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

More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?

Pages : [1] 2

shrudy
08-21-2006, 11:13 AM
On the tails of Tiger's PGA victory, people over at the espn golf boards are debating who is more dominant, Tiger or Federer. Of course given the nature of that forum most people select Tiger, but there a quite few, including myself, making a case for Fed.
My argument (from other thread):

I would give Roger an edge, RIGHT NOW, but obviously tiger has compiled a more impressive career to date, since he has about 5 years on Roger.

As for those who claim that extrapolating Tiger's Match Play record to span an entire year of events would confirm his dominance, we need look no further than Tigers and Rogers winning percentages: Tiger has a 34-8-1 record (or something very close to it, please feel free to check that) in match play as a professional for a winning percentage of roughly 80%. Contrast that to Roger's win-loss record since the 2004 season - 217-15 - for a winning percentage of 94%.

The point here is that over the last 3 years, Roger has amassed a more impressive record than any three year period during Tiger's career. RIGHT NOW Federer is more dominant.

Now in 10 years when people discuss this, they should keep in mind that an average tennis career for a top player lasts around 10 years, while in golf (because it is far less physically-demanding) an average career of a top player would be 20-25 years. So it wouldn't really be proper to just compare number of grand slams won to determine who's better.


The match play reference was in response to a post asserting that were Tiger to play his matches one on one, a-la-tennis, he would easily surpass Roger.

Of course there is much that is subjective since the sports are so dissimilar, but I was wondering where MTF'ers weigh in?

oz_boz
08-21-2006, 11:24 AM
Alexander Karelin. :worship: :worship: :worship:

adee-gee
08-21-2006, 11:26 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:

mecir72
08-21-2006, 11:55 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.

Norrage
08-21-2006, 12:07 PM
Yeah it is much harder to dominate in golf. In tennis you dont need to play well to win, only better than your opponent.
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)

nobama
08-21-2006, 12:26 PM
Yeah it is much harder to dominate in golf. In tennis you dont need to play well to win, only better than your opponent.How is that different in golf? I've seen plenty of times where Tiger didn't have his A game but turned it on when he needed to to win. I don't think golf is any different than tennis in that respect. I think it's too difficult to compare the two sports because one is match play, the other is not. In golf you play your game for the most part whereas in tennis you have to adapt to your opponent.

bad gambler
08-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Tiger

Mistaflava
08-21-2006, 12:37 PM
Tiger

Mistaflava
08-21-2006, 12:38 PM
Yeah it is much harder to dominate in golf. In tennis you dont need to play well to win, only better than your opponent.


:worship:


Couldn't agree more.

FSRteam
08-21-2006, 12:39 PM
Yeah it is much harder to dominate in golf. In tennis you dont need to play well to win, only better than your opponent.

Same in golf, isn't it?

Just need to play better than your opponents... :rolleyes:

Effka
08-21-2006, 12:46 PM
I think mecir meant that in tennis you can sometimes play crap and still beat some of your opponents and in golf you just cannot fool anybody. Which i agree with. Individual sport, where the results depend only on you, is harder to dominate. Tiger all the way.

bad gambler
08-21-2006, 12:49 PM
Same in golf, isn't it?

Just need to play better than your opponents... :rolleyes:


Opponents plural being the operative word

Action Jackson
08-21-2006, 12:52 PM
Yeah it is much harder to dominate in golf. In tennis you dont need to play well to win, only better than your opponent.

Too true.

FSRteam
08-21-2006, 01:06 PM
Opponents plural being the operative word

Anyway, I think you juyt cannot compare these 2 sports! Tennis is more physically hard on your body, you can't last forever like in golf. Plus, you play on different surfaces and a grand chelem is 2 weeks not 4 days. It is therefore a less draining sport. Many golf players don't look like atheletes but more like bar crawlers.

adee-gee
08-21-2006, 01:07 PM
Same in golf, isn't it?

Just need to play better than your opponents... :rolleyes:
Yes, all 140 odd of them :silly:

thrust
08-21-2006, 01:20 PM
I would agree that it is much harder to dominate golf than it is to dominate tennis. Whatever, both are definitely two of the very greatest of their sports.

Mistaflava
08-21-2006, 01:23 PM
You can learn how to play tennis at a 1 week day camp

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

Golf and Tennis are completely different. However, it is much more difficult to dominate in Golf than it is in tennis. End of story.

uNIVERSE mAN
08-21-2006, 01:24 PM
F Golf! boring crap.

nanoman
08-21-2006, 02:15 PM
Golf: a "sport" that only a select group of people (spoiled brats and semi-senile oldtimers with more money than sense) can play.
It only takes 1 man who is fit, has the right attitude to dominate those sorry excuses of "sportsmen".

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

I vote for tennis.

FSRteam
08-21-2006, 02:16 PM
Golf: a "sport" that only a select group of people (semi-senile oldtimers and spoiled brats) can play.
It only takes 1 man who is fit, has the right attitude to dominate those sorry excuse of "sportsmen".
Tennis: a sport that nearly everyone can play if he chooses to.

I vote for tennis.

So true!!!

mickymouse
08-21-2006, 02:22 PM
I don't watch golf but I know Tiger Woods. And only Tiger Woods. My friends who don't watch tennis know Sampras and Agassi. And only Sampras and Agassi. Guess this answers the question to a certain extent.

But I do think what's Federer achieved is a lot harder than he's been given credit for. If he's an American or more limelight hogging, the hype would have been far far greater. And come on, playing tennis is a lot tougher physically than walking on a grass patch and swinging the club for a few times a day. Damn, the tennis players even have to carry their own bags.

densuprun
08-21-2006, 02:39 PM
In some respect winning a golf major tournament is harder but in some others it is easier.

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

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

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

3. In golf you don't have to be better than people you are paired with. In fact, theoretically you may lose all your matchups and still win the major. If I am not mistaken, Tiger happened to lose his last day matchups a couple of times but still won the major because he was in the lead before the final day.

r2473
08-21-2006, 02:51 PM
To simply answer the question as posed (which is more DOMINANT), it has to be Federer. I could list the win / loss record for Federer over the past 3 years and do the same for Tiger, but it is more instructive to think about it like this. When Federer goes up against ANYBODY (save Nadal on clay perhaps), he is the prohibitive favorite to win. If he loses, everyone is pretty surprised. With Tiger, though he is the favorite to win most any tournament he enters, when he doesn't, nobody is that surprised. Such is the nature of golf (when is the last time Tiger has won the Accenture match play event? What is Tiger's record in the Ryder Cup? How many tournaments does he win each year on average? How many majors do you EXPECT him to win (maybe 1 or 2 at most)? How many majors do you EXPECT Federer to win (probably all of them except for the French (which we are starting to expect he will win)).

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

I play both sports (though I am only average at both). Clearly tennis is the more physically demanding. Both are mentally demanding. Still, I have played some pretty bad tennis and still beaten some pretty good players. In golf, one or two bad shots hit out of bounds or a few bad putts can ruin an entire round.

marcRD
08-21-2006, 04:32 PM
Golf is an elitist sports where proffesionals are often middle aged men from rich families. Just look at top golfer like Mickelson and say he looks like an athlete to you. Golf is not nearly as international as tennis aswell.

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

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

dkw
08-21-2006, 04:50 PM
To simply answer the question as posed (which is more DOMINANT), it has to be Federer... When Federer goes up against ANYBODY he is the prohibitive favorite to win. If he loses, everyone is pretty surprised. With Tiger, though he is the favorite to win most any tournament he enters, when he doesn't, nobody is that surprised.
You're confusing me??... becasue by your own logic Tiger is not just the more impressive but also the more dominant player.

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

But who cares... I fed-up of seeing both their mugs!

dkw
08-21-2006, 04:55 PM
Golf may be harder to learn but you can never become an artist in golf. Federer mis not only an athlete but also an artist, a genius with the ball. I cant call Tiger Woods and artist or an athlete or a genius. He is a perfectionist, which all golf players are. You learn to do your swings and put the ball in the hole, there is no effort and no art or diversity. Mental strength and perfection is all there is. Just like bowling it is more a game than a real sport.
You should do well in the Arse Clown competition :D

adee-gee
08-21-2006, 04:58 PM
Golf: a "sport" that only a select group of people (spoiled brats and semi-senile oldtimers with more money than sense) can play.
It only takes 1 man who is fit, has the right attitude to dominate those sorry excuses of "sportsmen".

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

I vote for tennis.
:retard:

adee-gee
08-21-2006, 04:59 PM
Golf is an elitist sports where proffesionals are often middle aged men from rich families. Just look at top golfer like Mickelson and say he looks like an athlete to you. Golf is not nearly as international as tennis aswell.

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

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

prima donna
08-21-2006, 05:00 PM
Who cares, Tiger's streak is far more impressive. I'm pretty sure that even Roger would be willing to conceed this much.

Golf is Chess.
Tennis is Checkers.

All_Slam_Andre
08-21-2006, 05:01 PM
Tiger failed to win 10 majors in a row from 2002 to the end of 2004. This is a long time to not win anything of significance. I would give Federer the edge

Hawkman
08-21-2006, 05:04 PM
Golf isn't even a sport. It is one hell of a challenging game. And dont start getting angry Golf Fans; sorry, breaking a sweat while walking down the fairway does not constitute sport.

Yes, I have played many a round of the game, but the fact that everyone acts like it is a sport and that these guys are atheletes is absurd.

That being said

I believe it is about as equal to dominate any of the two but I give Tiger the edge over Federer. Tiger is the greatest golfer since Jack. Roger is the greatest tennis player since, well, since a handful of guys; agassi, lendl, connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Borg, Sampras ...............................

r2473
08-21-2006, 05:38 PM
You're confusing me??... becasue by your own logic Tiger is not just the more impressive but also the more dominant player.

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

Here is simply what I mean. Look at the winners on the PGA for the past 3 years. Now check to see which tournaments Tiger entered. Now calculate his winning percentage. Do the same for Federer. I think we will find Federer has a higher winning percentage. Therefore, Federer is more dominate.

However, I believe Tiger's accomplishments to be more impressive. Is it because it is harder to win a golf tournament? Well, they are both difficult. But dominance in golf is not defined by winning each and every time out. It just doesn't work like that. In tennis, Federer has been winning nearly each and every time out, and this is what we expect from our dominant tennis players. Think about it this way.....Tiger won the 2002 US Open and then did not win a major championship until the 2005 Masters. Did the world begin to seriously question Tiger's dominance? Not really. He was still regarded as the best. Imagine if Federer does not win the next 10 slams in a row? I don't think people will still regard him as the best for long.

World Beater
08-21-2006, 05:47 PM
to answer the question, federer is more dominant. but what tiger may be doing is more impressive. But i still believe that tennis requires more athletic skills and is sort of like a big conglomeration of a lot of different sports, in what is required to succeed.

some people put the argument that golf is more difficult to play than tennis. i think that this is not true. sure its probably easier to play tennis amateurs than golf amateurs, but to me golf is technique + mental strength. in tennis there are many more dimensions and is just as hard to play at the top level as golf.

nobama
08-21-2006, 05:59 PM
I would agree that right now Tiger's career is more impressive, but he's 5 years older than Roger, so lets see where Roger's at in 5 years. But I think it's silly to compare the two sports.

nobama
08-21-2006, 06:06 PM
Think about it this way.....Tiger won the 2002 US Open and then did not win a major championship until the 2005 Masters. Did the world begin to seriously question Tiger's dominance? Not really. He was still regarded as the best. Imagine if Federer does not win the next 10 slams in a row? I don't think people will still regard him as the best for long.Of course the media questioned what Tiger was doing and why he decided to change his swing, would it work, ect. A professional tennis career is a lot shorter than a pro golf career, so obviously if you're at the top and then go a couple years without winning a major that would be a bigger deal. Right now there are no young players really stepping up and challenging Tiger. We saw that yesterday when everybody folded (except guys that were too far back to make a challenge anyway).

Kip
08-21-2006, 06:07 PM
Rodger.

R.Federer
08-21-2006, 06:32 PM
Yeah it is much harder to dominate in golf. In tennis you dont need to play well to win, only better than your opponent.
Don't follow that argument
You can also play poorly in golf as long as the rest of the field is playing more poorly than you are.

vincayou
08-21-2006, 06:33 PM
Come on, Tiger hits his forehand with two hands and doesn't even use a legal raquet.

senorgato
08-21-2006, 06:33 PM
You have to play better than your opponentS in both sports, so whoever started that argumement and agreed to it should understand that. The only difference between golf and tennis is that in tennis, your opponents can have a direct impact on you, whereas in golf, it's all about you. Which to me, makes golf even less of a true challenge.

Plus, tennis is clearly the more physical game. So not only do you have to deal with the psychology, strategies, and your opponent, you have to deal with the physical.

Don't get me wrong. I admire Tiger and consider him one of my idols. But tennis and golf are just too different. Golf is really too different than any other sport.

R.Federer
08-21-2006, 06:37 PM
To come back to the point of the thread, I would say Tiger is more dominant. Lets see what happens 5 years on

ChinoRios4Ever
08-21-2006, 08:01 PM
TIGER BY FAR

Mistaflava
08-21-2006, 08:09 PM
I would agree that right now Tiger's career is more impressive, but he's 5 years older than Roger, so lets see where Roger's at in 5 years. But I think it's silly to compare the two sports.


It doesn't matter what Roger does for the rest of his career, the degree of difficulty was much different for Tiger. Golf is probably the most difficult sport in the world to be consistent at.

Bilbo
08-21-2006, 08:41 PM
Michael Jordan

Boris Franz Ecker
08-21-2006, 08:57 PM
Federer, Golf is no sport

r2473
08-21-2006, 08:58 PM
It doesn't matter what Roger does for the rest of his career, the degree of difficulty was much different for Tiger. Golf is probably the most difficult sport in the world to be consistant at.

Perhaps I don't understand the intent of the post. The question posed is "More Dominant: Tiger or Federer?". While it is true that golf is probably the most difficult sport to be conisitent at, the stats don't indicate that Tiger is more dominant than Federer (at least over the past 3 years). Are his feats more impressive? I think so. However, "most impressive" is not necessarily "most dominant". In this case, I would say Federer is "most dominant" (as an objective measure of his performance over the past 3 years), while Tiger is the "most impressive" (based on my subjective measure of which performance is more difficult).

Mistaflava
08-21-2006, 09:09 PM
Tiger is most impressive and most dominant

kronus12
08-21-2006, 09:16 PM
This is a stupid how can you compare these two sports?
Granted going by careers and titles wood has the advantage.
But these sports are completely different tennis is more physical then golf, in tennis they suffer more injuries effecting their plays, how many major injuries has golf players suffer? a few back pains and torn wrist ligaments and it only happens to a few players.
Games are too different to compare, stragety, gameplan, opponents weakness things you need to know in tennis.
Golf or you need is to get the ball in the hole within seven shots to keep par very simple rules no stragety no gameplan.

mecir72
08-21-2006, 09:21 PM
You have to play better than your opponentS in both sports, so whoever started that argumement and agreed to it should understand that. The only difference between golf and tennis is that in tennis, your opponents can have a direct impact on you, whereas in golf, it's all about you. Which to me, makes golf even less of a true challenge.

Plus, tennis is clearly the more physical game. So not only do you have to deal with the psychology, strategies, and your opponent, you have to deal with the physical.

Don't get me wrong. I admire Tiger and consider him one of my idols. But tennis and golf are just too different. Golf is really too different than any other sport.
Well you clearly dont get my point. It is alot easier for a lower ranked player to win a golf event than for a lower ranked player to win a tennis tournament simply because of the format. And even if golf were played in matchplay format it would still have more ups and downs than tennis.

r2473
08-21-2006, 09:34 PM
Well you clearly dont get my point. It is alot easier for a lower ranked player to win a golf event than for a lower ranked player to win a tennis tournament simply because of the format. And even if golf were played in matchplay format it would still have more ups and downs than tennis.

Thats true. I believe that on the PGA tour (nearly) any player can win on any given week (just look at the list of different champions for the past 5 years or so). It's not the case for tennis. Going into a tournament, there are only a few with a legitament shot.

tangerine_dream
08-21-2006, 09:38 PM
More proof that Golf is not a real sport

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/roddickwatch/fatgolflady.jpg

All_Slam_Andre
08-21-2006, 10:04 PM
For me a sport has to be both physically and mentally demanding. Tennis is both, while golf is only mentally demanding so it is not a sport, it is a game. Many people actually play golf after work as a method of relaxation

adee-gee
08-21-2006, 10:12 PM
Well you clearly dont get my point. It is alot easier for a lower ranked player to win a golf event than for a lower ranked player to win a tennis tournament simply because of the format. And even if golf were played in matchplay format it would still have more ups and downs than tennis.
Completely agree. In the last 3 or 4 years we've seen Curtis, Beem, Hamilton and Micheel win majors, all absolute nobodies. That would never, ever happen in tennis. Gaudio winning RG wasn't that much of a surprise, he was still in the top 10 clay courters in the world. Johansson winning the Aussie Open was a surprise, but even still, he was ranked inside the top 30 if I remember correctly. To parallel the shocks we've had in golf, you'd need someone like Adam Chadaj to win a slam.

Macbrother
08-21-2006, 10:33 PM
In the past 3 years Tiger has won 4 out of 12 majors. Federer has won 8 out of 11. As pointed out earlier Roger has a much higher winning percentage. I don't think there's any comparison: Federer is more dominant in tennis than Tiger is at golf. Whether or not which is more difficult or more impressive is another matter entirely.

All_Slam_Andre
08-21-2006, 10:40 PM
I agree. Tiger's achievements so far in his career are IMO more impressive than Roger's, as Tiger has won all 4 majors and as held them at the same time. However Federer's winning percentage is higher. He has won 8 of the last 13 grand slams. Tiger has won 4 of the last 18 majors. Tiger didn't win 10 consecutive majors between the US Open in 2002 and the US Mastes in 2005. Roger is more dominant.

Jennay
08-21-2006, 10:43 PM
You can learn how to play tennis at a 1 week day camp

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

Golf and Tennis are completely different. However, it is much more difficult to dominate in Golf than it is in tennis. End of story.
You can learn how to do anything in one week. Whether you can execute everything within the sport is a different story. So, I beg to differ you can play every shot in tennis in one week. :o

Anyways.. Federer and Tiger are as equally dominant in their own sport, imo. There's really no way to compare the two sports, other than the obvious that golf is more difficult to dominate.

R.Federer
08-21-2006, 10:57 PM
HAHAHAHA way to make a point! Who is this oversized sportswoman? :eek:

More proof that Golf is not a real sport

DrJules
08-21-2006, 11:03 PM
Completely agree. In the last 3 or 4 years we've seen Curtis, Beem, Hamilton and Micheel win majors, all absolute nobodies. That would never, ever happen in tennis. Gaudio winning RG wasn't that much of a surprise, he was still in the top 10 clay courters in the world. Johansson winning the Aussie Open was a surprise, but even still, he was ranked inside the top 30 if I remember correctly. To parallel the shocks we've had in golf, you'd need someone like Adam Chadaj to win a slam.

Does this mean there is more luck in golf and the best are less certain to win. In some ways the lower chance of an outsider to win a tennis event possibly means a higher skill level with less of an influence of luck.

Anyway based on your attitudes I would expect you to think both were too dominant for their respective sports own good.

nobama
08-21-2006, 11:19 PM
More proof that Golf is not a real sport

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/roddickwatch/fatgolflady.jpg
Or this. :devil:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jsnash/non-Roger/4654.jpg

nobama
08-21-2006, 11:20 PM
Tiger is most impressive and most dominantOk I guess because you say so makes it so. End of debate. Shut the thread down. :rolleyes:

DrJules
08-21-2006, 11:36 PM
I guess most on MTF consider tennis more of a sport than golf naturally.

shaoyu
08-21-2006, 11:43 PM
Well you clearly dont get my point. It is alot easier for a lower ranked player to win a golf event than for a lower ranked player to win a tennis tournament simply because of the format. And even if golf were played in matchplay format it would still have more ups and downs than tennis.

That would only indicate that golf has more luck involved in the result. However even that is far from convincing. If golf is going through a period where Tiger Wood is winning 4 slams a year where in tennis 4 slams going to 4 differerent people does it make tennis all of sudden more difficult than golf? To me this type of argument is more like fan prejudice unless you can back it up with a reasonable theory.

I am amused by the sudden appearance of armies of golf fans claiming 'obvious difficulty' of golf over tennis. To me the only thing obvious is that tennis is physically more difficult than golf, and possibly mentally more difficult too (because you have to do it in the face of your opponent with possible animosity). It is also a suspect to argue because golf is more difficult to beginners. To borrow from game theory, the 'difficulty' of a game is usually measured by its depth (number of relative skill levels with reasonable skills), not the barrier of entry.

Bilbo
08-21-2006, 11:44 PM
I guess most on MTF consider tennis more of a sport than golf naturally.

who not? :o

Yoda
08-21-2006, 11:52 PM
golf is in the same class of sport as snooker and darts, that does not require athleticsm or stamina. That said, Tiger is just as dominant as Federer or sportsmen like Phil Taylor or Stephen Hendry in their respective fields.

However dominance in a sport that requires athleticsm, skill, speed and endurance IMO is far more impressive. Respect to Federer, Jordan, Gretzsky, M.Ali

Yoda
08-22-2006, 12:06 AM
Another fine athlete in his prime

Fedex
08-22-2006, 02:00 AM
I would agree that right now Tiger's career is more impressive, but he's 5 years older than Roger, so lets see where Roger's at in 5 years. But I think it's silly to compare the two sports.
But Federer will always be 5 years behind Tiger. Given that tennis is alot more physically demanding than golf, you can play profesional golf alot longer than professional tennis. So comparing the total number of majors they both win would be ludicrous.

sanpo
08-22-2006, 06:17 AM
I don't watch golf but I know Tiger Woods. And only Tiger Woods. My friends who don't watch tennis know Sampras and Agassi. And only Sampras and Agassi. Guess this answers the question to a certain extent.

But I do think what's Federer achieved is a lot harder than he's been given credit for. If he's an American or more limelight hogging, the hype would have been far far greater. And come on, playing tennis is a lot tougher physically than walking on a grass patch and swinging the club for a few times a day. Damn, the tennis players even have to carry their own bags.

You answered your 1st argument with the 2nd paragraph. And of course, you can't compare the two by the amount of people who know them since this would be based on audience recognition and we all know that Woods is American meaning he gets more hype tenfold.

zaboomafoo
08-22-2006, 06:38 AM
tiger without doubts

bokehlicious
08-22-2006, 06:40 AM
Roger.

Is golf a sport ? Even playing poker requires more physical skills...

jenanun
08-22-2006, 06:46 AM
sport or not,
tiger is more dominant and more impressive....
and he makes golf popular esp. to younger people

if federer can be as dominant on clay as well (something like 60 winning streaks on clay... with a RG title) maybe i will say federer is as dominant as tiger....

bokehlicious
08-22-2006, 06:56 AM
Well, Tiger won 3 out of the last 12 majors whereas Roger won 8 out of the last 11 and Tiger's more DOMINANT ? :confused: :rolleyes:

Hawkman
08-22-2006, 07:30 AM
Except then we'd have to see Tiger play golf on four different types of grass, and even then, it's still grass.

LOL ! :worship: :devil:

mecir72
08-22-2006, 08:48 AM
Well tennis a more demanding sport. Perhaps the most demanding of all. You need everything really to be successful in tennis. This alone makes it slightly less competetive. You could argue that golf is a bit like tennis if you take away the movement aspect from tennis. Then a guy like Pim Pim would suddenly be much better and a guy like Coria would be less successful. So when you have someone like Federer who has it all he can then dominate more because if this. It doesnt make his achievements less impressive it just makes it more likely to happen in tennis. Then you have the luck element in golf making it even less likely to have a very dominant player in that sport. And then of course, the format in golf makes it even less likely.
Having said that you have to consider Federer the superior athlete, perhaps the best athlete in all sports right now.
Just wanted to add one thing. Anyone who plays golf knows it is very hard to know before the round if you will beat your playing partner or not but in tennis this is not so. If you are better in tennis you will almost always win (an indication of how close it is on the atptour). In golf the range between good and poor performances is much wider for any player than in tennis.

World Beater
08-22-2006, 09:02 AM
Well tennis a more demanding sport. Perhaps the most demanding of all. You need everything really to be successful in tennis. This alone makes it slightly less competetive. You could argue that golf is a bit like tennis if you take away the movement aspect from tennis. Then a guy like Pim Pim would suddenly be much better and a guy like Coria would be less successful. So when you have someone like Federer who has it all he can then dominate more because if this. It doesnt make his achievements less impressive it just makes it more likely to happen in tennis. Then you have the luck element in golf making it even less likely to have a very dominant player in that sport. And then of course, the format in golf makes it even less likely.
Having said that you have to consider Federer the superior athlete, perhaps the best athlete in all sports right now.
Just wanted to add one thing. Anyone who plays golf knows it is very hard to know before the round if you will beat your playing partner or not but in tennis this is not so. If you are better in tennis you will almost always win (an indication of how close it is on the atptour). In golf the range between good and poor performances is much wider for any player than in tennis.

roger could have fooled me in cincy :D in fact marat, andy and hewitt have been so spotty for a while now which makes domination for a extended period of time so difficult. these three guys along with ferrero and kuerten are great examples to show how domination is difficult to sustain. in golf, one's physical abilities aren't as much a factor, thus a career is longer and it is much easier to set records as time is on one's side.

i'm sorry but tiger's competition, im not sure i could call them athletes. one only has to observe their physical condition.

i could use your argument and say that since chess is probably easier to learn the rules, the competition is even tougher than golf or tennis.

its like saying nadal's victories on clay are more impressive because he has had tougher matches than roger on grass. the gap between roger and rafa on clay is smaller than it is on grass, but because rafa still owns roger on clay even though the gap is smaller, and thus the competition better, it is more impressive. Obviously this argument could be turned around 180 and be just as valid

FSRteam
08-22-2006, 09:02 AM
sport or not,
tiger is more dominant and more impressive....
and he makes golf popular esp. to younger people

if federer can be as dominant on clay as well (something like 60 winning streaks on clay... with a RG title) maybe i will say federer is as dominant as tiger....

What if tennis was only played on grass like golf?!?

Then what would you say about federer?!? Would you then admit he IS more dominant or still stick to opinion?

World Beater
08-22-2006, 09:04 AM
What if tennis was only played on grass like golf?!?

Then what would you say about federer?!? Would you then admit he IS more dominant or still stick to opinion?

screw federer...we should be comparing nadal to tiger woods..not this unknown guy from switzerland

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 09:09 AM
Does this mean there is more luck in golf and the best are less certain to win. In some ways the lower chance of an outsider to win a tennis event possibly means a higher skill level with less of an influence of luck.

Anyway based on your attitudes I would expect you to think both were too dominant for their respective sports own good.
No it means that on their day, anyone can win if they play well which just isn't the case in tennis.

As it happens, I am in total admiration of Woods for the way he handles himself on and off the court, the humility which he shows in victory or defeat, and his general personality. Something I don't have for Federer.

Action Jackson
08-22-2006, 09:11 AM
Keep up the entertainment peoples.

bokehlicious
08-22-2006, 09:16 AM
As it happens, I am in total admiration of Woods for the way he handles himself on and off the court, the humility which he shows in victory or defeat, and his general personality. Something I don't have for Federer.

Spot on :yeah: Tiger is a pure class act in any situation while Roger is an arrogant prick in victory and a sore loser in defeat... :rolleyes: :zzz:

bokehlicious
08-22-2006, 09:27 AM
screw federer...we should be comparing nadal to tiger woods..not this unknown guy from switzerland

I would even mention Rodduck and not Nadal... I mean, non Americans sportsmen are not even worth a talk, who damn cares ? :o :)

World Beater
08-22-2006, 09:56 AM
I would even mention Rodduck and not Nadal... I mean, non Americans sportsmen are not even worth a talk, who damn cares ? :o :)

:scared:

yeah even nadal wouldnt get any respect...:lol:

mecir72
08-22-2006, 10:01 AM
roger could have fooled me in cincy :D in fact marat, andy and hewitt have been so spotty for a while now which makes domination for a extended period of time so difficult. these three guys along with ferrero and kuerten are great examples to show how domination is difficult to sustain. in golf, one's physical abilities aren't as much a factor, thus a career is longer and it is much easier to set records as time is on one's side.

i'm sorry but tiger's competition, im not sure i could call them athletes. one only has to observe their physical condition.

i could use your argument and say that since chess is probably easier to learn the rules, the competition is even tougher than golf or tennis.

its like saying nadal's victories on clay are more impressive because he has had tougher matches than roger on grass. the gap between roger and rafa on clay is smaller than it is on grass, but because rafa still owns roger on clay even though the gap is smaller, and thus the competition better, it is more impressive. Obviously this argument could be turned around 180 and be just as valid
Well in golf the general rule is for players careers to be similar to marats. Thats not so in tennis. Yes you could argue that about chess but it wouldnt hold true as chess requires a lot fo skill still. The point is this, golf is not as difficult as tennis is and that makes the competition tougher, perhaps not the achievement but the competition. And the fact that careers are longer makes the competition harder. Imagine if federer still had to put up with lendl, mcenroe and sampras for instance.

All_Slam_Andre
08-22-2006, 10:16 AM
As many people have said, there is no way to prove or calculate whether tennis or golf is harder to dominate. The facts are that Federer has won 8 of the 13 grand slams, while Tiger has won 4 of the 18 majors. Tiger Woods went 2 and a half years without winning a major (10 failed majors in a row). That is a long time to not win anything of importance. If Federer was to fail to win his next 4 grand slams, people would be saying that his dominance had crumbled. Since winning the Australian Open in 2004, Roger has always held at least two grand slams. Tiger's career achievements are more impressive, but Roger is more dominant at the minute. How likeable they are, or how many people they inspire to take up their profession, has no bearing in this argument.

nobama
08-22-2006, 11:00 AM
No it means that on their day, anyone can win if they play well which just isn't the case in tennis.

As it happens, I am in total admiration of Woods for the way he handles himself on and off the court, the humility which he shows in victory or defeat, and his general personality. Something I don't have for Federer.Ok now you're just being an arseclown. That's great that you have so much admiration for TW. But that has f*ck all to do with who is more dominant and which sport is more difficult to dominate.

Veronique
08-22-2006, 12:45 PM
Apples and oranges, really. Both are icons in their respective sports. There's really no way to measure who's more dominant. Tiger dominates golf, and Roger dominates tennis. That's as simple as that.

Tiger though transcends golf. He has brought more people to golf than Roger has to tennis. This has nothing to do with their citizenships. Johny Mac never had the same effect during his dominance. You could show Tiger's and Roger's pics deep in the heart of Africa, more people would recognize Tiger.

There was an interesting article in the Sports Illustrasted last month. A journeyman golfer will earn close to a million dollar this year thanks to Tiger Woods. The man is simply bigger than golf, bigger than any sport. Roger will never accomplish what Tiger has. So comparing Roger to Tiger doesn't do the former justice at all.

yanchr
08-22-2006, 12:55 PM
So here we go:

Fedhaters: Tiger
Fedfans: Federer

Non-fans nor haters: blah...

:zzz: :zzz:

Veronique
08-22-2006, 01:14 PM
So here we go:

Fedhaters: Tiger
Fedfans: Federer

Non-fans nor haters: blah...

:zzz: :zzz:

Too simplistic!

Monteque
08-22-2006, 01:21 PM
Tyson of course. Both of them can't be compared to this 'iron neck' guy because they can't be KOing their enemy.

nobama
08-22-2006, 01:43 PM
Apples and oranges, really. Both are icons in their respective sports. There's really no way to measure who's more dominant. Tiger dominates golf, and Roger dominates tennis. That's as simple as that.

Tiger though transcends golf. He has brought more people to golf than Roger has to tennis. This has nothing to do with their citizenships. Johny Mac never had the same effect during his dominance. You could show Tiger's and Roger's pics deep in the heart of Africa, more people would recognize Tiger.

There was an interesting article in the Sports Illustrasted last month. A journeyman golfer will earn close to a million dollar this year thanks to Tiger Woods. The man is simply bigger than golf, bigger than any sport. Roger will never accomplish what Tiger has. So comparing Roger to Tiger doesn't do the former justice at all.Again the question posed in this thread is who is more dominant, not who is more well known around the world, who has done more for their sport, who will be known as the greatest athlete of all time, blah. I think we can all agree that both dominate their respective sport. The rest of it is meaningless because there aren't many athletes, if any that can be compared with Tiger Woods.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 02:24 PM
Except then we'd have to see Tiger play golf on four different types of grass, and even then, it's still grass.
Actually there is a lot more variety in golf with different types of courses. Links courses, then courses which are longer, shorter, longer rough, tougher bunkers etc.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 02:25 PM
Spot on :yeah: Tiger is a pure class act in any situation while Roger is an arrogant prick in victory and a sore loser in defeat... :rolleyes: :zzz:
:D :kiss: you're learning!

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 02:26 PM
Ok now you're just being an arseclown. That's great that you have so much admiration for TW. But that has f*ck all to do with who is more dominant and which sport is more difficult to dominate.
I was merely pointing out the facts, no need to get upset with me that Roger doesn't handle things with the same integrity as Tiger :shrug:

denisgiann
08-22-2006, 03:20 PM
Golf is a sport? :tape: :tape: :haha: :haha: Αre you serious? Α handfull of bearbellies walking around with a stick and try to put it in a hole? It is just a game my friends(and a waste of space if you ask me).If you consider those bearbellies athletes then the word athlete lost its meaning.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 03:29 PM
Golf is a sport? :tape: :tape: :haha: :haha: Αre you serious? Α handfull of bearbellies walking around with a stick and try to put it in a hole? It is just a game my friends(and a waste of space if you ask me).If you consider those bearbellies athletes then the word athlete lost its meaning.
What's a bearbelly? :scratch:

Veronique
08-22-2006, 03:30 PM
Again the question posed in this thread is who is more dominant, not who is more well known around the world, who has done more for their sport, who will be known as the greatest athlete of all time, blah. I think we can all agree that both dominate their respective sport. The rest of it is meaningless because there aren't many athletes, if any that can be compared with Tiger Woods.

Of course I know what the question was and I already addressed that part. However you just don't do any athlete justice by comparing them to Tiger Woods in any way. It diminishes them tremendously. I felt that needed to be said as well.

wcr
08-22-2006, 04:14 PM
It's a tie!

They've both won the Laureus World Sportsman of the Year twice. Roger in 2006 and 2005 and Tiger in 2001 and 2000.

http://www.laureus.com/awards/award_winners/past_winners.php

bokehlicious
08-22-2006, 04:15 PM
no need to get upset with me that Roger doesn't handle things with the same integrity as Tiger :shrug:

If I were you I'd fix up my translator asap when it comes to Federer, as I'm not sure we're actually talking about the same Roger :confused:

dkw
08-22-2006, 05:27 PM
Doesn't Tiger actually have a Grand Slam??? :p couldn't resist!

nobama
08-22-2006, 05:30 PM
Doesn't Tiger actually have a Grand Slam??? :p couldn't resist!Um, no he's never won all four majors in the same year. ;)

nobama
08-22-2006, 05:33 PM
Of course I know what the question was and I already addressed that part. However you just don't do any athlete justice by comparing them to Tiger Woods in any way. It diminishes them tremendously. I felt that needed to be said as well.Of course. Take the greatest tennis player - Laver, Borg, Sampras and they couldn't compete with Tiger either. I don't even know if Michael Jordan can at this point.

nobama
08-22-2006, 05:35 PM
I was merely pointing out the facts, no need to get upset with me that Roger doesn't handle things with the same integrity as Tiger :shrug:I'm not upset with you, just merely pointing out that your're an arseclown. But I guess even arseclowns are allowed to have their opinions.

nobama
08-22-2006, 05:40 PM
Actually there is a lot more variety in golf with different types of courses. Links courses, then courses which are longer, shorter, longer rough, tougher bunkers etc.Ok now you're really stretching it. :lol: I'll agree with you on links style vs what we have in the USA but the rest of it doesn't mean shit as was evidenced by the low scoring this past week. It's a major championship (supposed to be played on the toughest courses) and the winning score is 19 under par? And we're supposed to believe it's more challenging because it's a long course with narrow fairways and deep rough? :haha:

DrJules
08-22-2006, 05:45 PM
Is tennis a more skillfull and demanding sport than golf?

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 05:46 PM
If I were you I'd fix up my translator asap when it comes to Federer, as I'm not sure we're actually talking about the same Roger :confused:
I think we are....the arrogant Swiss lad ;)

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 05:47 PM
I'm not upset with you, just merely pointing out that your're an arseclown. But I guess even arseclowns are allowed to have their opinions.
Indeed, otherwise you wouldn't be here :hug:

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 05:49 PM
Ok now you're really stretching it. :lol: I'll agree with you on links style vs what we have in the USA but the rest of it doesn't mean shit as was evidenced by the low scoring this past week. It's a major championship (supposed to be played on the toughest courses) and the winning score is 19 under par? And we're supposed to believe it's more challenging because it's a long course with narrow fairways and deep rough? :haha:
Medinah was long in terms of yardage, but it didn't play long because of the elevated tees.

It's tough to get the right balance at the moment, if players are shooting over par then they criticise the course and say that's not what golf's about....personally, I'd love to see more challenging courses but I can respect the other side of the coin.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 05:50 PM
Is tennis a more skillfull and demanding sport than golf?
Skillful - No
Physically demanding - Yes
Mentally demanding - No

DrJules
08-22-2006, 05:55 PM
Skillful - No
Mentally demanding - No

Tennis requires much faster decision making and constructing shots on minimal time scales. Golfers do not have the time restraints.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 05:57 PM
Tennis requires much faster decision making and constructing shots on minimal time scales. Golfers do not have the time restraints.
That doesn't make it any more skillful though.

And if golfers play too slowly, they get put on the clock ;)

All_Slam_Andre
08-22-2006, 06:14 PM
We can the measure the players success and winning percentages in their fields, just by looking at the stats, but we can't measure how much more or less demanding golf is than tennis. The statistics of both their careers are the only evidence that we have in this arguement.

World Beater
08-22-2006, 07:43 PM
I'm not upset with you, just merely pointing out that your're an arseclown. But I guess even arseclowns are allowed to have their opinions.

you are discussing with someone who forms his opinions on players based on how that player's name sounds. :rolleyes:

marcRD
08-22-2006, 07:55 PM
Golf is an elitist sports where proffesionals are often middle aged men from rich families. Just look at top golfer like Mickelson and say he looks like an athlete to you. Golf is not nearly as international as tennis aswell.

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

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

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? :lol:

I hate it when people say that and dont argue at all.

What did I say wrong? Is there art in golf, if so what is the art, show me some shots by Tiger woods which makes us cheer for the beauty of the clip, like there are hundreds by Federer.

Is there athletism in golf? Montgomery and Mickelson certanly doesnt look like athletes to me, why do they never seat or become tired by playing golf?

Do the opponents challenge you in golf? how, there is no interaction between the athletes. Everyone play their games and dont need to even think about opponents.

There are many who are able to dominate in sports playing against everyone. Just look at athletism, there are many athletes who every week run against 100 others and havent lost in years. Or how about cyclism, there have been many dominants in that sport, many who have won 5 years straight tour de france competing against 100 others. These sports also takes a physical effort which golf doesnt. So how do I not get anything? Please tell me.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:10 PM
Golf is not nearly as international as tennis aswell.
Completely untrue.

Yes you need to beat 140 opponents but that is not harder to do, then to beat one opponent in tennis.
:haha: that was joke, right? It's easier to beat 140 opponents than to beat 1? :spit:

Golf may be harder to learn but you can never become an artist in golf. Federer mis not only an athlete but also an artist, a genius with the ball. I cant call Tiger Woods and artist or an athlete or a genius..
Well this is down to opinion, but for me, Tiger is a genius and the way he plays golf is a lot more impressive and artistic than the way Federer plays tennis.

What did I say wrong? Is there art in golf, if so what is the art, show me some shots by Tiger woods which makes us cheer for the beauty of the clip, like there are hundreds by Federer.
There are loads, but as someone who clearly doesn't appreciate golfing brilliance they would be irrelevant to you. As someone who appreciates both sports, I am better placed to judge :)

Do the opponents challenge you in golf? how, there is no interaction between the athletes. Everyone play their games and dont need to even think about opponents.
Of course they need to think about their opponents, if someone is leading by 5 shots they've got a completely different strategy to if they were 2 shots behind the leader.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:11 PM
you are discussing with someone who forms his opinions on players based on how that player's name sounds. :rolleyes:
Good to see the Fedtards sticking up for each other :D

World Beater
08-22-2006, 08:18 PM
Good to see the Fedtards sticking up for each other :D

likewise... :rolleyes:

and yes good to see that your response centers to the degree of my fedtardism as opposed to the topic at hand.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:19 PM
likewise... :rolleyes:

and yes good to see that your response centers to the degree of my fedtardism as opposed to the topic at hand.
Whereas your post was a valuable input into the topic of the thread :worship:

World Beater
08-22-2006, 08:19 PM
Completely untrue.



There are loads, but as someone who clearly doesn't appreciate golfing brilliance they would be irrelevant to you. As someone who appreciates both sports, I am better placed to judge :)
.

given your bias to towards fed, this is highly questionable.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:20 PM
given your bias to towards fed, this is highly questionable.
Just because I don't like him and his fans, doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good shot ;)

marcRD
08-22-2006, 08:22 PM
Completely untrue.


:haha: that was joke, right? It's easier to beat 140 opponents than to beat 1? :spit:

1 opponent which challenges you and plays a style which can bother you (like Nadal against Federer) is harder than having your way without beeing challenged by 140 lesser players than you.




Well this is down to opinion, but for me, Tiger is a genius and the way he plays golf is a lot more impressive and artistic than the way Federer plays tennis.

He is not a genius, he doesnt even make the golf audiance go WOW! This is not about liking golf or tennis, watch a Federer match against Tiger Woods. The audiance goes WOW! many times, in golf they just applaud, there is no art in the game. Tiger woods is talented, but there is no beauty in the sport. I can admire his talent but not enjoy it.




Of course they need to think about their opponents, if someone is leading by 5 shots they've got a completely different strategy to if they were 2 shots behind the leader.

That is not the same thing as playing against some one, having to defeat him shot for shot. Go into rallies with him, get him in your head.

World Beater
08-22-2006, 08:22 PM
Whereas your post was a valuable input into the topic of the thread :worship:

no, i was merely responding to your accusation that tiger was a more modest champion, when that really didnt have anything to do with the thread. what i said was totally correct, which is why it got an unwarranted response from you. i was merely pointing out your lack of objectivity.

my fedtardism is totally irrelevant, and if you are really bright, you would know that i am not a fedtard. but you probably cant imagine how anyone would appreciate roger's tennis.

maybe if you actually opened your eyes, you would see that i posted earlier that i think tiger is more impressive.

marcRD
08-22-2006, 08:25 PM
Golf is an elitist sport, played by few upper middle class and rich boys. Enjoyed by mostly an anglosaxian audiance. All slams are in anglo countries, 3 in the US. Golf is mostly ignored in southern europe, latin america, eastern europe and other places where tennis is very popular.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:29 PM
1 opponent which challenges you and plays a style which can bother you (like Nadal against Federer) is harder than having your way without beeing challenged by 140 lesser players than you.
Ok so we've worked out that there is 1 player who's style gives Federer trouble. What about the other 6 "near impossible" matches Federer has to play to win a Grand Slam :scratch: In golf, all 140 players are capable of winning - simply not the case in tennis.

He is not a genius, he doesnt even make the golf audiance go WOW! This is not about liking golf or tennis, watch a Federer match against Tiger Woods. The audiance goes WOW! many times, in golf they just applaud, there is no art in the game. Tiger woods is talented, but there is no beauty in the sport. I can admire his talent but not enjoy it.
Actually, Woods never fails to make me watch in disbelieft at how impressive he is. If you watch an event with someone who knows about golf, they'll mutter some words about that being an amazing shot several times in a round of Tiger's. They might not shout "wow" but that's just because it's a different sport. I've never heard anyone shout "wow" about a cricket, basketball etc shot either, but it doesn't mean it wasn't incredible.

That is not the same thing as playing against some one, having to defeat him shot for shot. Go into rallies with him, get him in your head.
You go ask other golfers if playing with Tiger/battling it out at the top of the leaderboard with Tiger plays on their mind/gets in their head, and then get back to me ;)

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:31 PM
no, i was merely responding to your accusation that tiger was a more modest champion, when that really didnt have anything to do with the thread. what i said was totally correct, which is why it got an unwarranted response from you. i was merely pointing out your lack of objectivity.

my fedtardism is totally irrelevant, and if you are really bright, you would know that i am not a fedtard. but you probably cant imagine how anyone would appreciate roger's tennis.

maybe if you actually opened your eyes, you would see that i posted earlier that i think tiger is more impressive.
No you weren't, you were having an unnecessary, hurtful dig at me :sad:

I have nothing against people who appreciate Federer's tennis, I have a problem with Fedtards :kiss:

And well done, your medal is in the post :hatoff:

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:33 PM
Golf is an elitist sport, played by few upper middle class and rich boys. Enjoyed by mostly an anglosaxian audiance. All slams are in anglo countries, 3 in the US. Golf is mostly ignored in southern europe, latin america, eastern europe and other places where tennis is very popular.
You need to check your facts :o

I would say golf is bigger than tennis in pretty much every continent.

marcRD
08-22-2006, 08:37 PM
Actually, Woods never fails to make me watch in disbelieft at how impressive he is. If you watch an event with someone who knows about golf, they'll mutter some words about that being an amazing shot several times in a round of Tiger's. They might not shout "wow" but that's just because it's a different sport. I've never heard anyone shout "wow" about a cricket, basketball etc shot either, but it doesn't mean it wasn't incredible.


That is because there is no art in any of these games. The way I see it there are 2 geniuses in sport right now, 2 great artists. Ronaldinho and Federer, then there are figure skaters who are all great artists (specialy Lambiel and Pushenko). Saying a shot is impressive doesnt mean it is art or beautiful. Note that you say impressive while I would say Federer never fails to make me watch in disbelief at how BEAUTIFUL he plays the sport. Beauty is not the same thing as perfection or beeing impressive.

Also you cant argue that your opponent is much more important in tennis than in golf, you have to all the time adapt to surface and players. You actualy have to defeat your opponent and not play better than him. The differense is huge. If u want to you can in golf pretend the opponents doesnt exist. Ofcourse if your opponent is ahead of you u need to risk more, but that is not facing your opponent or defeating him.

marcRD
08-22-2006, 08:41 PM
You need to check your facts :o

I would say golf is bigger than tennis in pretty much every continent.

No way! Maybe in money but not in the number of people watching golf.
Golf is only big in countries like south africa and india (only in the upper classes in these countries) because of the anglo influense. In latin america, souther europe and eastern european countries golf is nothing, no one watches golf.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:43 PM
That is because there is no art in any of these games. The way I see it there are 2 geniuses in sport right now, 2 great artists. Ronaldinho and Federer, then there are figure skaters who are all great artists (specialy Lambiel and Pushenko). Saying a shot is impressive doesnt mean it is art or beautiful. Note that you say impressive while I would say Federer never fails to make me watch in disbelief at how BEAUTIFUL he plays the sport. Beauty is not the same thing as perfection or beeing impressive.

Also you cant argue that your opponent is much more important in tennis than in golf, you have to all the time adapt to surface and players. You actualy have to defeat your opponent and not play better than him. The differense is huge. If u want to you can in golf pretend the opponents doesnt exist. Ofcourse if your opponent is ahead of you u need to risk more, but that is not facing your opponent or defeating him.
Ronaldinho :worship: there we are, we agree about something at last :)

People have different opinions, for me I don't find watching Federer play "beautiful". I find it rather boring, especially when he's whitewashing some no-hoper.

That isn't the crux of my argument. You said it's easier to defeat 140 opponents in golf than it is to defeat 1 in tennis. This is complete and utter nonsense. If there was a grand slam where all the players competing were capable of winning, and Federer dominated the way he currently does then maybe you'd have an argument. But the last few grand slams there's probably 2 or 3 people capable of winning, making most of the matches Federer is playing completely and utterly pointless. He can play at 30% of his best and he'd still win. If Woods played at 30% he'd find himself well down the field.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:45 PM
No way! Maybe in money but not in the number of people watching golf.
Golf is only big in countries like south africa and india because of the anglo influense. In latin america, souther europe and eastern european countries golf is nothing, no one watches golf.
Golf is beginning to become huge in Asia. It's bigger in America, most parts of Europe, and pretty much everywhere I can think of. Russia is one of the few countries that spring to mind that tennis is probably more watched.

bokehlicious
08-22-2006, 08:46 PM
I would say golf is bigger than tennis in pretty much every continent.

Don't be silly buddy ;)

marcRD
08-22-2006, 08:48 PM
Bakelele and Powell also faces 100s of opponents every week and hasnt lost in years in athletism.

marcRD
08-22-2006, 08:48 PM
the top 15 in golf are all english speaking, that is how itnernational golf is.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:49 PM
Bakelele and Powell also faces 100s of opponents every week and hasnt lost in years in athletism.
Drugs are a marvellous thing :p

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:50 PM
the top 15 in golf are all english speaking, that is how itnernational golf is.
Just because America dominates the sport, doesn't mean it isn't international.

marcRD
08-22-2006, 08:56 PM
Golf is beginning to become huge in Asia. It's bigger in America, most parts of Europe, and pretty much everywhere I can think of. Russia is one of the few countries that spring to mind that tennis is probably more watched.

what places in europe except great brittain (maybe...) and ireland?
Huge among the new rich guys in the asian growing economies, who cares?

The only place in the world where people outside the elite is actualy interested in golf is the USA, in the rest of the world only the rich guys care.

Tennis is much more popular among the poor and middle class, just watch davis cup to understand.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 08:59 PM
what places in europe except great brittain (maybe...) and ireland?
Huge among the new rich guys in the asian growing economies, who cares?

The only place in the world where people outside the elite is actualy interested in golf is the USA, in the rest of the world only the rich guys care.

Tennis is much more popular among the poor and middle class, just watch davis cup to understand.
Most parts of Europe. Britain, Ireland, the whole of Scandinavia, Germany, Spain (probably) etc.

Tennis is extremely upper class as well, maybe not quite as much as golf but it's not far off.

marcRD
08-22-2006, 08:59 PM
Who cares about golf in Brazil, France, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Chile, Russia, Croatia, Germany?

marcRD
08-22-2006, 09:00 PM
Most parts of Europe. Britain, Ireland, the whole of Scandinavia, Germany, Spain (probably) etc.

Tennis is extremely upper class as well, maybe not quite as much as golf but it's not far off.

tennis is bigger in germany and much, much bigger in spain. Not even comparable. In scandinavia too. I am only doubtful about GB.

marcRD
08-22-2006, 09:01 PM
Most parts of Europe. Britain, Ireland, the whole of Scandinavia, Germany, Spain (probably) etc.

Tennis is extremely upper class as well, maybe not quite as much as golf but it's not far off.

I have never seen a Rios in golf. Have you?

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 09:02 PM
tennis is bigger in germany and much, much bigger in spain. Not even comparable. In scandinavia too. I am only doubtful about GB.
I'd be inclined to disagree about Germany.

And Spain is debatable, they have a lot of professional tennis players but as to whether it is bigger than golf I'm unsure. Seve and Sergio have made golf pretty popular over there, and there are a hell of a lot of golf courses.

marcRD
08-22-2006, 09:02 PM
tennis is a middle class sport, golf a rich man sport.

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 09:03 PM
I have never seen a Rios in golf. Have you?
Tennis is probably bigger than golf in Chile :)

jenanun
08-22-2006, 09:07 PM
so now... golf vs tennis?

well, golf is definately more popular than tennis....
(consider the aging population.....)

adee-gee
08-22-2006, 09:09 PM
This isn't really going anywhere, perhaps we should just agree to disagree :lol:

Beforehand
08-22-2006, 09:27 PM
People have different opinions, for me I don't find watching Federer play "beautiful". I find it rather boring, especially when he's whitewashing some no-hoper.

I'm not sure you can disqualify the beauty of anyone who plays a sport with the fact that the competitor can't keep up.

nobama
08-22-2006, 11:26 PM
tennis is a middle class sport, golf a rich man sport. Have you been to a golf course recently? :scratch: Maybe that was the case in the past but not anymore.

nobama
08-22-2006, 11:29 PM
Just because America dominates the sport, doesn't mean it isn't international.How is it international when the majority of the time the best players in the world are playing in one country? There are four World Golf events and three of them are played in the United States. Yeah you have different tours, like the European, Asian tours, but the best players play more events in the United States than anywhere else. Tiger Woods will go play in Dubai or Shanghai when he gets paid millions in appearance fees.

nobama
08-22-2006, 11:37 PM
Medinah was long in terms of yardage, but it didn't play long because of the elevated tees.

It's tough to get the right balance at the moment, if players are shooting over par then they criticise the course and say that's not what golf's about....personally, I'd love to see more challenging courses but I can respect the other side of the coin.With the technology today (clubs and balls) there's not much they can do to courses to make them more challenging. Medinah was a joke.

tripb19
08-22-2006, 11:53 PM
Anyone here play a lot of both sports? I'm playing 9 holes this morning and playing tennis his afternoon. :) Two greatest sports on Earth.

Individual of course. I'm all about me.

tripb19
08-22-2006, 11:58 PM
Also I don't think you can say in golf that you are beating 140 opponents each time.

You are playing yourself, and by yourself. You are trying to play the best that you can do, and Tiger's best is the best in the world. He doesn't beat 140 other players, he produces the lowest score.

Mistaflava
08-23-2006, 02:14 AM
With the technology today (clubs and balls) there's not much they can do to courses to make them more challenging. Medinah was a joke.



Tiger by a very large margin...end of story.

Macbrother
08-23-2006, 02:53 AM
With the technology today (clubs and balls) there's not much they can do to courses to make them more challenging. Medinah was a joke.
There's plenty they can do. Did you miss Winged Foot, 2006 U.S. Open? The winning score was +5 to par. Due to weather the greens at Medinah were much slower, allowing golfers to attack the flag getting causing much more birdies. A balance is there, it just has to be found.

And golf is hardly a rich man's sport, lower end courses where I am run as low as $15 for 18, a cheap bag of clubs for less than $100. I suppose mileage may vary.

Yoda
08-23-2006, 05:28 AM
Also I don't think you can say in golf that you are beating 140 opponents each time.

You are playing yourself, and by yourself. You are trying to play the best that you can do, and Tiger's best is the best in the world. He doesn't beat 140 other players, he produces the lowest score.

Good point.

Out of curiosity what is Tiger's matchplay record. One on one over 18holes.
Has he won 7 matches in a row with the opponents getting progressively stronger.

Using arguements like 'he beats 140 people compared to 7' is a bit skewed.

However personally, winning a golf slam is harder than a tennis slam imo. :)

shaoyu
08-23-2006, 05:33 AM
Also I don't think you can say in golf that you are beating 140 opponents each time.

You are playing yourself, and by yourself. You are trying to play the best that you can do, and Tiger's best is the best in the world. He doesn't beat 140 other players, he produces the lowest score.

I think those people who claim golf is harder because you have to beat over a hundred players rather than tennis' 7 rounds misunderstand the effect of different tournament formats. A scoring system is not harder than a single elimination system. By their logic, track and field would always be harder than any match-play sport; marathon would be way more difficult than golf as you need to beat thousands of atheletes in one tournament.

denisgiann
08-23-2006, 07:36 AM
Golf is such a demanding "sport" that after the game you can run a marathon if you want.Are we kidding ourselves here? Υου compare the titles of one person that has to deal with injuries coming from such a physical demanding sport with a guy that doesnt even carry his own clubs :haha: :haha: :haha: .Are you for real people? Do you honestly believe that the strain to the body is the same? And to do that week after week? Νext thing you know you are going to make a poll about Federer and Κasparov.

mecir72
08-23-2006, 09:07 AM
The big difference is as has been said many times the difficulty in being consistent in golf. Heck even I can go out and shoot lower than the pros sometimes but I cant do anything against a pro tennisplayer, and I am a better tennisplayer than golfer.

bokehlicious
08-23-2006, 01:39 PM
I think those people who claim golf is harder because you have to beat over a hundred players rather than tennis' 7 rounds misunderstand the effect of different tournament formats. A scoring system is not harder than a single elimination system. By their logic, track and field would always be harder than any match-play sport; marathon would be way more difficult than golf as you need to beat thousands of atheletes in one tournament.

Good input.

bokehlicious
08-23-2006, 01:42 PM
Tiger by a very large margin...end of story.

I think the mods should close every discussion right after the true genius of this forum has stated the truth... end of story.

adee-gee
09-05-2006, 01:27 AM
Absolutely brilliant :worship:

5 straight tournament victories for Tiger :bowdown:

Started the day 3 shots behind Vijay Singh, and shot a remarkable 63 to win by 2 shots. Quite incredible.

adee-gee
02-27-2008, 06:46 PM
*bump*

Fascinating article http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A32772125

The gap between Tiger and Phil Mickelson (the world #2) is bigger than the gap between Phil Mickelson and the worst professionally ranked golfer in the world. A quite astounding fact. Beat that Roger ;)

Jaap
02-27-2008, 06:47 PM
Can't compare golf and Tennis. Tennis is far more demanding.

ExcaliburII
02-27-2008, 06:50 PM
Can't compare golf and Tennis. Tennis is far more demanding.

:haha: :retard:

adee-gee
02-27-2008, 06:53 PM
Can't compare golf and Tennis. Tennis is far more demanding.
Physically yes, but not mentally. And golf is so much harder to dominate, which makes Tiger's feats all the more impressive. Tiger winning 2 majors in a year is a far greater achievement than Federer winning 3 slams in my eyes.

Boris Franz Ecker
02-27-2008, 06:55 PM
Greatest sportsman of this generation without a doubt :worship:

Nonsense.

Not even a sportsman.

adee-gee
02-27-2008, 06:57 PM
Nonsense.

Not even a sportsman.
Stop talking out your backside.

Federer is the one we should be debating whether he's a sportsman or not, considering his ballerina tendencies.

Dimonator133
02-27-2008, 06:58 PM
Tiger is far more dominant in a sport that is far more difficult to dominate. Never has that been more the case than right now.

:bowdown:Eldrick T. Woods:worship:

Boris Franz Ecker
02-27-2008, 07:01 PM
Golf is only called a sport in countries as England, where they call Snooker, Darts, etc. a sport.
Golf is nothing compared to tennis.

Woods needn't to leave the USA the whole year and could still be no 1 easily.
Look at poor Federer boy. He has no home advantage, he has no old men as opponents, he has no fat men as opponents... That is in no way comparable to Golf

Jaap
02-27-2008, 07:04 PM
True, any old fat mug can play golf. Just look at Montgomorie(sp?) and Phil Daley. I would rate it on the same level as Darts and Snooker.

Jaap
02-27-2008, 07:06 PM
Physically yes, but not mentally. And golf is so much harder to dominate, which makes Tiger's feats all the more impressive. Tiger winning 2 majors in a year is a far greater achievement than Federer winning 3 slams in my eyes.

Mug era in golf at the moment.

Corey Feldman
02-27-2008, 07:06 PM
3 majors in a season - Tiger one
3 slams in a season - Federer three

GSM Federer.

Corey Feldman
02-27-2008, 07:07 PM
Mug era in golf at the moment.true

I like Els and Singh but they turn to shite when Tiger is around the leaderboard.......... Els time and time again, Dubai a few weeks ago for the 40th time

Boris Franz Ecker
02-27-2008, 07:09 PM
is Phil Taylor greater than Tiger Woods?

Dimonator133
02-27-2008, 07:10 PM
Mug era in golf at the moment.

expected comment.

It's only perceived as such an era BECAUSE of Tiger. Duh. Mickelson, Singh, and Els would all have incredible amounts of Grand Slams and tournament wins without Tiger around. Garcia would be a multiple Major winner as opposed to zero. In reality, this is the best era of golf right now. That Tiger is still putting everyone to shame is even more amazing.

Corey Feldman
02-27-2008, 07:23 PM
expected comment.

It's only perceived as such an era BECAUSE of Tiger. Duh. Mickelson, Singh, and Els would all have incredible amounts of Grand Slams and tournament wins without Tiger around. Garcia would be a multiple Major winner as opposed to zero. In reality, this is the best era of golf right now. That Tiger is still putting everyone to shame is even more amazing.
Dont agree with that

look at the amount of golf mugs who have won majors lately

where do i start? Beem, Micheel, Hamilton , Curtis, Johnson, Cabrera, Ogilvy, Michael Campbell

and if i remember Woods was beaten out by 4 of them :spit:

Apemant
02-27-2008, 08:16 PM
expected comment.

It's only perceived as such an era BECAUSE of Tiger.

Exactly. Now what does this remind me of? :scratch:

camnation
02-27-2008, 08:27 PM
I agree with the "golf is more difficult to dominate than tennis" argument. I'm not a fan of Tiger Woods, but I can admit I'm in awe of him. If Tiger retired, then the number one player right now would be Phil Mickelson, who while is a great player, can be very inconsistent.

Plus if you look at the margin between number one and number 2 in both sports, Tiger is more dominant.

adee-gee
02-27-2008, 08:28 PM
Golf is only called a sport in countries as England, where they call Snooker, Darts, etc. a sport.
Golf is nothing compared to tennis.
Post some videos of you playing golf :yeah:
Mug era in golf at the moment.
No, just a genius at the top :cool:
3 majors in a season - Tiger one
3 slams in a season - Federer three

GSM Federer.
All 4 majors won - Tiger two
All 4 slams won - Federer zero

All 4 majors held at the same time - Tiger one
All 4 slams held at the same time - Federer zero

GSM Tiger.
Dont agree with that

look at the amount of golf mugs who have won majors lately

where do i start? Beem, Micheel, Hamilton , Curtis, Johnson, Cabrera, Ogilvy, Michael Campbell

and if i remember Woods was beaten out by 4 of them :spit:
:lol: this exactly proves the point how hard it is to dominate at golf. If someone has a great 4 days they're capable of winning a major.....when did we last have a surprise winner of a slam in tennis?

ExcaliburII
02-27-2008, 08:30 PM
In tennis you can have a bad day and still win the match and advance. If you have a bad day in golf, forget about the whole tournament. Is much more difficult to win a golf tournament than a tennis tournament.
A minor tennis tournament only 32 players, minor golf tournamet 120+ players.

Dimonator133
02-27-2008, 09:06 PM
Excalibur and adeegeezinho:worship:

Corey Feldman
02-27-2008, 09:27 PM
All 4 majors won - Tiger two
All 4 slams won - Federer zero

All 4 majors held at the same time - Tiger one
All 4 slams held at the same time - Federer zero

GSM Tiger.

:lol: this exactly proves the point how hard it is to dominate at golf. If someone has a great 4 days they're capable of winning a major.....when did we last have a surprise winner of a slam in tennis?If Tiger was as much a god as you say, then he'd have found a way to beat them

A minor tennis tournament only 32 players, minor golf tournamet 120+ players. So winning over a field where majority of players are fat 40+ year olds is acchievment of the century :lol:

more than half are mugs that cant break PAR

7 long hard physical matches > 4 days of walking in the park

Dimonator133
02-27-2008, 09:36 PM
If Tiger was as much a god as you say, then he'd have found a way to beat them

snorefest. FYI golf is a sport where it's physically impossible to be THAT much better than EVERYONE else four days a week 52 weeks a year.

So winning over a field where majority of players are fat 40+ year olds is acchievment of the century :lol:

Tiger doesn't make the rules of golf. The sport is such that fat 40+ year olds can be amazing at it. Tiger dominates the hand he is dealt, and it is an amazing hand - whether its fat 40 year olds or Adam Scotts.

more than half are mugs that cant break PAR

this clinches the fact that you don't watch golf. On some courses -25 for 4 rounds is mediocre, on U.S. Open courses WAY OVER PAR often wins the tournament. So I really don't understand what your point about mugs breaking par is.

Corey Feldman
02-27-2008, 09:50 PM
this clinches the fact that you don't watch golf. On some courses -25 for 4 rounds is mediocre, on U.S. Open courses WAY OVER PAR often wins the tournament. So I really don't understand what your point about mugs breaking par is.I watch plenty of golf, but even in high scoring events - half the field wont broke par, and you will see them go down from there +1, +2, +3 etc

was my way of laughing at the guy who was amazed 'Tiger needs to beat 120 players every week WOW' :lol: dont make it sound like he is shooting 63 as the rest of the 119 players all shot 64.

Tiger has missed cuts, finished in mid-field many tournaments and had his No.1 taken several times... Federer hasnt allowed such slopiness during his years of domination.

theDreamer
02-27-2008, 10:20 PM
The fact that this thread is this long confirms something:
A consistent comparison btw Fed(Tennis) and Tiger(golf) is not
possible, obviously due to major differences in the mode of competition
in the two sports.
All we can say is this: They are both amazingly dominant in their respective
sports. :shrug:
And I venture that if they both swapped sports, and had the same high level
of talent with respect to their competition as they do in their own sports,
their acheivements would be pretty much the same.

adee-gee
02-27-2008, 10:40 PM
If Tiger was as much a god as you say, then he'd have found a way to beat them

So winning over a field where majority of players are fat 40+ year olds is acchievment of the century :lol:

more than half are mugs that cant break PAR

7 long hard physical matches > 4 days of walking in the park
What an absolute, steaming pile of bull.

Come on Mikey, I know for a fact you like golf. And I'm pretty sure you don't believe what you're saying, you're letting your love for Federer blind your true feelings.

Corey Feldman
02-27-2008, 10:50 PM
.. what i am saying is... golf is no more a harder sport than tennis ;)

even if i have to diss a sport i love, its a different kind of skill for me

adee-gee
02-27-2008, 10:59 PM
.. what i am saying is... golf is no more a harder sport than tennis ;)

even if i have to diss a sport i love, its a different kind of skill for me
I think it's a lot harder actually. There are so many better tennis players than there are golfers.

But anyway, that's not my point. My point is how hard it is to win tournaments. I think it takes so much more to outscore 150 odd other players than it does to defeat 4-7 players on a 1 on 1 when you're the best.

Corey Feldman
02-27-2008, 11:11 PM
if Golf had the matchplay format for the majors and all events Woods may never have won as much as he has or dominated ...

look how lucky he got last week v 2 players in early rounds

Tiger has shot a poor round many a time in majors and still won (unlike the guy who said you're out of it if you have a bad round) in matchplay, he woulda been a goner.

if any tennis player has that same bad day, they are a goner - no comeback the next day.

stebs
02-27-2008, 11:14 PM
I think it takes so much more to outscore 150 odd other players than it does to defeat 4-7 players on a 1 on 1 when you're the best.

Yet woods has always found it easier to win against fields than in matchplay scenario's which contrasts with your opinion directly.

adee-gee
02-27-2008, 11:24 PM
Tiger has shot a poor round many a time in majors and still won (unlike the guy who said you're out of it if you have a bad round) in matchplay, he woulda been a goner.

if any tennis player has that same bad day, they are a goner - no comeback the next day.
One of Tiger's strengths is he can have a poor round but not shoot such a bad score which usually keeps him within range. Other players if they have a poor round are out of contention.

Federer can play like utter shite against 95% of players in the world and still win.
Yet woods has always found it easier to win against fields than in matchplay scenario's which contrasts with your opinion directly.
He's not keen on the format, he's made that known. If matchplay was the only format used in golf and there was no such thing as strokeplay, he would've mastered it by now. Playing it once or twice a year makes it tough, it's a completely different mentality.

adee-gee
02-27-2008, 11:30 PM
My honest opinion is this.... (putting my love of Woods and dislike of Federer aside).

Who has been more dominant? Probably Federer, winning 3 slams a year and winning the vast majority of tournaments he's entered for the last 5 years or so could easily be described as having complete control over the sport.

However, when I take into account the difficulty in dominating their respective sports, Tiger is streets ahead. In my eyes, it would be almost impossible for a tennis player to "match" the feats achieved by Woods.

If Tiger were to win all 4 majors this year as looks somehow possible, there would be no way for Federer to catch him.

Corey Feldman
02-27-2008, 11:44 PM
Valid points

of course Woods is older, has been at the top far longer and will still be some 15 more years

hopefully Vijay will kick his arse a few more times ;) :help:

adee-gee
02-27-2008, 11:46 PM
The only arse Vijay should kick is his own :o

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 12:06 AM
Just when you couldnt like him any more Adam :hug: was a nice bit in BBCSPORT today from VJ talking about Tiger's dominance and i think the word "luck" was used in there somewhere ;):lol:

VJ, Says what he wants and doesnt give a flock... what a guy :worship:

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 12:11 AM
Vijay is such an arse :o

Now Monty is a guy who knows what he's talking about......he even brings in MTF words to make the comments more applicable for us :hatoff:

"You have to remember the competition in 1945, just after the war, was nothing like it is now," he said.

"This is a very, very stiff competition that Tiger Woods is beating week-in week-out.

"These guys from number two to number 10 in the world are no mugs ( :lol: ), they are very good indeed and to be beating them on a regular basis by a lot is incredible to witness."

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 12:15 AM
:haha: Monty

he needs a good few weeks or no Masters :sad: but in tennis terms - he's a Mathieu under pressure :awww:

ExcaliburII
02-28-2008, 12:17 AM
all of you who are talking shit about golf, have you ever played?

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 12:19 AM
:haha: Monty

he needs a good few weeks or no Masters :sad: but in tennis terms - he's a Mathieu under pressure :awww:
Worse :sad: at least PHM has never choked away a slam, Monty has chucked away about a million chances :silly:
all of you who are talking shit about golf, have you ever played?
:yeah:

It's damn hard :lol: my handicap at its best was like 13, but I don't play enough anymore, it'd probably be down to about 20.

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 12:22 AM
Play Golf here

and i'm damn good at it

ExcaliburII
02-28-2008, 12:23 AM
I am playing 3 right now, and will be 2 next monday. And I played some proffesional tournaments and I cant tell you that the pressure and strees is much more higher than the one a proffesional tennist has.

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 06:32 AM
My honest opinion is this.... (putting my love of Woods and dislike of Federer aside).


:tape: :haha: :p

theDreamer
02-28-2008, 07:53 AM
My honest opinion is this.... (putting my love of Woods and dislike of Federer aside).

Who has been more dominant? Probably Federer, winning 3 slams a year and winning the vast majority of tournaments he's entered for the last 5 years or so could easily be described as having complete control over the sport.

However, when I take into account the difficulty in dominating their respective sports, Tiger is streets ahead. In my eyes, it would be almost impossible for a tennis player to "match" the feats achieved by Woods.

If Tiger were to win all 4 majors this year as looks somehow possible, there would be no way for Federer to catch him.

You keep talking about how golf is more difficult to dominate, but that is a subjective
opinion. There are no clear undebatable reason(s) to suggest this is actually so.

sports freak
02-28-2008, 09:19 AM
Tiger Woods may go down as the GREATEST SPORTSPERSON EVER,PAST n PRESENT to FUTURE!!

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 09:40 AM
You keep talking about how golf is more difficult to dominate, but that is a subjective
opinion. There are no clear undebatable reason(s) to suggest this is actually so.
It's absolutely undeniable.

theDreamer
02-28-2008, 10:30 AM
It's absolutely undeniable.

because...?

(give a quick list of all your reasons):angel:

Jaap
02-28-2008, 10:41 AM
If Tiger Woods was fat, white and middle aged, would he still be held in the same regard?

hmmmmmmmmm

Jaap
02-28-2008, 10:44 AM
It's absolutely undeniable.

No way.

Commander Data
02-28-2008, 11:03 AM
Who is the better musician Beethoven or Bach?

HNCS
02-28-2008, 11:52 AM
Who is the better musician Beethoven or Bach?


Beethoven :angel: just the majesty of his work compared with bach's more monotonic work. just my opinion.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 12:01 PM
It's absolutely undeniable.

no, it's only absolutely undeniable amongst sane people

Action Jackson
02-28-2008, 12:02 PM
If Tiger Woods was fat, white and middle aged, would he still be held in the same regard?

hmmmmmmmmm

Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus, not sure if they are black.

Don't bring the racial shit into this.

ExcaliburII
02-28-2008, 12:44 PM
because...?

(give a quick list of all your reasons):angel:

winning a golf tournament is much more difficult than to win a tennis tournament.

The fields of players are always 120+
To win you have to play constant over 4 days
You should be better than every player playing, not just being better than your each day rival just 5,6, or 7 times.
Mental strength is a key factor, and its not easy to handle.
One bad shot could cost you the tournament, since there lots of players strokes behind in the hunt. In tennis a bad shot, its only 0-15.

ExcaliburII
02-28-2008, 12:47 PM
Who is the better musician Beethoven or Bach?

who is better physic, Newton or Einstein?

Definetely Beethoven. Bach just introduced some things into music. Beethoven made a paradigmatic change in it. Bach is the Isaac Newton of music, square and perfect things.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 12:56 PM
let me repeat it. to win a golf tournament you have to beat EVERYONE in the tournament. To win a tennis tournament you have to beat between FIVE and SEVEN players (unless you're Kei Nishikori). Case closed. End of discussion.

Jaap
02-28-2008, 12:59 PM
Tennis is one of few sports which has a gladiatorial feel about it. Its just you on your own against another competitor in a usually enclosed environment. Golf doesn't have the same effect I'm afraid.

ExcaliburII
02-28-2008, 01:08 PM
Have you watched golf at least once in your life?

Jaap
02-28-2008, 01:20 PM
Have you watched golf at least once in your life?

Golf is a mugs sport played by fat posh wankers.

Hope this helps.

ExcaliburII
02-28-2008, 01:23 PM
Golf is a mugs sport played by fat posh wankers.

Hope this helps.

It helps, but you didn`t answer my question.

Jaap
02-28-2008, 01:24 PM
It helps, but you didn`t answer my question.

Yes I have watched it and ever since I have been asking for them 4 or 5 hours back.

Never watched anything so boring. No atmosphere and no excitement.

ExcaliburII
02-28-2008, 01:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIirV1YDPGo&feature=related

Enjoy Incubus
02-28-2008, 01:26 PM
Of course Tiger :o
Mug thread, it's obvious Federer could not ever do what Tiger does. As Pablo said... winning a Golf tourney is much more difficult than winning a tennis one. And being as constant as Tiger is... is something I've not seen before in any other sportman.

Jaap
02-28-2008, 01:30 PM
Argentinian mugs saying Tiger because of Cabrera's major win last year.

Never in doubt.

theDreamer
02-28-2008, 01:32 PM
winning a golf tournament is much more difficult than to win a tennis tournament.

The fields of players are always 120+
To win you have to play constant over 4 days
You should be better than every player playing, not just being better than your each day rival just 5,6, or 7 times.
Mental strength is a key factor, and its not easy to handle.
One bad shot could cost you the tournament, since there lots of players strokes behind in the hunt. In tennis a bad shot, its only 0-15.

Responses to 1, 4 and 5
But only a handful of them are actually good enough to win over 4 days.
Mental strength is also a key factor in tennis, as is physical strength (not so in golf).
Add in the fact that in tennis, you are constantly having to react to your opponents'
shots, and that in general you're trying to remain agressive on each shot, of course
you going to miss - the key is there might be certain defining points in a match which
you CANT miss - think about it, Fed break points down in the final set against nadal -
he absolutely had to win those points. So I'd say this balances with your one bad shot
argument.

But overall, I guess I agree that winning a golf tournament is harder.
But this is not the issue.
We are talking about people who already have the talent, mental strength
and are miles better than everybody else in their sport.
The question then is when you're this good, what/who is there to stop you?
In tennis, there's injuries, bad match ups, bad match ups on relatively
weaker surfaces, hot opponents on bad days ...

In golf, there's bad days...and even then, if your bad day was the 1st/2nd
day, your opponents probably can't last 3/4 days, so you have some time
catch up...

Enjoy Incubus
02-28-2008, 01:36 PM
Argentinian mugs saying Tiger because of Cabrera's major win last year.

Never in doubt.
Haha, I was not even thinking about him when I gave my own opinion. You should play golf to understand what we're saying, it's not enough to see it. See, I play both golf and tennis, and I can see a huge difference in winning tourneys. One simple example: you could not ever win a golf tournament playing bad golf, instead I've seen tennis players winning tournaments playing really bad, but they win cause they're simply better than the other competitors. In golf, you don't win if you don't play well, that's why admire Tiger, he always play very very well, and when he fails some putts, he finishes 3rd or 4th.

theDreamer
02-28-2008, 01:40 PM
let me repeat it. to win a golf tournament you have to beat EVERYONE in the tournament. To win a tennis tournament you have to beat between FIVE and SEVEN players (unless you're Kei Nishikori). Case closed. End of discussion.

Nope. Case not closed.:) In golf, if you're already more skilled than all
your opponents, then just play your game and you'll probably win - no need
to consider your opponents' tactics, strengths and weaknesses, match up issues...

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 01:43 PM
because...?

(give a quick list of all your reasons):angel:
1) To win a golf tournament you must outscore 150 odd players. To win a tennis tournament you only need to beat 5-7 players.

2) In golf, you are not necessarily competing against one another. You are against the course. Therefore, any professional golfer is capable of producing outstanding rounds under par and there's nothing Woods can do about it. The majority of tennis players simply aren't able to raise their game to the level needed to beat the best players (hence the number of surprising major winners in golf and lack of surprises in tennis).

3) Golf is generally regarded as one of the most mentally demanding sports. To produce a string of tournament victories takes a hell of an effort, it is rarely seen in the sport. Tennis it is much more common.

4) As mentioned before, if you're the best at tennis you can play poorly and still win a lot of the time. In golf, if you play poorly for even 1/10th of a tournament you can be out of contention.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 01:54 PM
1) To win a golf tournament you must outscore 150 odd players. To win a tennis tournament you only need to beat 5-7 players.

2) In golf, you are not necessarily competing against one another. You are against the course. Therefore, any professional golfer is capable of producing outstanding rounds under par and there's nothing Woods can do about it. The majority of tennis players simply aren't able to raise their game to the level needed to beat the best players (hence the number of surprising major winners in golf and lack of surprises in tennis).

3) Golf is generally regarded as one of the most mentally demanding sports. To produce a string of tournament victories takes a hell of an effort, it is rarely seen in the sport. Tennis it is much more common.

4) As mentioned before, if you're the best at tennis you can play poorly and still win a lot of the time. In golf, if you play poorly for even 1/10th of a tournament you can be out of contention.

adeegeezinho is just annihilating people in this thread:worship:

point 1 was all that was necessary to win the argument, but I have to say point 2 was borderline flawless and really puts the exclamation point on it:worship:

Jaap
02-28-2008, 02:04 PM
Dimonator, you might as well suck Adeegee's dick while you are at it.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 02:17 PM
Dimonator, you might as well suck Adeegee's dick while you are at it.

i anticipated that comment word-for-word:lol:

but why are you so bent out of shape about me siding with adeegeezinho? That's, uh, a little...weird should I say....

it's an f-ing discussion for crying out loud. Not everyone is going to agree with you - especially when you intentionally pretend to be an idiot. Deal with it.

elessar
02-28-2008, 02:21 PM
1) To win a golf tournament you must outscore 150 odd players. To win a tennis tournament you only need to beat 5-7 players.
As it's been pointed out before, Tiger's record in match play is relatively poor, therefore winning against 150 odd players is easier to him and your argument is void

2) In golf, you are not necessarily competing against one another. You are against the course. Therefore, any professional golfer is capable of producing outstanding rounds under par and there's nothing Woods can do about it. The majority of tennis players simply aren't able to raise their game to the level needed to beat the best players (hence the number of surprising major winners in golf and lack of surprises in tennis).
If it was just a matter of who has the highest level of play, then federer would win all the time, even on clay since Nadal rellies heavily on his UE/FE to win.

3) Golf is generally regarded as one of the most mentally demanding sports. To produce a string of tournament victories takes a hell of an effort, it is rarely seen in the sport. Tennis it is much more common.
Golf may be a little more mentally demanding than tennis, but it's not a given. The fact that in tennis, you always have to be at the top mentally and physically means it's harder to be consistently good.
4) As mentioned before, if you're the best at tennis you can play poorly and still win a lot of the time. In golf, if you play poorly for even 1/10th of a tournament you can be out of contention.
In tennis, if you play poorly for 1/7th of a GS, you don't even get to play the rest of the tournament

The truth is there's absolutely no way to know who's more dominant. Now we can all continue to use even more fallacious arguments to prove our points, but it's always gonna come down to personnal preferences.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 02:25 PM
In tennis, if you play poorly for 1/7th of a GS, you don't even get to play the rest of the tournament

:haha::haha:

if you play poorly for 1/7th of a golf tournament (ie about 9 holes), you have no chance of winning the tournament (other than, of course, Tiger at the 1997 Masters)

In tennis, not only can you play bad for 1/7th of a tournament and still EASILY win the match in question, but the next day your bad 1/7th of a tournament is COMPLETELY wiped off the board!!!!

:lol::lol::lol:

elessar
02-28-2008, 02:35 PM
:haha::haha:

if you play poorly for 1/7th of a golf tournament (ie about 9 holes), you have no chance of winning the tournament (other than, of course, Tiger at the 1997 Masters)

In tennis, not only can you play bad for 1/7th of a tournament and still EASILY win the match in question, but the next day your bad 1/7th of a tournament is COMPLETELY wiped off the board!!!!

:lol::lol::lol:

Nice going with the laughing smileys, gives much more weight to your argument :)
Nice to see you, also, completely failed to see my point which I expressed at the end of my post.

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 02:38 PM
Dimonator, tell me, Tiger dominates because he's a genius way above the rest of the field while Roger dominates only because he happens to play in a mug era... Am I right? :angel:

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 02:39 PM
Dimonator, you might as well suck Adeegee's dick while you are at it.
The guy can clearly see some points being well made, nothing wrong with that :)

Seeing as you're not arguing with any of them, I'll just presume you agree too :hatoff:

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 02:40 PM
Nice going with the laughing smileys, gives much more weight to your argument :)

:confused: big deal. They are freaking emoticons!!!

Nice to see you, also, completely failed to see my point which I expressed at the end of my post.

you actually made four points prior to the the point at the end:eek:

as for your last point, well, it's actually the complete opposite. It is very easy to see who is more dominant. All you need to do is look at the stats. The real question is for whom is it EASIER / HARDER to dominate.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 02:42 PM
Dimonator, tell me, Tiger dominates because he's a genius way above the rest of the field while Roger dominates only because he happens to play in a mug era... Am I right? :angel:

I will not do such a thing:)

Well, I will agree with the former part of that statement. As for the latter, I will not admit it's a mug era in tennis. 1) it isn't, and 2) I love pro tennis way too much (far more than golf) to admit it's a mug era even if it was a mug era.

Despite my love for tennis, I simply admit the facts. It's far more difficult to dominate golf.

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 02:44 PM
Firstly, let me point out that you're not exactly neutral on this subject ;)
As it's been pointed out before, Tiger's record in match play is relatively poor, therefore winning against 150 odd players is easier to him and your argument is void.
Not at all. As I've said earlier, matchplay is a completely different proposition to strokeplay. It's like me trying to argue Federer's doubles record is poor. And anyway, his matchplay record is still the best in the world, just not quite up there with his level of strokeplay.
If it was just a matter of who has the highest level of play, then federer would win all the time, even on clay since Nadal rellies heavily on his UE/FE to win.
I don't really understand what point you're trying to make, I must confess. Can you explain why there are so few surprising winners of tournaments (and especially grand slams) if the field is so open?
In tennis, if you play poorly for 1/7th of a GS, you don't even get to play the rest of the tournament.
Couldn't disagree more. Let's take the AO for example. Nadal and Federer were both playing extremely poorly according to most observers, and reached the Semi Final, winning 5 matches each.

Apemant
02-28-2008, 02:44 PM
let me repeat it. to win a golf tournament you have to beat EVERYONE in the tournament. To win a tennis tournament you have to beat between FIVE and SEVEN players (unless you're Kei Nishikori). Case closed. End of discussion.

Nonsensical argument. Apples and oranges. Those are completely different meanings of the verb 'to beat someone' - which have nothing in common. It's like saying that every Guinness record holder has to 'beat' the whole world, or 'worry' about every living person on Earth.

There are sports where players (or teams) compete 1-on-1 with one another, like tennis, football, handball, basketball, baseball etc. and then there are sports where every sportsman tries to achieve the single 'best' result, like golf, alpine skiing, ski jumps, athletic disciplines etc. There is no rational comparison between those completely different sorts of competition. Does Blanka Vlasic have to 'beat' every other girl in high jumping? Well yes, but I highly doubt she concerns herself with more than 1-2 other girls who could (and only in theory) actually challenge her. Granted, golf is much harder to master and esp. to dominate like that, but the basic principle still holds; it's not a 1-on-1 sports and comparison with sports who ARE 1-on-1 is nil and void.

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 02:44 PM
Too bad golf isn't a worldwide sport... :shrug: Then dominating would be quite a feat :angel:

elessar
02-28-2008, 02:47 PM
:confused: big deal. They are freaking emoticons!!!



you actually made four points prior to the the point at the end:eek:

as for your last point, well, it's actually the complete opposite. It is very easy to see who is more dominant. All you need to do is look at the stats. The real question is for whom is it EASIER / HARDER to dominate.

Ok I'll make it clearer now : it's impossible to determine for whom it's easier/harder to dominate. The four answers I gave to Adam's post were designed to show that pretty much every argument could be used to prove that it's easier for Roger to dominate, just like they can used to prove it's easier for Tiger.

The reason is that all those arguments are subjective and not cold, hard facts which means this discussion is pointless and a consensus can't be reached (just like with 90% of the threads in GM)

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 02:55 PM
:lol: @ Dimonator

he definetely wants some Adam bum, thats for sure

Apemant
02-28-2008, 02:56 PM
Nope. Case not closed.:) In golf, if you're already more skilled than all
your opponents, then just play your game and you'll probably win - no need
to consider your opponents' tactics, strengths and weaknesses, match up issues...

Warning: Too much sense detected. Need to compensate. We need more Dimonator and adeegee posts, quickly!

elessar
02-28-2008, 03:01 PM
Firstly, let me point out that you're not exactly neutral on this subject ;)
Nonsense, my being a Tiger fan is not affecting my objectivity here :mad:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make, I must confess. Can you explain why there are so few surprising winners of tournaments (and especially grand slams) if the field is so open?
What I meant was the fact that you can't affect your opponent's level of play in golf if not just a disadvantage.
Couldn't disagree more. Let's take the AO for example. Nadal and Federer were both playing extremely poorly according to most observers, and reached the Semi Final, winning 5 matches each.

Yes but Nadal had an incredibly easy draw, and Federer's a really bad example since he was inches away from being ousted in the third round.

r2473
02-28-2008, 03:01 PM
I look at it this way:

FEDERER

Any (non-clay) tournament Federer enters, he is the prohibitive favorite. So much so that, if he doesn't win the tournament, people wonder what is wrong with him.....he must be sick or something. And this is EVERY TOURNAMENT.

TIGER

Any tournament he enters, he is the favorite to win. But, if he doesn't win, people are not that surprised. After all, it is not in the nature of the sport that someone can win every tournament week in and week out.

Both exert a powerful influence over all other opponents in the sport, such that, when battling head to head, opponents crumble to these guys time and time again.

I think deciding which is more dominant would hang on how the term is defined. Further, how the term is defined in their respective sports. If you guys could agree on definitions, you could make intelligible arguments. Otherwise, the discussion is useless.

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 03:02 PM
Warning: Too much sense detected. Need to compensate. We need more Dimonator and adeegee posts, quickly!

what's ironic is that was the most sensible post of this entire thread:worship:

bokehlicious
02-28-2008, 03:03 PM
Firstly, let me point out that you're not exactly neutral on this subject ;)

:spit: and YOU are? :confused: :haha:

elessar
02-28-2008, 03:05 PM
:spit: and YOU are? :confused: :haha:

Of course, being a Tiger fan and a Federer hater means he has absolutely no bias

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 03:06 PM
Too bad golf isn't a worldwide sport... :shrug: Then dominating would be quite a feat :angel:
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.
Yes but Nadal had an incredibly easy draw, and Federer's a really bad example since he was inches away from being ousted in the third round.
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.

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 03:08 PM
:spit: and YOU are? :confused: :haha:
I'm putting my differences aside for the sake of the debate. Fedtards aren't able to do that, they wear only their Mirka-tinted glasses :D

Corey Feldman
02-28-2008, 03:10 PM
I still think David Duval would have dominated Tiger for years if he didnt get injured and mess his swing dynamics

lucky one Tiger

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 03:17 PM
I still think David Duval would have dominated Tiger for years if he didnt get injured and mess his swing dynamics

lucky one Tiger

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.

adee-gee
02-28-2008, 03:23 PM
I think the conclusion we can draw from this thread are that Fedtards are absolutely deluded when it comes to their man. :shrug:

Dimonator133
02-28-2008, 03:27 PM
I think the conclusion we can draw from this thread are that Fedtards are absolutely deluded when it comes to their man. :shrug:

no, that was drawn long before this thread ever existed.

From this thread we can gather that a lot of people on this board are not qualified to discuss the game of golf.

(Cue a flood of responses to ^ saying "well a lot of people on this board are not qualified to discuss the game of tennis either!")