edjr 5,547 Posted June 10, 2007 How many grand slams has woods one on different surfaces? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 10, 2007 i'll bite yea, hahaha he could only win 7 of the last 8 pga tourneys he sucks LMK when federer wins a few french opens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted June 10, 2007 How many grand slams has woods one on different surfaces? Plenty of majors on different surfaces...or do you think all grass is the same? All Greens? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayhem39 3 Posted June 10, 2007 There shouldnt even be a discussion about this. Come on....Tiger in a landslide. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TylerRoseFan 16 Posted June 10, 2007 Bobby Fischer > Kasparov Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dirty dug 0 Posted June 11, 2007 Federer had him last year and couldn't keep the lead, he won the 1st set something like 6 - 1 or 6 - 2 and the 4th set in a tie breaker. So you're saying Federer choked it away? Ironic considering the first post in this thread. How many grand slams has woods one on different surfaces? Do you even follow golf? Do you think it takes the same shots to win at St. Andrews as it does to win at Augusta National? Or Winged Foot? Or Pebble Beach? Come on now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted June 11, 2007 as much as this pains me....(gulp) until Federer wins this one on clay, he can't be the greatest of all time. However, on a golf note, red clay is sooooo different, it would be like tiger isn't allowed to use his woods. You grow up playing tennis on A) hard court clay court you can't help this. Tiger grows up putting on grass, playing on different grass, and identifying different grass. Now put him in the sand EVERY SINGLE SHOT, and there just might be someone else that has mastered the kitty litter. I still find it hard to doubt 10 grand slams victories and a whole slew of 2nd's only to Nadal. When was the last time Tiger won in Austrailia? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rallo 132 Posted June 11, 2007 as much as this pains me....(gulp) until Federer wins this one on clay, he can't be the greatest of all time. However, on a golf note, red clay is sooooo different, it would be like tiger isn't allowed to use his woods. i guess i don't see your analogy... if i were to compare playing grass vs clay to golfing standard i'd say playing on standard 'normal' US courses would compare to grass... then playing a links style course could maybe be clay. I mean with the deep bunkers, foot long rough that is untrimmed (think st andrews). And this wouldn't be like tiger playing without woods... but i think it takes the driver out of his hands i'm not going to be naive and say every tennis court is the same (sure they all have the same dimensions). But the playing surface for golf is far more variable from course to course than comparing court to court... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 11, 2007 over here they mold the land into a course. rink over there they mold the course onto the land. rink Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Foghorn Leghorn 0 Posted June 11, 2007 as much as this pains me....(gulp) until Federer wins this one on clay, he can't be the greatest of all time. However, on a golf note, red clay is sooooo different, it would be like tiger isn't allowed to use his woods. You grow up playing tennis on A) hard court clay court you can't help this. Tiger grows up putting on grass, playing on different grass, and identifying different grass. Now put him in the sand EVERY SINGLE SHOT, and there just might be someone else that has mastered the kitty litter. I still find it hard to doubt 10 grand slams victories and a whole slew of 2nd's only to Nadal. When was the last time Tiger won in Austrailia? While clay is definitely different than hard or grass (and you'd be better suited to speak to that - you played tennis in university, I think?), I think you might be underestimating the differences on golf courses. As rallo pointed out, many British courses have pot bunkers and much windier conditions than many American courses. Augusta National is known for its "bikini waxed", lightning quick greens. For the US Open the rough is grown to a much thicker degree than normal, making it much more difficult (sometimes impossible) to hit the green from. I think both sports differ the playing conditions for the Majors enough to truly test everyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mighty_thor 115 Posted June 11, 2007 Aggasi won all 4 Tennis Grand Slams. Aggasi>Federer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,537 Posted June 11, 2007 federer is only going to play 7 of those 128 however... 121 of them he doesn't even have to worry about... i honestly don't see how we can do this argument any justice, however, because they are two totally different sports with different formats. if you were in a free-throw competition for 1 million dollars would you rather have 7 head to head shootouts (facing competitors of increasing difficulty) to decide the winner? or would you rather have the winner decided by whoever makes the most freethrows out of like 200 people??? it is statistically harder to win consistently using the second system EGG-ZACTLY! Federer plays 7 players to win the title. Woods goes against the whole field. Golf competition >>>> Tennis competition. They are both great at their sport. Hard to choose which one is better. But this factor certainly helps Tiger's case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoopy1 0 Posted June 11, 2007 if you were in a free-throw competition for 1 million dollars would you rather have 7 head to head shootouts (facing competitors of increasing difficulty) to decide the winner? or would you rather have the winner decided by whoever makes the most freethrows out of like 200 people??? Guess everyone would be facing either me or Shaq in the first round. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,950 Posted June 11, 2007 EGG-ZACTLY! Federer plays 7 players to win the title. Woods goes against the whole field. Golf competition >>>> Tennis competition. They are both great at their sport. Hard to choose which one is better. But this factor certainly helps Tiger's case. Not at all. Are you suggesting that Federer couldn't beat all those other players? He plays week in and week out and basically there's been one guy in the last 4-5 years who has been able to beat him, and even then only on one surface. Tiger isn't really playing against the whole field. Don't kid yourself. How many guys in that field have even a marginal chance of winning the tournament? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted June 11, 2007 Aggasi won all 4 Tennis Grand Slams. Aggasi (sic)>Federer Agassi didn't win the French Open until he was 29 years old. Federer is 25. Agassi won 8 grand slams in his career, the last being when he was 33 years old. Federer has already won 10. As for Woods, yes he plays against a huge field, but it's one long match, and the longer the match, the less chance of an upset. Any good player can play over his head for 3/4 of the tournament and be ahead of Woods, but as soon as that guy's performance falls back to earth, Woods just has to keep doing his thing and he can win it. Federer has to outplay each of 7 guys in a row to win a title. In tennis you are more vulnerable to being beaten by one great opponent, which Nadal most certainly is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,537 Posted June 11, 2007 Not at all. Are you suggesting that Federer couldn't beat all those other players? He plays week in and week out and basically there's been one guy in the last 4-5 years who has been able to beat him, and even then only on one surface. Tiger isn't really playing against the whole field. Don't kid yourself. How many guys in that field have even a marginal chance of winning the tournament? How many guys in the 1st 2nd 3rd and even 4th round that Federer faces has a realistic shot at winning a tennis tourney? He basically gets a free pass in his 1st however many matches!!! There are way more no name/underdog/long shots....that win golf tourneys than in tennis...My previos post says a Tennis title is easier to win than a golf tournement, based all on teh fact that he only plays 7 guys. Seriously its not rocket science. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 11, 2007 EGG-ZACTLY! Federer plays 7 players to win the title. Woods goes against the whole field. Golf competition >>>> Tennis competition. They are both great at their sport. Hard to choose which one is better. But this factor certainly helps Tiger's case. the entire field? golf is at its weakest point ever.....if Jack, Arnie and Watson were in the field.....sure.... but there isnt even a golfer who dominates any specific layout as much as nadal does in tennis.... john daly and david duval...part of this tough competition.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 11, 2007 the entire field? golf is at its weakest point ever.....if Jack, Arnie and Watson were in the field.....sure.... but there isnt even a golfer who dominates any specific layout as much as nadal does in tennis.... john daly and david duval...part of this tough competition.... you just shot down your own argument, it says a lot when the casual sports fan can probably name guys like tiger, phil, ernie, vijay, furyk, daly, sergio, DLIII...but ask them to name men's tennis players...uhhh roddick, federsomething...that other guy. Once upon a time, the public here did know the top guys. I submit that men's tennis is at it's weakest point ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted June 11, 2007 you just shot down your own argument, it says a lot when the casual sports fan can probably name guys like tiger, phil, ernie, vijay, furyk, daly, sergio, DLIII...but ask them to name men's tennis players...uhhh roddick, federsomething...that other guy. Once upon a time, the public here did know the top guys. I submit that men's tennis is at it's weakest point ever. Once upon a time, you mean when two of the top players in the world were Americans? Public awareness does not equal gameplay level. Americans aren't as interested in following the competition of Federer and Nadal as they were Sampras and Agassi, because of their nationality. Since 2004, there have been 4 players in men's tennis to win a Grand Slam... Federer x7, Nadal x3, Safin x1 Gaudio x1. Grand Slams won by Americans: 0. Since 2004, there have been 8 players in the PGA to win a Major... Woods x4, Mickelson x3, Ogilvy, Campbell, Goosen, Johnson, Singh, Hamilton. Majors won by Americans: 9. The fact that you named Roddick as one of your two tennis players just proves my point. He hasn't been to a final since 2005 and his only Grand Slam win was in 2003, but "the public here" knows him simply because he's American. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted June 12, 2007 Tennis was ranked behind roller blading in America a few years ago In the early 80's it was #3 Here is the reason why. I wrote an article in a magazine. Go into a super walmart now. Where have they placed the Basketball, Football, Tennis equipment, and traditional sports stuff? In the very far back corner. Now check out the electronics department and how freakin' huge it is now. Cell phones, playstations, game cubes, pc games. Our kids have way too many other interests now than the good ol' days of going outside and playing. Tennis just isn't what it used to be in the eyes of American's until the cycle returns. We lost Mcenroe, Connors, then Currier, then Pete, then Agassi, while golf gained Tiger. When Tiger falls off the map and some young tennis stud comes back around, you will see a turn in the tides. What if Federer was an American? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,547 Posted June 12, 2007 What if Federer was an American? He wouldn't be as good and he'd speak better English? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted June 12, 2007 He wouldn't be as good and he'd speak better English? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rybo5 0 Posted June 12, 2007 Woods goes against the whole field. Woods goes against the course, not the field. HTH! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rallo 132 Posted June 12, 2007 Woods goes against the course, not the field. HTH! i don't wanna say dumb.... but DUMB!!!! federer doesn't play vs the 7 guys... he plays vs the court... i'll agree with one aspect... tennis is head to head, so what your opponent does DIRECTLY effects what you do, but to say tiger doesn't play against the field is retarded... not only is he competing because they tally their scores and he's attempting to be the lowest out of like 200 guys... he is also affected by the field. are you gonna tell me that other guy's scores have no effect on what tiger does whatsoever???? do you think they just guess what other guys are shooting??? they can see the leaderboard!!!! so you're telling me if he is 2 stokes back with 4 holes to go that he wouldn't play it any differently than if he were up 2???? that's naive... of course he would play more aggressively if losing by 2... therefore he is also affected by the field... i'm not trying to down federer in any way, but some arguments made here by tennis fans are crazy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 12, 2007 you just shot down your own argument, it says a lot when the casual sports fan can probably name guys like tiger, phil, ernie, vijay, furyk, daly, sergio, DLIII...but ask them to name men's tennis players...uhhh roddick, federsomething...that other guy. Once upon a time, the public here did know the top guys. I submit that men's tennis is at it's weakest point ever. TJ summed it up perfectly...just because you cant name any of the sports athletes doesnt mean they arent great...it IS actually a worldwide sport... forget the field and focus on #2.... Nadal>whoever you consider #2 in golf...tennis is already tougher right off the bat and its safe to say that the #100th ranked tennis player is tougher than the 100th ranked golfer... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,547 Posted June 12, 2007 TJ summed it up perfectly...just because you cant name any of the sports athletes doesnt mean they arent great...it IS actually a worldwide sport... forget the field and focus on #2.... Nadal>whoever you consider #2 in golf...tennis is already tougher right off the bat and its safe to say that the #100th ranked tennis player is tougher than the 100th ranked golfer... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rallo 132 Posted June 13, 2007 TJ summed it up perfectly...just because you cant name any of the sports athletes doesnt mean they arent great...it IS actually a worldwide sport... forget the field and focus on #2.... Nadal>whoever you consider #2 in golf...tennis is already tougher right off the bat and its safe to say that the #100th ranked tennis player is tougher than the 100th ranked golfer... yep... and the 100 ranked field hockey player is tougher than all of the above... but the real question is "WHO FOCKING CARES????" that's why the tennis argument isn't valid... nobody fuccking cares... man you should see how good the swedish curling team is ... man they can work that broom as they travel down the ice who fockin cares Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted June 13, 2007 Nadal>whoever you consider #2 in golf...tennis is already tougher right off the bat and its safe to say that the #100th ranked tennis player is tougher than the 100th ranked golfer... How is Nadal greater than any #2? Phil has won at different majors. How many others really challenge Federer anywhere but the French? And how is it safe to say the #100 tennis player is better than the 100 ranked golfer? By the way...#100 right now is Fred Funk...who just happens to be #12 on the career money list for the pga. #100 in tennis? Alexander Peya Yup...that sound you just heard was a large majority of people saying WHO? His career record is 14-25 So...I will go ahead and say Funk >>>>>>Peya and tell you to come up with something new. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,537 Posted June 13, 2007 Woods goes against the course, not the field. HTH! sorry he has to beat the entire field. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted June 13, 2007 Phil has won at different majors. ? Please tell me what Major Phil has won back to back to back. Much less three? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,537 Posted June 13, 2007 TJ summed it up perfectly...just because you cant name any of the sports athletes doesnt mean they arent great...it IS actually a worldwide sport... forget the field and focus on #2.... Nadal>whoever you consider #2 in golf...tennis is already tougher right off the bat and its safe to say that the #100th ranked tennis player is tougher than the 100th ranked golfer... The top 5 golfers for the past 7 or so years Tiger Woods Phil Mickelson Retief Goosen Vijay Singh Ernie Els 2 out of the 5 are from the US, yet most everyone knows them. hmmmmm this top 5 golfers has changed recently with everyone but Phil and Tiger declining for whatever reason, but these were the clear top 5 golfers for around 5 straight years. Nadal is better than the #2 ranked golfer, in terms of how good they are in their sport?.....So Phil who I believe has won 3 majors and countless other tournements isnt as good as Nadal is at Tennis?...hahaha....wow ive heard it all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted June 13, 2007 yep... and the 100 ranked field hockey player is tougher than all of the above... Let me know when field flucking hockey becomes a world wide professional sport moron? And I would be willing to bet my house that a professional tennis player is in 10x better shape than a field hockey player. Good try though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,537 Posted June 13, 2007 the entire field? golf is at its weakest point ever.....if Jack, Arnie and Watson were in the field.....sure.... but there isnt even a golfer who dominates any specific layout as much as nadal does in tennis.... john daly and david duval...part of this tough competition.... I do not claim to know much about Tennis, but I don't make dumb posts about it either. Daley was never a top golfer, Duval was about 8 years ago. Golf is at its weakest point ever? In what way? Ratings?-NO, field?-hell no(more golfers than ever, more golfers who actually win tournements) Popularity-no. You make no sense. How is Nadal greater than any #2? Phil has won at different majors. How many others really challenge Federer anywhere but the French? And how is it safe to say the #100 tennis player is better than the 100 ranked golfer? By the way...#100 right now is Fred Funk...who just happens to be #12 on the career money list for the pga. #100 in tennis? Alexander Peya Yup...that sound you just heard was a large majority of people saying WHO? His career record is 14-25 So...I will go ahead and say Funk >>>>>>Peya and tell you to come up with something new. You absolutly Owned anyone saying tennis has tougher overall cometition, You see #100 plus ranked players win golf tournements a handful of times each year. Let me know when field flucking hockey becomes a world wide professional sport moron? And I would be willing to bet my house that a professional tennis player is in 10x better shape than a field hockey player. Good try though Wow you are the retard, he was basically kidding, and making a point that no one cares about field hockey or Tennis. get a clue dude. Please tell me what Major Phil has won back to back to back. Much less three? He said Phil has won at different majors, not back to back, or 3 in a row. Where did he say that. You are stupid, you quoted him, and then right below it you act like he said something that is totally different. Phil has wone 3 majors, 04, 06 Masters and the 05 PGA. Phil has won 31 other tournements. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted June 13, 2007 I do not claim to know much about Tennis, So why are you in this conversation? Phil has wone 3 majors, 04, 06 Masters and the 05 PGA. No kidding, why can't he win 3 in a row since he's so much better than nadal at age 21. How old was Mickelson before his first grand slam? How many times did he choke, choke, choke? Nadal has won back to back to back grand slams against the greatest player since Sampras. He has 22 titles at the age of 21 and he's #2 in the world. Don't discuss tennis if you have no clue please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,537 Posted June 13, 2007 Don't discuss tennis if you have no clue please. Sorry....Tennis is the best sport ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted June 13, 2007 Fred Funk Who? Golf is at its weakest point ever? In what way? Ratings?-NO, field?-hell no(more golfers than ever, more golfers who actually win tournements) Popularity-no. There are more golfers winning majors because Tiger isn't as dominant a performer as he once was. There was a time when Woods was the man across all sports (never mind the debate as to whether golf is a sport). But it's Federer now, sorry Woods fans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
