Rafael Nadal wins 11th French Open - 3 majors behind Federer. Will he catch him?

[listen2me 23 1,529]

Yeah, we have been over this. You guys continue to minimize the head-to-head format versus group tournaments in individual sports. Golf is a little bit harder to win on a per tournament basis, but that doesn't vault Tiger over Fed's level of sustained dominance.

 

What would a tennis player need to accomplish for you to consider them better than Tiger? What would Federer have to do?

In a single year or few year stretch? Probably couldnt do much. That is just how I view each sport.

 

Fed with 20 slams never won 4 in a row like Tiger did in a much tougher format with less career majors. Hell just in the last 8 years 2 other players have won 3 in a row. Djokovic won 4 in a row. Seems rather typical.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I agree. Plus tennis is insanely hard just to play and keep up physically. Fat guys and the elderly can win golf tournaments. You need to be at peak performance to even make it through a tennis match.

Correct. Which is why fat and/or old guys put Tiger on such a pedestal. Any slob can golf, as evidenced by many on this bored.

[penultimatestraw 473]

In a single year or few year stretch? Probably couldnt do much. That is just how I view each sport.

Fed with 20 slams never won 4 in a row like Tiger did in a much tougher format with less career majors. Hell just in the last 8 years 2 other players have won 3 in a row. Djokovic won 4 in a row. Seems rather typical.

The existence of all time great players in Roger’s era does nothing to diminish his accomplishments. If anything, it makes his wins more impressive. But seeing you think golf is so supremely difficult, then there’s no use having this discussion.

[drobeski 3,061]

Correct. Which is why fat and/or old guys put Tiger on such a pedestal. Any slob can golf, as evidenced by many on this bored.

tilt

[tanatastic 2,061]

Correct. Which is why fat and/or old guys put Tiger on such a pedestal. Any slob can golf, as evidenced by many on this bored.

Shots fired and with a direct hit.

[drobeski 3,061]

Shots fired and with a direct hit.

I played tennis wirh a fat chick who had fred Flintstone feet.

She killed me and I'm an athlete.

 

True story...fattys can play lame tennis too, same with elderly.

Fact

[penultimatestraw 473]

I played tennis wirh a fat chick who had fred Flintstone feet.

She killed me and I'm an athlete.

 

True story...fattys can play lame tennis too, same with elderly.

Fact

[tanatastic 2,061]

I played tennis wirh a fat chick who had fred Flintstone feet.

She killed me and I'm an athlete.

True story...fattys can play lame tennis too, same with elderly.

Fact

Damn, sounds beastly.

[drobeski 3,061]

https://goo.gl/images/sJs752

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

https://goo.gl/images/sJs752

 

Eau de Drob

[drobeski 3,061]

Eau de Drob

double tilt!

[penultimatestraw 473]

double tilt!

My computer overheated when I googled fat golfers

[listen2me 23 1,529]

The existence of all time great players in Rogers era does nothing to diminish his accomplishments. If anything, it makes his wins more impressive. But seeing you think golf is so supremely difficult, then theres no use having this discussion.

No it makes what he has done typical. And he has a losing record to both. Which is sort of sad since he is the gr3atest of all time.

 

Point set match for Woods.

[penultimatestraw 473]

No it makes what he has done typical. And he has a losing record to both. Which is sort of sad since he is the gr3atest of all time.

 

Point set match for Woods.

Ugh. We've been through this too. Aside from Mickelson, Tiger's competition in his heyday was pretty mediocre. In tournaments where they've played together, Tiger has shot a lower round 18 times to Mickelson's 15, and they've tied four times. Unlike Nadal, no one consider's Mickelson a top 5 all time player, and certainly not the GOAT in any one discipline, like Nadal on clay.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

Ugh. We've been through this too. Aside from Mickelson, Tiger's competition in his heyday was pretty mediocre. In tournaments where they've played together, Tiger has shot a lower round 18 times to Mickelson's 15, and they've tied four times. Unlike Nadal, no one consider's Mickelson a top 5 all time player, and certainly not the GOAT in any one discipline, like Nadal on clay.

So if Nadal was not around in this era Feds woulf have like 6 more slams? That is basically admitting that Tennis is a

2-3 person competition. 2 or 3 guys can win a tourney. Where in golf about 100 can in US Open fields.

 

Hence much much harder to win.

 

Feds'waltz to the finals is like Leron's in thr NBA eastern conference.

[penultimatestraw 473]

So if Nadal was not around in this era Feds woulf have like 6 more slams? That is basically admitting that Tennis is a

2-3 person competition. 2 or 3 guys can win a tourney. Where in golf about 100 can in US Open fields.

 

Hence much much harder to win.

 

Feds'waltz to the finals is like Leron's in thr NBA eastern conference.

No, Federer and Nadal are both all time greats; they just happen to be contemporaries. Djokovic was looking like he was going to be as well, though he's slowed down considerably the last couple years.

 

Just because an individual golf tournament may be slightly more difficult to win, Fed's overall record is so much better than Tiger's the comparison is absurd at this point.

[edjr 5,546]

and I'm an athlete.

 

 

fibeski

[listen2me 23 1,529]

No, Federer and Nadal are both all time greats; they just happen to be contemporaries. Djokovic was looking like he was going to be as well, though he's slowed down considerably the last couple years.

 

Just because an individual golf tournament may be slightly more difficult to win, Fed's overall record is so much better than Tiger's the comparison is absurd at this point.

This is where we meet and differ. I think a golf tourney is much more difficult to win. You say slightly.

 

From my count. Since the "open era". 32 times in tennis has 1 guy won at least 2 of the 4 slams. Where as in golf it has happened 17 times.

 

If we throw in years where 1 guy won 3 out of 4 the difference would be even greater.

 

Most of the years where Fed did not win at least 2 of the 4....Nadal or Djokovic just decided to do it. Pretty much proving that if it was not Fed it was one of the other guys who had a winning record against him. Proving that Tennis is basically a 2 or 3 man sport in any era. The last 2 eras the top guys seemed to stick around a little longer. Probably because technology and being able to and knowing how to take care of your body as you age.

[porkbutt 860]

both sports uber gay

[penultimatestraw 473]

This is where we meet and differ. I think a golf tourney is much more difficult to win. You say slightly.

 

From my count. Since the "open era". 32 times in tennis has 1 guy won at least 2 of the 4 slams. Where as in golf it has happened 17 times.

 

If we throw in years where 1 guy won 3 out of 4 the difference would be even greater.

 

Most of the years where Fed did not win at least 2 of the 4....Nadal or Djokovic just decided to do it. Pretty much proving that if it was not Fed it was one of the other guys who had a winning record against him. Proving that Tennis is basically a 2 or 3 man sport in any era. The last 2 eras the top guys seemed to stick around a little longer. Probably because technology and being able to and knowing how to take care of your body as you age.

Perhaps this means there is more luck in golf to explain the variability?

 

If I play a chess grand master, I'll lose every time, but I probably can win a poker hand against a pro. Does that mean poker is more difficult to master?

[edjr 5,546]

Perhaps this means there is more luck in golf to explain the variability?

 

If I play a chess grand master, I'll lose every time, but I probably can win a poker hand against a pro. Does that mean poker is more difficult to master?

 

 

Mind blown

 

I bet you can win 20 to 40% of hands against a poker 'pro'.

[tanatastic 2,061]

Perhaps this means there is more luck in golf to explain the variability?

 

If I play a chess grand master, I'll lose every time, but I probably can win a poker hand against a pro. Does that mean poker is more difficult to master?

Well, winning a hand of poker by having better cards is not the game. Anyone can be dealt better cards. The actual game is the exchange of chips and the exchange of bets/calls/raises. You got dealt a great hand, the pro got dealt a bad hand. You win, kewl, but the pro either folded or didnt lose much to you in the hand. The pro can lose or fold 50 hands in a row, it doesnt matter.

 

Im not sure whats harder to master, probably chess, but its so different.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

Perhaps this means there is more luck in golf to explain the variability?

 

If I play a chess grand master, I'll lose every time, but I probably can win a poker hand against a pro. Does that mean poker is more difficult to master?

Of course there is more luck in golf. But you have no idea what golf even is it seems.

 

Your analogy is off. Because Tiger plays against other pros.

 

Hence why it is much more difficult to win. You prove my point. Tiger is jn there with 100 other guys who can get lucky. Or be hot. Or he can fall to luck. And he STILL managed to win at the rate he did.

 

Federer in a sport where the best guys most always win. Since they play on pretty much a controlled enviornment. Since it is like the NBA playoffs with series and chances to win thr next set. Federer some how as the all time great in a luck less sport managed to be below .500 vs. his only 2 rivals.

 

Explain that one.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Of course there is more luck in golf. But you have no idea what golf even is it seems.

 

Your analogy is off. Because Tiger plays against other pros.

 

Hence why it is much more difficult to win. You prove my point. Tiger is jn there with 100 other guys who can get lucky. Or be hot. Or he can fall to luck. And he STILL managed to win at the rate he did.

 

Federer in a sport where the best guys most always win. Since they play on pretty much a controlled enviornment. Since it is like the NBA playoffs with series and chances to win thr next set. Federer some how as the all time great in a luck less sport managed to be below .500 vs. his only 2 rivals.

 

Explain that one.

I'll say it again: Tiger won impressively for a while, but Federer's sustained excellence in a sport in which youth tends to prevail makes his accomplishments more impressive. He is indisputably the best at his sport, Tiger is arguably second. Roger has played tougher competition and remains at the upper echelon of tennis 5+ years after most fall off a cliff. Tiger hasn't won a tournament of substance in a decade.

 

Nadal's historic excellence on clay does nothing to diminish Fed's accomplishments, nor does splitting wins with Djoker.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Well, winning a hand of poker by having better cards is not the game. Anyone can be dealt better cards. The actual game is the exchange of chips and the exchange of bets/calls/raises. You got dealt a great hand, the pro got dealt a bad hand. You win, kewl, but the pro either folded or didnt lose much to you in the hand. The pro can lose or fold 50 hands in a row, it doesnt matter.

 

Im not sure whats harder to master, probably chess, but its so different.

I was just trying to point out the role luck plays in winning some activities. It doesn't necessarily define something as harder because a better player wins a greater % of the time in chess (tennis) versus poker (golf).

 

I'm not sure which is harder to master, golf or tennis, as they are so different. All I can do is look at lifetime wins in comparison to other greats, which Fed bests Tiger handedly.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

I'll say it again: Tiger won impressively for a while, but Federer's sustained excellence in a sport in which youth tends to prevail makes his accomplishments more impressive. He is indisputably the best at his sport, Tiger is arguably second. Roger has played tougher competition and remains at the upper echelon of tennis 5+ years after most fall off a cliff. Tiger hasn't won a tournament of substance in a decade.

 

Nadal's historic excellence on clay does nothing to diminish Fed's accomplishments, nor does splitting wins with Djoker.

Whatever you say I suppose. I havent been arguing career ao not aure what you are babbling about.

 

I maintain my stance supported by numbers that golf is much tougher to win with regularity. It is exactly how you explained. Chess vs poker.

 

Feds is playing chess vs. One guy. Tiger is playing in the WSOP where anyone can get hot or lucky.

 

Tiger won 4 majors in a row despite. Federer never did that in his sport that is much easier to win in at a high rate. Djokovic however did do it. He also has a winning record vs Fed straight up. Nadal does as well.

 

We can agree to disagree. Ive given my several points.

[Gladiators 1,900]

Pen won this thread.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Whatever you say I suppose. I havent been arguing career ao not aure what you are babbling about.

 

I maintain my stance supported by numbers that golf is much tougher to win with regularity. It is exactly how you explained. Chess vs poker.

 

Feds is playing chess vs. One guy. Tiger is playing in the WSOP where anyone can get hot or lucky.

 

Tiger won 4 majors in a row despite. Federer never did that in his sport that is much easier to win in at a high rate. Djokovic however did do it. He also has a winning record vs Fed straight up. Nadal does as well.

 

We can agree to disagree. Ive given my several points.

OK. Fundamentally, you think golf is so difficult, no tennis player can ever be considered Tiger's equal. I'm arguing who is the better athlete at their respective sport, which I think is a no-brainer in favor of Fed.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

OK. Fundamentally, you think golf is so difficult, no tennis player can ever be considered Tiger's equal. I'm arguing who is the better athlete at their respective sport, which I think is a no-brainer in favor of Fed.

Well not sure why you wasted my time as I clearly stated early on that Fed can be the best. Certainly a longer better overall career. I stated in my first post and then again that Im talking at their best Ill take Tiger as who was more fominate in his sport. Obviously that all came tumbling down quick.

 

I guess we can be done here since you are still arguing against something I am not even talking about and stated I was noy ever talking about.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,576]

The GOAT is Babe Ruth. Fin'

[bandrus1 413]

I enjoy tennis buy know little about the insurance and outs.... What makes his game so dominant on clay

[penultimatestraw 473]

I enjoy tennis buy know little about the insurance and outs.... What makes his game so dominant on clay

It's a slower surface, which accentuates his ability to run down the ball and allows him to hit more forehands - his best shot with an unusual amount of topspin. His footwork and conditioning also are extraordinarily good, which is more valuable with longer rallies on clay.

[bandrus1 413]

Thanks... I knew it is slower but I didn't know what made him so much better at that style