrous posts in this thread, and that's saying something.

Tiger's legacy will live on so much longer than Federer it's untrue. I'd be willing to put my life on the line. If you go to a major, the crowds which follow Woods are unreal, no-one cares much about the rest. The Nike stalls are jam packed and the rest are quiet. The guy has completely changed the sport. Federer might go on to be the greatest tennis player ever, but he hasn't changed the sport like Woods has.
.

well im talking about purely results not about this other stuff. As far as changing the sport, well thats entirely subjective. Woods has the megadeals, the $$$, America etc. But for me that doesn't factor into who has "changed their sport". What you talk of is a popularity contest. i only talk of results.


It's very unlikely anyone will ever get close to the records Woods will set, certainly not in my lifetime. On the other hand, I'd imagine tennis will be dominated again by someone very soon after Federer retires.

someone will dominate golf again. That is pretty clear. Some one will dominate tennis again. That is even clearer. But will the next successor have a chance to be better than either tiger or federer when we talk of results? I'm just saying that results-wise federer is closer to perfection than tiger is.

My definition of who is more "impressive" has to do with how each individual player stands out in history according to their results only. I am not saying that federer is more impressive than woods but merely suggesting that saying one or the other is unclear because we don't know objectively how difficult it will be for another player to duplicate what they did.

Dimonator133
03-02-2008, 03:16 AM
we don't know objectively how difficult it will be for another player to duplicate what they did.

yes we do. It's much harder to dominate golf, therefore it can only be assumed that it will be more difficult for another Tiger to come along than it will be for another Fed to come along.

azza
03-02-2008, 06:42 AM
Golf is pathetic and should not be a sport at all

tangerine_dream
03-12-2008, 05:32 PM
I'm in a golf-bashing mood so I thought I'd gleefully post this latest story about the demise of golf's popularity here in the states. :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html
More Americans Are Giving Up Golf
February 21, 2008

HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. — The men gathered in a new golf clubhouse here a couple of weeks ago circled the problem from every angle, like caddies lining up a shot out of the rough.

“We have to change our mentality,” said Richard Rocchio, a public relations consultant.

“The problem is time,” offered Walter Hurney, a real estate developer. “There just isn’t enough time. Men won’t spend a whole day away from their family anymore.”

William A. Gatz, owner of the Long Island National Golf Club in Riverhead, said the problem was fundamental economics: too much supply, not enough demand.

The problem was not a game of golf. It was the game of golf itself.

Over the past decade, the leisure activity most closely associated with corporate success in America has been in a kind of recession.

The total number of people who play has declined or remained flat each year since 2000, dropping to about 26 million from 30 million, according to the National Golf Foundation and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.

More troubling to golf boosters, the number of people who play 25 times a year or more fell to 4.6 million in 2005 from 6.9 million in 2000, a loss of about a third.

The industry now counts its core players as those who golf eight or more times a year. That number, too, has fallen, but more slowly: to 15 million in 2006 from 17.7 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation.

The five men who met here at the Wind Watch Golf Club a couple of weeks ago, golf aficionados all, wondered out loud about the reasons. Was it the economy? Changing family dynamics? A glut of golf courses? A surfeit of etiquette rules — like not letting people use their cellphones for the four hours it typically takes to play a round of 18 holes?

Or was it just the four hours?

Here on Long Island, where there are more than 100 private courses, golf course owners have tried various strategies: coupons and trial memberships, aggressive marketing for corporate and charity tournaments, and even some forays into the wedding business.

Over coffee with a representative of the National Golf Course Owners Association, the owners of four golf courses discussed forming an owners’ cooperative to market golf on Long Island and, perhaps, to purchase staples like golf carts and fertilizer more cheaply.

They strategized about marketing to women, who make up about 25 percent of golfers nationally; recruiting young players with a high school tournament; attracting families with special rates; realigning courses to 6-hole rounds, instead of 9 or 18; and seeking tax breaks, on the premise that golf courses, even private ones, provide publicly beneficial open space.

“When the ship is sinking, it’s time to get creative,” said Mr. Hurney, a principal owner of the Great Rock Golf Club in Wading River, which last summer erected a 4,000-square-foot tent for social events, including weddings, christenings and communions.

The disappearance of golfers over the past several years is part of a broader decline in outdoor activities — including tennis, swimming, hiking, biking and downhill skiing — according to a number of academic and recreation industry studies.

A 2006 study by the United States Tennis Association, which has battled the trend somewhat successfully with a forceful campaign to recruit young players, found that punishing hurricane seasons factored into the decline of play in the South, while the soaring popularity of electronic games and newer sports like skateboarding was diminishing the number of new tennis players everywhere.

Rodney B. Warnick, a professor of recreation studies and tourism at the University of Massachusetts, said that the aging population of the United States was probably a part of the problem, too, and that “there is a younger generation that is just not as active.”

But golf, a sport of long-term investors — both those who buy the expensive equipment and those who build the princely estates on which it is played — has always seemed to exist in a world above the fray of shifting demographics. Not anymore.

Jim Kass, the research director of the National Golf Foundation, an industry group, said the gradual but prolonged slump in golf has defied the adage, “Once a golfer, always a golfer.” About three million golfers quit playing each year, and slightly fewer than that have been picking it up. A two-year campaign by the foundation to bring new players into the game, he said, “hasn’t shown much in the way of results.”

“The man in the street will tell you that golf is booming because he sees Tiger Woods on TV,” Mr. Kass said. “But we track the reality. The reality is, while we haven’t exactly tanked, the numbers have been disappointing for some time.”

Surveys sponsored by the foundation have asked players what keeps them away. “The answer is usually economic,” Mr. Kass said. “No time. Two jobs. Real wages not going up. Pensions going away. Corporate cutbacks in country club memberships — all that doom and gloom stuff.”

In many parts of the country, high expectations for a golf bonanza paralleling baby boomer retirements led to what is now considered a vast overbuilding of golf courses.

Between 1990 and 2003, developers built more than 3,000 new golf courses in the United States, bringing the total to about 16,000. Several hundred have closed in the last few years, most of them in Arizona, Florida, Michigan and South Carolina, according to the foundation.

(Scores more courses are listed for sale on the Web site of the National Golf Course Owners Association, which lists, for example, a North Carolina property described as “two 18-hole championship courses, great mountain locations, profitable, $1.5 million revenues, Bermuda fairways, bent grass, nice clubhouses, one at $5.5 million, other at $2.5 million — possible some owner financing.”)

At the meeting here, there was a consensus that changing family dynamics have had a profound effect on the sport.

“Years ago, men thought nothing of spending the whole day playing golf — maybe Saturday and Sunday both,” said Mr. Rocchio, the public relations consultant, who is also the New York regional director of the National Golf Course Owners Association. “Today, he is driving his kids to their soccer games. Maybe he’s playing a round early in the morning. But he has to get back home in time for lunch.”

Mr. Hurney, the real estate developer, chimed in, “Which is why if we don’t repackage our facilities to a more family orientation, we’re dead.”

adee-gee
03-12-2008, 05:36 PM
Tangy, of all the articles you've posted, that is surely one of the worst.

Firstly, it's pure and utter shite. Do I care what Walter Hurney, a real estate developer thinks?

Secondly, what on earth has it got to do with Tiger or Federer being more dominant?

:armed:

zcess81
03-12-2008, 05:40 PM
I've already made my feelings known on this, but anyway.....

It is 100 times harder to dominate golf.

Woods' domination of golf is the most impressive thing I've seen in any sport. The man is an absolute genius. He's also incredibly down to earth, and gracious in victory or defeat.

Greatest sportsman of this generation without a doubt :worship:

Golf is not a sport...just a bunch of fat, jumper wearing, too-lazy-to-even-walk old farts in pimp outfits.

People state their reasons for why it's harder to dominate golf...but I can always make an argument that it's far more difficult to dominate tennis cause, mental aspect of the game and tactics aside, you have to be SUPER FIT year after year...which is not the case with golf divas. Tennis is a young man's sport...golf is old man's game.

tangerine_dream
03-12-2008, 05:42 PM
Tangy, of all the articles you've posted, that is surely one of the worst.

Firstly, it's pure and utter shite. Do I care what Walter Hurney, a real estate developer thinks?
Of course you don't care, it's not about Europeans losing interest in golf (although I would be thrilled to read that story too). I just want golf to go away in the US. :D

Secondly, what on earth has it got to do with Tiger or Federer being more dominant :armed:
Tennis pwning golf is always part of the Roger/Tiger discussion. ;)

adee-gee
03-13-2008, 01:21 PM
Golf is not a sport...just a bunch of fat, jumper wearing, too-lazy-to-even-walk old farts in pimp outfits.

People state their reasons for why it's harder to dominate golf...but I can always make an argument that it's far more difficult to dominate tennis cause, mental aspect of the game and tactics aside, you have to be SUPER FIT year after year...which is not the case with golf divas. Tennis is a young man's sport...golf is old man's game.
Change the record you clown.

Let's see a video of you playing golf....oh you've never played, I thought not.

bokehlicious
03-13-2008, 01:32 PM
Of course you don't care, it's not about Europeans losing interest in golf ;)

:shrug: Europe never really cared for golf :o

zcess81
03-13-2008, 01:34 PM
Change the record you clown.

Let's see a video of you playing golf....oh you've never played, I thought not.


I think you might be slightly retarded. I never implied that golf is an easy GAME...just that it's not a SPORT. Get it? SPORT...GAME...there is a difference, you know.

Golf is soooo physically exhausting! Is that what you're trying to tell me? PLEEEEAASSEE! Hit the ball with the club...ride in the cart....hit the ball with the club....ride in the cart. They don't even carry THEIR OWN BAGS!!

elessar
03-13-2008, 01:34 PM
:shrug: Europe never really cared for golf :o
:secret: except for the British, but they've never been really europeans anyway

adee-gee
03-13-2008, 01:35 PM
:shrug: Europe never really cared for golf :o
Most parts do, maybe not Switzerland ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Swiss_golfers :haha:

bokehlicious
03-13-2008, 01:36 PM
Most parts do, maybe not Switzerland ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Swiss_golfers :haha:

:ras: :lol:

As Claire already said, only the Brits care in Europe :shrug:

Branimir
03-13-2008, 01:40 PM
For me chess is more of the sport than golf, that said I respect Federer way more than Woods. I am not going to even compare their successes.

zcess81
03-13-2008, 01:43 PM
For me chess is more of the sport than golf, that said I respect Federer way more than Woods. I am not going to even compare their successes.

Golf is SLIGHTLY more demanding physically as you actually have to swing the club, but you're not far off.

adee-gee
03-13-2008, 01:43 PM
:ras: :lol:

As Claire already said, only the Brits care in Europe :shrug:
All the big European nations like golf :ras:

Britain, France, Spain, Germany.....

bokehlicious
03-13-2008, 01:45 PM
All the big European nations like golf :ras:

Britain, France, Spain, Germany.....

Wrong... Tennis is much more popular in those countries... (except for GB) :)

Bascule
03-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Wrong... Tennis is much more popular in those countries... (except for GB) :)

And it's quite clearly why tennis is not so popular in GB.;)

adee-gee
03-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Wrong... Tennis is much more popular in those countries... (except for GB) :)
I didn't say it was bigger than tennis in these countries, just that it was popular :p

bokehlicious
03-13-2008, 01:53 PM
And it's quite clearly why tennis is not so popular in GB.;)

Once Murray overtakes Nole as #1, they will remember they invented tennis :o :p

zcess81
03-13-2008, 01:57 PM
Once Murray overtakes Nole as #1, they will remember they invented tennis :o :p

I dare you to go ONE day without posting something about Novak.

bokehlicious
03-13-2008, 02:03 PM
I dare you to go ONE day without posting something about Novak.

:shrug: Impossible, he's too big a star :rocker2: :p

World Beater
03-23-2008, 11:32 AM
what is more embarassing?

federer getting destroyed by the fish or tiger losing some time back to John "freaking" daly. :haha:

since this thread centers on themes like athleticism and dominance, i go with tiger and daly. LMAO

MilMilCho
03-23-2008, 11:38 AM
This comparison now sounds just more like a joke to me:rolleyes:

Boris Franz Ecker
03-23-2008, 11:51 AM
This comparison now sounds just more like a joke to me:rolleyes:

Was always a joke.

One of them plays a game against fat and old men.

To repeat: compare Phil Taylor and Woods, that would be more serious.

FedFan_2007
09-24-2009, 07:16 PM
A new article on Roger & Tiger:
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=4473395

Corey Feldman
09-24-2009, 09:26 PM
nice bump, all i have to say now is:

15 >>>>>>>>>>> 14


wonder whatever happened to that zcess81



To repeat: compare Phil Taylor and Woods, that would be more serious.:lol:

Corey Feldman
09-24-2009, 09:28 PM
I dare you to go ONE day without posting something about Novak.

reported and bad repped

born_on_clay
09-24-2009, 09:56 PM
Roger for sure

bokehlicious
09-25-2009, 07:37 AM
nice bump, all i have to say now is:

15 >>>>>>>>>>> 14


wonder whatever happened to that zcess81

:lol:

:lol:

zcess81 was gloating his ass off at the beginning of last year, then disappeared as soon as Novak started to suck... :scratch: must be a coincidence, dude must have been busy... :o

alfonsojose
08-04-2011, 03:33 AM
:haha: :haha: I can see Mirka smashing a raquect on Roger's head in front to the twins .. ".. if u play mixed with that slut .. " :armed:

alfonsojose
08-04-2011, 03:34 AM
I've already made my feelings known on this, but anyway.....

It is 100 times harder to dominate golf.

Woods' domination of golf is the most impressive thing I've seen in any sport. The man is an absolute genius. He's also incredibly down to earth, and gracious in victory or defeat.

Greatest sportsman of this generation without a doubt :worship:

:haha: :haha:

Topspindoctor
08-04-2011, 03:46 AM
Considering golf isn't even a real sport, Olderer>>>>>>Tiger

abraxas21
08-04-2011, 03:48 AM
what a mug bump

sure, tiger cheated on his wife but then again she was most likely in it for the benjamins so.....

Garson007
08-04-2011, 07:47 AM
Golf is far more difficult to win on any given day. I don't think the comparison is apt, but Tiger would edge it for me.

n8
08-04-2011, 09:48 AM
Yeah it is much harder to dominate in golf. In tennis you dont need to play well to win, only better than your opponent.

Statistically it's just as difficult to win 7 head-to-head matches in a row as it is to beat 127 players all at once.

2003
08-04-2011, 10:24 AM
Federer

xdrewitdajx
08-04-2011, 10:48 AM
sensible comparison.

LawrenceOfTennis
08-04-2011, 11:32 AM
I won't compare statistics, it's just Roger.

Garson007
08-04-2011, 11:32 AM
Statistically it's just as difficult to win 7 head-to-head matches in a row as it is to beat 127 players all at once.
At the start of the tournament. Statistically it gets easier with every match you win, much more so than getting an extra birdie in.

This means that it is both much easier to fluke a win in golf and also much more difficult to dominate.

2003
08-04-2011, 11:59 AM
I dont know if anyones bought it up but in Golf you have a much longer time span to win major tournaments.

In tennis, at the most, you could win a slam at 33-34 if you were lucky, but realistically, you only have about 10 years to win majors.

In Golf, you have more like 30 years.

We will know Rogers fate much before we know Tigers, me thinks.

Gagsquet
08-04-2011, 12:01 PM
Federer fucks only with Mirka so he is superior ( perhaps )

2003
08-04-2011, 12:06 PM
Also, in Golf, it takes a serious injury to keep you out and you can play with an injury.

Similarly, your not as affected by aging because younger guys cant just hit you off the course. "losing a step" isnt a factor because everyone gets time to hit their shot and you dont have to worry about someone trying to exploit you or take advantage of a bad match up.

2003
08-04-2011, 12:29 PM
But on the flip side mistakes cost you more in Golf. In tennis, as long as you claw your way back, you can make 10 unforced errors in a game, but as long as you serve well, etc, you can get out of a 0-40 situation and it doesnt show on the scoreboard. Its erased so to speak.

In golf, 10 such mistakes and your rounds fucked. Theres no coming back. In Tennis, your always in the match until the the last point. You can always come back. Not in Golf so much so.

Garson007
08-04-2011, 12:31 PM
If you hit 35-40 in golf you're as good as done on Parklands courses (i.e. all of them) and almost nobody wins anything before they hit 25. Realistically you might have 5 years on a tennis player, but that's it.

Garson007
08-04-2011, 12:35 PM
But on the flip side mistakes cost you more in Golf. In tennis, as long as you claw your way back, you can make 10 unforced errors in a game, but as long as you serve well, etc, you can get out of a 0-40 situation and it doesnt show on the scoreboard. Its erased so to speak.

In golf, 10 such mistakes and your rounds fucked. Theres no coming back. In Tennis, your always in the match until the the last point. You can always come back. Not in Golf so much so.
Indeed. That's why it's so difficult to dominate. So you lose a set against Isner by playing badly in round 2, but you make up that loss and it never comes back to haunt you. In golf you'd need to be extremely consistent to win anything; your bad rounds need to be as good as the field average, at least.

draktom1
08-04-2011, 12:45 PM
Federer. I know it's probably harder to win a major in golf because the standard is much more evenly matched and the slightest bits of good or bad luck can effect a whole round really easily. But Federer also has the charm that Woods has never had. Federer wouldn't publically sack a coach or anyone in the same pointless way that Woods did to Steve Williams. Also Federer has more chance of winning another major than Woods.


Centre Court Tennis (www.centre-court-tennis.com)

Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Centre-Court-Tennis/234069549941727) Twitter (https://twitter.com/#!/CentreCourtTenn) US Open (http://www.facebook.com/pages/US-Open-2011-Flushing-Meadows/129635660460281)

Vida
08-04-2011, 02:14 PM
depends in what field. in sports its probably fed.

RAFA2005RG
08-04-2011, 02:24 PM
On thing is for sure, Tiger's failings are much worse than Federer's failings. Federer has by far the better career.

nobama
08-04-2011, 02:34 PM
what exactly was the point of this bump? :scratch:

Start da Game
08-04-2011, 03:37 PM
before the tiger scandal

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42294000/jpg/_42294678_fed2_getty_300.jpg

http://tennisconnected.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Woods.jpg

after the tiger scandal,

Roger Federer dumped Tiger Woods after his divorce
http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/editorial_image/d7/d7ffdba64ab8f6ddc03963dfc413443e/roger_federer_dumped_tiger_woods_after_his_divorce .jpg

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/Roger-Federer-dumped-Tiger-Woods-after-his-divor?urn=ten-wp2430

the idea behind this friendship was to grab some hot women through tiger woods' contacts and once the scandal broke out, the cunning ballerina silently dumped the "friend".....well done and well played......so much for being close friends......

Corey Feldman
08-04-2011, 03:39 PM
what exactly was the point of this bump? :scratch:to be able to say this:


16 >>>>>>>>>> 14

Egreen
08-04-2011, 04:15 PM
Federer, of course.

He won his 16 majors faster, in a shorter period from 2003-2010.

It took Tiger from 1997-2008.

Plus, 16 >> 14

SerialKillerToBe
08-04-2011, 05:28 PM
People actually watch golf?


Wait....golf is a sport? I thought it was more like one of those rich guy competitions like croquet or badminton...

Midnight Ninja
08-04-2011, 05:29 PM
before the tiger scandal

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42294000/jpg/_42294678_fed2_getty_300.jpg

http://tennisconnected.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Woods.jpg

after the tiger scandal,

Roger Federer dumped Tiger Woods after his divorce
http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/editorial_image/d7/d7ffdba64ab8f6ddc03963dfc413443e/roger_federer_dumped_tiger_woods_after_his_divorce .jpg

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/Roger-Federer-dumped-Tiger-Woods-after-his-divor?urn=ten-wp2430

the idea behind this friendship was to grab some hot women through tiger woods' contacts and once the scandal broke out, the cunning ballerina silently dumped the "friend".....well done and well played......so much for being close friends......

Truer words weren't spoken.

If only everybody could be like Nadal who is so close to Djokovic even after the countless defeats this year.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/queenscover/handshakes2.gif

Nadull_tard
08-04-2011, 05:45 PM
Tiger is more dominant in fucking women, that's for sure.

tests
08-04-2011, 05:46 PM
From only a sports standpoint, federer has the edge IMHO. He has been so consistently dominant that it has to be > than woods... and besides, fed won his in a much shorter period of time than woods (3 years difference or so??)

second standpoint... who would you want to be as a guy? Federer, who has the utmost respect from everyone, has a loving family with an average wife, and makes a lot of cash via endorsements.

OR.... Mr.woods. The man who fucked everything and anything. The man who has smashed so much tail, traces of his dna could probably be found in Uganda. The man who dominated golf (to a lesser extent)... and used to be the most respected kat on the planet. The man who makes 100 mill a year.

Corey Feldman
08-04-2011, 06:03 PM
Tiger is more dominant in fucking women, that's for sure.yeah, women he paid for

manuel84
08-04-2011, 06:25 PM
:haha: :haha: I can see Mirka smashing a raquect on Roger's head in front to the twins .. ".. if u play mixed with that slut .. " :armed:

She's playing hard to get, though.:lol:

SetSampras
08-04-2011, 06:34 PM
You take in their respective sports then Tiger has been more dominant. Fed really hasn't even been overall dominant if you factor in Nadal. Add to the fact how much EASIER it is dominate in tennis then it is in Golf.

In tennis you just have to beat the across the net and then the next guy in front of you in the next round. In golf, you are going up against the whole tour simultaneously

Garson007
08-04-2011, 07:04 PM
I don't see how the moral debate is somehow relevant.

nobama
08-05-2011, 12:39 AM
You take in their respective sports then Tiger has been more dominant. Fed really hasn't even been overall dominant if you factor in Nadal. Add to the fact how much EASIER it is dominate in tennis then it is in Golf.

In tennis you just have to beat the across the net and then the next guy in front of you in the next round. In golf, you are going up against the whole tour simultaneouslyLOL coming from a Sampras tard. So I suppose if Fed had, say, 9 or 10 slams and this question was about Pete vs Tiger you'd say the same thing? According to ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills) tennis is ranked #7 in degree of difficulty, golf is 51.

I actually agree with Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/07/08/federer.woods/index.html). Comparing golf and tennis is futile. You could say golf is more mentally demanding, tennis more physically. But if mentally demanding defines the toughest sport then we might as well call chess a sport as it would be #1.

Start da Game
08-05-2011, 05:33 PM
From only a sports standpoint, federer has the edge IMHO. He has been so consistently dominant that it has to be > than woods... and besides, fed won his in a much shorter period of time than woods (3 years difference or so??)

second standpoint... who would you want to be as a guy? Federer, who has the utmost respect from everyone, has a loving family with an average wife, and makes a lot of cash via endorsements.

OR.... Mr.woods. The man who fucked everything and anything. The man who has smashed so much tail, traces of his dna could probably be found in Uganda. The man who dominated golf (to a lesser extent)... and used to be the most respected kat on the planet. The man who makes 100 mill a year.

if i were that rich, i would take the tiger route but do it all openly like a christiano ronaldo or anybody else, i won't hide it......what good would all that millions be if you can't buy ultra hot women and sleep with them? what else would you do with them? throw away to bankrupt nations?

respect is a very small thing in this big bad world......nobody talks or remembers about borg's personal life or laver's personal life.......we only remember them for what they did on a tennis court and borg is highly respected no matter what all he did in his life......where tiger lost was he tried to hide it all which was never going to be possible......

Corey Feldman
08-05-2011, 10:57 PM
You take in their respective sports then Tiger has been more dominant. Fed really hasn't even been overall dominant if you factor in Nadal. Add to the fact how much EASIER it is dominate in tennis then it is in Golf.

In tennis you just have to beat the across the net and then the next guy in front of you in the next round. In golf, you are going up against the whole tour simultaneouslylook clown, just because Roger was losing French Open finals to Nadal a few years doesnt mean he wasnt dominiting those seasons, i mean... how can winning 3 of the 4 majors in one season not be seen as dominating - Fed did that 3 times (Woods did that once in his career)

also dont buy that its harder to win a golf strokeplay tournament than a Grand Slam, not easy to explain but different scenario's completely for me.. in golf you are playing against the course and yourself really when you think about it, Fed to win his GS's had to keep beating the cream of the crop in one to one battles those last 3-4 rounds which IMO is harder

Tiger can have a bad final day in a tournament and be outscored by 50 guys and still win the tournament, as he often did.

Mjau!
08-06-2011, 01:01 AM
According to ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills) tennis is ranked #7 in degree of difficulty, golf is 51.

Worst argument ever. :o

KTF
04-11-2012, 03:53 PM
Of Course Tiger

electronicmusic
04-11-2012, 04:30 PM
Nice bump KFC.

BroTree123
04-11-2012, 05:31 PM
She's playing hard to get, though.:lol:

Fuck that shit :lol:.

Sri
04-12-2012, 03:05 AM
Federer hasn't really had a big slump since 2003. Sure his level has gone down and he's second best to Nole and Rafa but he is still a top tennis player.

Tiger has faltered quite a bit in the last few years. Of course volatility in personal life is a huge reason for his problems and the slump may not have been for purely golfing reasons.

BauerAlmeida
04-12-2012, 03:09 AM
Federer by a small margin.