[shrudy]

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]

Alexander Karelin.

[adee-gee]

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

[mecir72]

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]

Originally Posted by mecir72

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]

Originally Posted by mecir72

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.

Tiger

[Mistaflava]

Tiger

[Mistaflava]

Originally Posted by mecir72

Yeah it is much harder to dominate in golf. In tennis you dont need to play well to win, only better than your opponent.

Couldn't agree more.

[FSRteam]

Originally Posted by mecir72

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...

[Effka]

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.

Originally Posted by FSRteam

Same in golf, isn't it?

Just need to play better than your opponents...

Opponents plural being the operative word

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by mecir72

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]

Originally Posted by bad gambler

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]

Originally Posted by FSRteam

Same in golf, isn't it?

Just need to play better than your opponents...

Yes, all 140 odd of them