Federer > Woods

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

i crushed this thread, not one of my points refuted. Tiger plays the field ,the course and conditions, tennis boy plays the weakest left in the same conditions with some occasional rain. Oh wow! Fact

I win again

 

It's amazing how even after being corrected you are still wrong on the "Fact".

[drobeski 3,061]

This is more or less the nuts and bolts, jerk version of what I'm saying.

in a nutshell, the comparison is retarded as is the idiot who created it.

[edjr 5,547]

in a nutshell, I lost, as per

 

yep

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

 

yep

 

Just a guess, but Good Will Hunting, wasn't based on Drobe?

[edjr 5,547]

 

Just a guess, but Good Will Hunting, wasn't based on Drobe?

 

That was Dumb Will Hunting

[vuduchile 1,940]

4 rounds this weekend. Tiger hit 17 fairways

 

FAULT!

DOUBLE FAULT!

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Honestly, I think this argument is absurd. The bolded is the real reason this thread has 33 pages.

I don't think it is absurd at all. You hate golf so you are bias as well here. I acknowledge I am bias.

 

But you can't tell me it isn't hard to dominate in a sport where you can't do anything to your opponent. Can't play defense, can't get in their way, can't do anything.

 

When Fed plays a guy on a routine surface, he is in control and can react to beat his opponent. When you look down the list of slams, you see Nadal win almost every year in the French. For a stretch you see Feds win at Wimbledon. You look back at older guys and you see them rattle of 3, 4 ,5 of the same slams year after year. If you get a back to back champ in a major in golf that is something. No one wins 5 Masters in a row. It just doesn't happen or even close to it. There are so many more variables in golf.

 

I'm not discrediting Fed. He has had the better career no doubt. I just think dominating at that level in golf is tougher to do. Although what Feds has done the last 2 years at his age is pretty tough as well.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

4 rounds this weekend. Tiger hit 17 fairways

 

I'll tell you what. He looked healthy, hi short game was really good and he putted well. If he can find the fairway he's going to have a good season.

[edjr 5,547]

If he can find the fairway he's going to have a good season.

 

That's always been the story.

[Strike 3,950]

I'll tell you what. He looked healthy, hi short game was really good and he putted well. If he can find the fairway he's going to have a good season.

 

Til he tweaks his back and is out for another two years.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

 

That's always been the story.

But in previous comeback attempts his short game often looked like a 10 handicapper

[edjr 5,547]

But in previous comeback attempts his short game often looked like a 10 handicapper

 

This is true.

[Cruzer 1,992]

TW has never been in the Fred Funk class of finding fairways.......... But bcoz of his freakish short game - he's always been able to score. Interesting #'s on his prime "run", 2000-2008.

 

2000 - Driving Accuracy: 71% / Scoring Avg: 1st.

2001 - Driving Accuracy: 65% / Scoring Avg: 1st

2002 - Driving Accuracy: 68% / Scoring Avg: 1st

2003 - Driving Accuracy: 63% / Scoring Avg: 1st

2004 - Driving Accuracy: 56% / Scoring Avg: 3rd

2005 - Driving Accuracy: 55% / Scoring Avg: 1st

2006 - Driving Accuracy: 61% / Scoring Avg: 1st

2007 - Driving Accuracy: 60% / Scoring Avg: 1st

2008 - Driving Accuracy: 58% / Scoring Avg: 1st

 

TW was TW bcoz he had the best short game in the universe, dominated the Par 5's and made every important putt he needed to make.

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

TW has never been in the Fred Funk class of finding fairways.......... But bcoz of his freakish short game - he's always been able to score. Interesting #'s on his prime "run", 2000-2008.

 

2000 - Driving Accuracy: 71% / Total Scoring: 1st.

2001 - Driving Accuracy: 65% / Total Scoring: 1st

2002 - Driving Accuracy: 68% / Total Scoring: 1st

2003 - Driving Accuracy: 63% / Total Scoring: 1st

2004 - Driving Accuracy: 56% / Total Scoring: 3rd

2005 - Driving Accuracy: 55% / Total Scoring: 1st

2006 - Driving Accuracy: 61% / Total Scoring: 1st

2007 - Driving Accuracy: 60% / Total Scoring: 1st

2008 - Driving Accuracy: 58% / Total Scoring: 1st

 

TW was TW bcoz he had the best short game in the universe, dominated the Par 5's and made every important putt he needed to make.

 

Guessing first swing change occurred after 2002 season.

[edjr 5,547]

Roger Federer won the Australian Open over Marin Cilic on Sunday in an epic five-set marathon that lasted just over three hours. The last threesome in the final round of the Farmers Insurance Open? They took twice that long to play 18 holes.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/slow-play-hot-take-players-trying-to-explain-tours-pace-problem?mbid=social_facebook

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

Roger Federer won the Australian Open over Marin Cilic on Sunday in an epic five-set marathon that lasted just over three hours. The last threesome in the final round of the Farmers Insurance Open? They took twice that long to play 18 holes.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/slow-play-hot-take-players-trying-to-explain-tours-pace-problem?mbid=social_facebook

 

woah woah woah. to be fair 25% of that time was JB Holmes on the 18th

[penultimatestraw 473]

had a well thought out response typed up and closed the window

 

basically, any tennis player can be better than a golfer. Federer is better than Rory, Dustin Johnson, Jordan Spieth, Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson (2 guys more of his time). Nadal is better than them as well..... but when comparing 2 of the all time greatest, which is what this thread is about, then no... I don't think an equal tennis player would ever beat out an equal golfer and that was kind of my point. The sports are just not comparable and it's more difficult to rack up major titles in professional golf. Is Federer > Jack Nicklaus?

 

Just because a field is bigger doesn't make it watered down. When I mentioned Tennis being watered down, I was referring to the sport in general. Meaning throughout Roger's career, how many of his opponents truely had a shot to win any given grand slam event? In Tiger's case, he was going up against fields with a lot more players capable of winning major events. A lot more guys with impressive resumes in the sport. His top rivals? Els, Mickelson, Singh, Rory for a few years and David Duval in the late 90's. I have no doubt that Roger went head to head against bigger names in the world of Tennis.... Tiger simply didn't play in the era of Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson etc.

 

Now that is going to get twisted into a reason that golf is actually more watered down but in reality, the top all time golfers are simply better than the top all time tennis pros. The top 20 all time golfers is likely a more impressive list than the top 20 all time tennis players. Nadal, for example, is viewed as an all time tennis great but was playing the same watered down events and his career didn't last nearly as long as Roger's..... and while Tiger didn't have an Arnold Palmer to go against, he had dozens of guys in the field with major championship wins, every single time.

 

The thing is, on any given week, in any given tournament and at any given major in golf, a YE Yang type can have a magical 4 days and theres nothing Tiger Woods can do to stop it. in Tennis? an underdog making a run will eventually come face to face with Federer and the winner moves on. Golf just doesn't work that way.

 

I would never suggest Tiger is currently better. What Federer is doing, at his age (which I already said) is remarkable. But looking at the totality of their carrers and accomplshments, I think Tigers dominance was more impressive.

 

I think Federer vs. Nicklaus is a closer comparison. But you stated a great tennis player can never best a great golfer, so extending this discussion is pointless.

[penultimatestraw 473]

i crushed this thread, not one of my points refuted. Tiger plays the field ,the course and conditions, tennis boy plays the weakest left in the same conditions with some occasional rain. Oh wow! Fact

I win again

Any CBF can play golf. Many of you do, which explains why you cannot understand true athletic greatness.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

I think Federer vs. Nicklaus is a closer comparison. But you stated a great tennis player can never best a great golfer, so extending this discussion is pointless.

 

agreed. I will always view the golfers accomplishments as more impressive until tennis starts trending toward grand slams with fields full of 2-5 time major champions, every single time.

 

I know, I know. bias and everything. But i'm one of the bigger all around sports fans on the board (i think) and I feel confident saying that I would feel the same way even if I hated golf and was an avid tennis player.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Proof is in the numbers as to which is easier to dominate fot a period. All the tennis greats seem to rattle off 2 or 3 in a row. Golf you simply cannot do that.

 

Feds longevity is where he beats out Tiger.

[drobeski 3,061]

Any CBF can play golf. Many of you do, which explains why you cannot understand true athletic greatness.

i played tennis with a fat chick, she crushed me. Any fat can play tennis too.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

Any CBF can play golf. Many of you do, which explains why you cannot understand true athletic greatness.

 

and youve totally lost me with this comment.

 

I go to the park and see the tennis courts packed. some people are just there getting some exercise (id equate this to the recreational golfer who doesn't care about breaking 100 even), some are keeping score but not very good or maybe just learning (like golfers shooting in the mid to upper 90's), then you have your tennis players who are there multiple times per week or even belong to the local tennis club... these are like your golfers shooting in the 80's and working toward consistently shooting in the 70's.

 

any Johnny Whitesocks can play tennis..... and many of you do?.... maybe just not on this particular board?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Proof is in the numbers as to which is easier to dominate fot a period. All the tennis greats seem to rattle off 2 or 3 in a row. Golf you simply cannot do that.

Feds longevity is where he beats out Tiger.

Career majors versus grand slam wins is pretty comparable:

 

Golf most majors 18, 14, 11, 9, 9

Tennis grand slam wins 20, 16, 14, 12, 12

 

Those numbers arent that different, essentially 2 more wins over their careers for elite tennis players. Except Fed is at the top of his list by a good margin, and Tiger is #2.

 

And lack of competition? Federer bested three of the top 5 all time winners in his sport (Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras). The best guy Tigers beaten? Mickelson, who isnt even top 10.

 

You guys are nuts.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

Career majors versus grand slam wins is pretty comparable:

 

Golf most majors 18, 14, 11, 9, 9

Tennis grand slam wins 20, 16, 14, 12, 12

 

Those numbers arent that different, essentially 2 more wins over their careers for elite tennis players. Except Fed is at the top of his list by a good margin, and Tiger is #2.

 

And lack of competition? Federer bested three of the top 5 all time winners in his sport (Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras). The best guy Tigers beaten? Mickelson, who isnt even top 10.

 

You guys are nuts.

 

let me shoot some holes on the stats provided above. So the top 5 tennis pros have 13 more grand slams than pro golfers do major titles. Thats more than 3 years worth of grand slams/major titles. Right off the bat, this hints to me that its a bit easier for the top mens tennis players to win the biggest events (which i have alluded to a dozen times in the fact that there is less overall competition).

 

You say Federer "bested 3 of the top 5 all time winners in his sport" and two of them are Nadal who played the same weak ass fields as Federer (i really like Nadal too by the way), and Djokovic who lasted all of 5 minutes compared to Federer or Sampras. Djokovic may be the perfect example of the disparity between top tennis pros and the rest of the fields as he racked up his final 11 grand slams over a 6 year period.

 

starting in 2004, 47 of the last 57 grand slams have been won by Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. 3 of your top 5 all time grand slam winners . Let me repeat that. 47 of the last 57 grand slams won by 3 men. If this doesn't scream beating up on watered down competition, i'm not sure what does.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

let me shoot some holes on the stats provided above. So the top 5 tennis pros have 13 more grand slams than pro golfers do major titles. Thats more than 3 years worth of grand slams/major titles. Right off the bat, this hints to me that its a bit easier for the top mens tennis players to win the biggest events (which i have alluded to a dozen times in the fact that there is less overall competition).

 

You say Federer "bested 3 of the top 5 all time winners in his sport" and two of them are Nadal who played the same weak ass fields as Federer (i really like Nadal too by the way), and Djokovic who lasted all of 5 minutes compared to Federer or Sampras. Djokovic may be the perfect example of the disparity between top tennis pros and the rest of the fields as he racked up his final 11 grand slams over a 6 year period.

 

starting in 2004, 47 of the last 57 grand slams have been won by Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. 3 of your top 5 all time grand slam winners . Let me repeat that. 47 of the last 57 grand slams won by 3 men. If this doesn't scream beating up on watered down competition, i'm not sure what does.

solid rebuttal

[penultimatestraw 473]

let me shoot some holes on the stats provided above. So the top 5 tennis pros have 13 more grand slams than pro golfers do major titles. Thats more than 3 years worth of grand slams/major titles. Right off the bat, this hints to me that its a bit easier for the top mens tennis players to win the biggest events (which i have alluded to a dozen times in the fact that there is less overall competition).

 

You say Federer "bested 3 of the top 5 all time winners in his sport" and two of them are Nadal who played the same weak ass fields as Federer (i really like Nadal too by the way), and Djokovic who lasted all of 5 minutes compared to Federer or Sampras. Djokovic may be the perfect example of the disparity between top tennis pros and the rest of the fields as he racked up his final 11 grand slams over a 6 year period.

 

starting in 2004, 47 of the last 57 grand slams have been won by Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. 3 of your top 5 all time grand slam winners . Let me repeat that. 47 of the last 57 grand slams won by 3 men. If this doesn't scream beating up on watered down competition, i'm not sure what does.

 

I think you’re confusing competition with consistency. It may be harder to be consistent in golf, but in no way does that mean Tiger faced tougher opponents during his heyday. Looking back, they were pretty mediocre, except Mickelson.

 

An alternative explanation for Fed/Nadal/Djoker winning so many grand slams: they’re all time greats. Whether the competition was watered down or not is immaterial, as there was a good likelihood they’d eventually play each other in any tournament. Tiger never faced such stiff competition, just the courses.

[drobeski 3,061]

I think youre confusing competition with consistency. It may be harder to be consistent in golf, but in no way does that mean Tiger faced tougher opponents during his heyday. Looking back, they were pretty mediocre, except Mickelson.

 

An alternative explanation for Fed/Nadal/Djoker winning so many grand slams: theyre all time greats. Whether the competition was watered down or not is immaterial, as there was a good likelihood theyd eventually play each other in any tournament. Tiger never faced such stiff competition, just the courses.

the courses add major differing degrees of difficulty, tennis ...same lame setup time after time.

 

Let me know when they raise the net or play where there is no stadium to shield the white short wimps from the conditions.

[penultimatestraw 473]

the courses add major differing degrees of difficulty, tennis ...same lame setup time after time.

Let me know when they raise the net or play where there is no stadium to shield the white short wimps from the conditions.

We’ve been through this already. There are multiple surfaces in tennis, and the same weather conditions which come into play with golf.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Career majors versus grand slam wins is pretty comparable:

 

Golf most majors 18, 14, 11, 9, 9

Tennis grand slam wins 20, 16, 14, 12, 12

 

Those numbers arent that different, essentially 2 more wins over their careers for elite tennis players. Except Fed is at the top of his list by a good margin, and Tiger is #2.

 

And lack of competition? Federer bested three of the top 5 all time winners in his sport (Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras). The best guy Tigers beaten? Mickelson, who isnt even top 10.

 

You guys are nuts.

You missed the point of the post you quoted me in. I said looking back over the all timers in tennis they all win majors over and over again. Laver won all 4 in the same year TWICE. Feds has not even done it once. Borg won 5 Wimbeldons in a row. 4 French in a row. Sampras won 7 out of 8 straight Wimbeldons. Nadal won 9 out of 10 straight French Opens. Djokovic won 6 out of 7 Aussies in a row. My point is it seems real easy to COMPLETELY DOMINATE when you are at the top...... However Tennis generally has a shorter career span and a smaller window of domination. Thus why I especially praised Feds longevity. This stuff does not happen in golf. Jack never won more than 2 in any given year. He was a back to back champion only ONCE in majors. Point is it is much easier to go on a run in tennis.

 

But if you want to talk about all time majors and slams then lets.

 

The top 5 guys in tennis are all fairly new. Roy Emerson is the only old timer.

 

Golf? Jack the leader's last major was in '86. Hagen's last major of his 11 was in 19 focking 29. Ben Hogan's 9th was in 19 focking 53.

 

This is an argument I don't understand and even golf people make it. "tiger didn't play the guys Jack did".

 

I like to think with sports most athletes evolve and become better. The game of golf is WAY more popular today than is was in the 60s and 70s. There is a WAY larger pool of talent. Chosen from a wider selection of athletes and origins. So why is it because a handful of older golfers won each tourney that it means it was tougher? Can it not mean that the field today is deep as hell and any one guys standing out is a total outlier? The field is way tougher today than it was in the 70s and it isn't even close. Technology has also closed the gap on the games best and guys who just are trying to get on tour. Backwards thinking in my opinion. Any golfer would agree that there are way more people that play the game today. There are more quality players. But yet hold onto the fact that in the 70s a handful of guys won and today ANYONE CAN WIN. So idiotic in my opinion.

 

To me the fact that no one besides Tiger has dominated in the 90s and beyond is due directly to level of competition. And just the nature of golf in the first place. Tiger dominated in an era that you should not dominate. So if no golfer gets to 7 majors for the next 20 years we should just all assume that the 60s and 70s there were superior golfers because they have more on the all time list? Sure if you want to be lazy about analyzing it.

 

Nadal 23-15 all time vs Fed. 9-3 in majors. Safe to say he owns Feds. Who owned Tiger? No one.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

I think you’re confusing competition with consistency. It may be harder to be consistent in golf, but in no way does that mean Tiger faced tougher opponents during his heyday. Looking back, they were pretty mediocre, except Mickelson.

 

An alternative explanation for Fed/Nadal/Djoker winning so many grand slams: they’re all time greats. Whether the competition was watered down or not is immaterial, as there was a good likelihood they’d eventually play each other in any tournament. Tiger never faced such stiff competition, just the courses.

Nadal is 23-15 all time and 9-3 in majors vs Federer.

 

Djokovic is 23-22 all time vs. Federer.

 

So what is your point. That Fed wasn't even 2nd best of his generation?

[penultimatestraw 473]

You missed the point of the post you quoted me in. I said looking back over the all timers in tennis they all win majors over and over again. Laver won all 4 in the same year TWICE. Feds has not even done it once. Borg won 5 Wimbeldons in a row. 4 French in a row. Sampras won 7 out of 8 straight Wimbeldons. Nadal won 9 out of 10 straight French Opens. Djokovic won 6 out of 7 Aussies in a row. My point is it seems real easy to COMPLETELY DOMINATE when you are at the top...... However Tennis generally has a shorter career span and a smaller window of domination. Thus why I especially praised Feds longevity. This stuff does not happen in golf. Jack never won more than 2 in any given year. He was a back to back champion only ONCE in majors. Point is it is much easier to go on a run in tennis.

 

But if you want to talk about all time majors and slams then lets.

 

The top 5 guys in tennis are all fairly new. Roy Emerson is the only old timer.

 

Golf? Jack the leader's last major was in '86. Hagen's last major of his 11 was in 19 focking 29. Ben Hogan's 9th was in 19 focking 53.

 

This is an argument I don't understand and even golf people make it. "tiger didn't play the guys Jack did".

 

I like to think with sports most athletes evolve and become better. The game of golf is WAY more popular today than is was in the 60s and 70s. There is a WAY larger pool of talent. Chosen from a wider selection of athletes and origins. So why is it because a handful of older golfers won each tourney that it means it was tougher? Can it not mean that the field today is deep as hell and any one guys standing out is a total outlier? The field is way tougher today than it was in the 70s and it isn't even close. Technology has also closed the gap on the games best and guys who just are trying to get on tour. Backwards thinking in my opinion. Any golfer would agree that there are way more people that play the game today. There are more quality players. But yet hold onto the fact that in the 70s a handful of guys won and today ANYONE CAN WIN. So idiotic in my opinion.

 

To me the fact that no one besides Tiger has dominated in the 90s and beyond is due directly to level of competition. And just the nature of golf in the first place. Tiger dominated in an era that you should not dominate. So if no golfer gets to 7 majors for the next 20 years we should just all assume that the 60s and 70s there were superior golfers because they have more on the all time list? Sure if you want to be lazy about analyzing it.

 

Nadal 23-15 all time vs Fed. 9-3 in majors. Safe to say he owns Feds. Who owned Tiger? No one.

 

Ive conceded it is more difficult to maintain consistency in golf. That is offset by longer careers for pro golfers, as tennis is far more physically taxing. And the only way to determine the quality of ones competition is tournament wins - by that metric, Fed beats Tiger by a mile. But this thread is comparing the totality of Tiger’s career to Federer’s. Within the limitations of their respective sports, Fed is the better of the two IMO.

 

I think Tiger was so dominant in part because he was one of the first golfers to take training seriously. I don’t mean just playing the game, but also strength and conditioning.

 

Tiger is certainly talented, in the discussion for best golfer ever. But there isn’t even a discussion in tennis.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Ive conceded it is more difficult to maintain consistency in golf. That is offset by longer careers for pro golfers, as tennis is far more physically taxing. And the only way to determine the quality of ones competition is tournament wins - by that metric, Fed beats Tiger by a mile. But this thread is comparing the totality of Tiger’s career to Federer’s. Within the limitations of their respective sports, Fed is the better of the two IMO.

 

I think Tiger was so dominant in part because he was one of the first golfers to take training seriously. I don’t mean just playing the game, but also strength and conditioning.

 

Tiger is certainly talented, in the discussion for best golfer ever. But there isn’t even a discussion in tennis.

I'm not being ridiculous like drobeski. I have conceded Federer's career is better. Good thing he had a no namer knock off Nadal early to get his only French Open. Odds not good if Nadal played him there. But we won't talk about that.

 

All I am suggesting is Tiger's peak in golf is harder to obtain than Feds'. It is obviously too subjective to really agree on and perhaps a dumb topic. Tiger had no peers in his prime. Federer has losing records against his main competition. So not sure how I am " nuts".

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Ive conceded it is more difficult to maintain consistency in golf. That is offset by longer careers for pro golfers, as tennis is far more physically taxing. And the only way to determine the quality of ones competition is tournament wins - by that metric, Fed beats Tiger by a mile. But this thread is comparing the totality of Tiger’s career to Federer’s. Within the limitations of their respective sports, Fed is the better of the two IMO.

 

I think Tiger was so dominant in part because he was one of the first golfers to take training seriously. I don’t mean just playing the game, but also strength and conditioning.

 

Tiger is certainly talented, in the discussion for best golfer ever. But there isn’t even a discussion in tennis.

 

Maybe. But although at a point he did everything well and could sting one down the pipe when he needed it, he was more a short game/putting/saving par when he needed it type player. Great with irons as well but putting and overall creativity was his mark. Fitness helps but in those areas the least.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Nadal is 23-15 all time and 9-3 in majors vs Federer.

 

Djokovic is 23-22 all time vs. Federer.

 

So what is your point. That Fed wasn't even 2nd best of his generation?

Its not just head to head record, but you already knew that.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

I think you’re confusing competition with consistency. It may be harder to be consistent in golf, but in no way does that mean Tiger faced tougher opponents during his heyday. Looking back, they were pretty mediocre, except Mickelson.

 

i never said he did. Pretty sure I said he never got to play against Jack, Arnold, Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Tom Watson etc...

 

I think I said Tiger had more overall competition in his fields. meanings more quality golfers capable of winning a major on any given Sunday. The totality of his opponents was tougher. Federer may have faced 1 or 2 guys head to head in any particular grand slam that were tougher than any single golfer in Tiger's fields (and thats if the bracket worked out that way)

[penultimatestraw 473]

i never said he did. Pretty sure I said he never got to play against Jack, Arnold, Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Tom Watson etc...

 

I think I said Tiger had more overall competition in his fields. meanings more quality golfers capable of winning a major on any given Sunday. The totality of his opponents was tougher. Federer may have faced 1 or 2 guys head to head in any particular grand slam that were tougher than any single golfer in Tiger's fields (and thats if the bracket worked out that way)

 

Meh. I’d be much more fearful of a couple of elite competitors than a bunch of decent ones. Sure, they might be able to win on a good day, like any given Sunday in the NFL. But I’d much rather face the Ravens or Broncos than Steelers or Patriots come crunch time.

[drobeski 3,061]

Speaking of, Brady > both

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Its not just head to head record, but you already knew that.

Well his head 2 head record vs. his main competition is certainly a knock on him. His sport is match play head to head. And his 2 rivals are up on him.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Meh. I’d be much more fearful of a couple of elite competitors than a bunch of decent ones. Sure, they might be able to win on a good day, like any given Sunday in the NFL. But I’d much rather face the Ravens or Broncos than Steelers or Patriots come crunch time.

 

Yeah maybe in some sports. But not in golf. You aren't understanding the dynamics of a golf tournament.

[edjr 5,547]

Federer won his 100th tournament today (just ended I actually watched it) in Dubai.

Ho hum.