Jump to content



Photo

Federer > Woods


  • Please log in to reply
1244 replies to this topic

#1201 WhiteWonder

WhiteWonder

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 21,197 posts

Posted 24 January 2017 - 07:32 PM

 You said Tiger >> Roger, and that golf is far more competitive and popular. After you made those assertions you asked a little more about tennis, but it was clear your mind was already made up.There are less top competitors in tennis because of Federer's dominance. It's difficult to usurp #1 if one guy is winning every major tournament. I don't think there is a good way to compare the depth of the talent pool, but Federer has clearly been at the top of his game longer, in a sport where competitive longevity is more difficult.

 

well I do believe that golf is far more competitive on an event by event basis and certainly in the 4 'majors'. There are less players in a tennis tournament, correct? And how many have a real shot in those seeded events? Federer doesn't beat them all to win a grand slam event.  You can say that there are less top competitors because of Federers dominance but I could say the same thing about Tiger's dominance. If he doesn't win 14 majors, you might see a few more guys in that 4+ range. 

 

As for popularity, i'd have to do some more research but I do still feel that globally, golf is more popular and growing faster. I don't know if any "numbers or stats" are broken down specifically to mens tennis and mens golf or not but I feel like womens tennis is much more popular than womens golf and would probably skew those numbers a bit.  I see some websites where you likely got your info and they list "estimated fans" and regional popularity. If you were referencing 10balls or mostpopularsports.net those are going off of website traffic, it seems... aka fan popularity. I apologize if thats what you thought I meant by popularity. I was really referring more to the popularity of playing the sport which leads to talent development and growth of the game



#1202 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 24 January 2017 - 10:45 PM

well I do believe that golf is far more competitive on an event by event basis and certainly in the 4 'majors'. There are less players in a tennis tournament, correct? And how many have a real shot in those seeded events? Federer doesn't beat them all to win a grand slam event.  You can say that there are less top competitors because of Federers dominance but I could say the same thing about Tiger's dominance. If he doesn't win 14 majors, you might see a few more guys in that 4+ range. 
 
As for popularity, i'd have to do some more research but I do still feel that globally, golf is more popular and growing faster. I don't know if any "numbers or stats" are broken down specifically to mens tennis and mens golf or not but I feel like womens tennis is much more popular than womens golf and would probably skew those numbers a bit.  I see some websites where you likely got your info and they list "estimated fans" and regional popularity. If you were referencing 10balls or mostpopularsports.net those are going off of website traffic, it seems... aka fan popularity. I apologize if thats what you thought I meant by popularity. I was really referring more to the popularity of playing the sport which leads to talent development and growth of the game

i have no idea how many players are in a golf tournament, but it is the quality, not quantity of participants that determines the level of competition. And you can't say the same thing about Tiger's dominance, because he didn't win as many majors as Federer won Grand slam tournaments, even though he became a pro earlier.

I don't know what to say about popularity, but every place I've looked has tennis ranked higher. And I think more people play it worldwide by a long shot.

#1203 WhiteWonder

WhiteWonder

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 21,197 posts

Posted 24 January 2017 - 11:29 PM

i have no idea how many players are in a golf tournament, but it is the quality, not quantity of participants that determines the level of competition. And you can't say the same thing about Tiger's dominance, because he didn't win as many majors as Federer won Grand slam tournaments, even though he became a pro earlier.

I don't know what to say about popularity, but every place I've looked has tennis ranked higher. And I think more people play it worldwide by a long shot.

 

i think its quality AND quantity or, more accurately quantity of quality. How many players in a tennis tourney have the quality to actually WIN despite a smaller field?  How many golfers in a tourney have the quality to win despite a much larger field? 

 

the answer, no bias here either, is that golf tournaments hold a higher amount of quality players who have a chance to win on any given week. The strength of most fields blows the strength of comparable tennis fields out of the water. I feel perfectly safe making that statement. 

 

tiger turned pro a whopping 2 years earlier, not even sure it was 2 full calendar years...

 

Tiger turned pro in 1996 and won 14 majors in an 11 year span. (not taking into account the players, aka 5th major or WGC events)

Federer turned pro in 1998 and won 17 grand slams in a 14 year span.  15 in the first 11 years.   (not taking into account whatever other Tennis tournaments are viewed as very big)

 

so even the argument that Federer wins on longevity is watered down when you realize hes only won 2 more grand slams in those extra 3 years and none since 2012 

 

Tiger got hurt and the injuries piled up. We don't know if he will return or not or to what level. Its entirely possible he can add another mayyybe 2 majors

 

the titles and time lines are pretty identical, that said, I stick to my guns that the golf fields are stronger and winning that many majors in golf is a tougher task.



#1204 Cruzer

Cruzer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 36,931 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 09:33 AM

 You said Tiger >> Roger, and that golf is far more competitive and popular. After you made those assertions you asked a little more about tennis, but it was clear your mind was already made up.There are less top competitors in tennis because of Federer's dominance. It's difficult to usurp #1 if one guy is winning every major tournament. I don't think there is a good way to compare the depth of the talent pool, but Federer has clearly been at the top of his game longer, in a sport where competitive longevity is more difficult.=

i have no idea how many players are in a golf tournament, but it is the quality, not quantity of participants that determines the level of competition. And you can't say the same thing about Tiger's dominance, because he didn't win as many majors as Federer won Grand slam tournaments, even though he became a pro earlier.

I don't know what to say about popularity, but every place I've looked has tennis ranked higher. And I think more people play it worldwide by a long shot.

I believe, here in the States, there are about 18 million tennis players - the latest golfers numbered somewhere around 25 million.

 

As far as actual "dominance":

 

- Rog has a total (combined) of 302 weeks ranked #1, his longest consecutive streak was 237 weeks.

 

- TW has a total (combined) of 683 weeks ranked #1, his longest consecutive streak was 281 weeks - with yet even another consecutive streak of 264 weeks.



#1205 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 09:40 AM

I believe, here in the States, there are about 18 million tennis players - the latest golfers numbered somewhere around 25 million.

 

As far as actual "dominance":

 

- Rog has a total (combined) of 302 weeks ranked #1, his longest consecutive streak was 237 weeks.

 

- TW has a total (combined) of 683 weeks ranked #1, his longest consecutive streak was 281 weeks - with yet even another consecutive streak of 264 weeks.

 

Good stats. but  in tennis you typically start around 20 and end around 30.  so if you were #1 for 10 years that's only 520 weeks.

 

I started this thread in February 2007, stating that Roger at the time was more dominant (better) in his sport than Tiger.

 


 

edjr, on 24 Feb 2007 - 08:52 AM, said:
Way go to Tiger.
 
When it's 1 on 1 you choke again.
 
I still love you and you're my favorite golfer, but it's obvious Federer is better in his sport than you are in yours. Thanks for playing.
 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2007, Federer reached all four Grand Slam singles finals, winning three of them again. He won the Australian Open over Fernando González and did so without dropping a set

 

 

In 2007, Tiger won the PGA only (2nd in Masters and US open)

 

Since Tiger won the US Open in 2008, he's done nothing as we all know.

 

In 2008 Federer won the US open, Olympic gold, lost in 2 finals to Nadal

 

in 2009 he won the french and wimbledon


posty


#1206 Cruzer

Cruzer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 36,931 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 09:52 AM

 I don't think there is a good way to compare the depth of the talent pool, but Federer has clearly been at the top of his game longer, in a sport where competitive longevity is more difficult.

 

Good stats. but  in tennis you typically start around 20 and end around 30.  so if you were #1 for 10 years that's only 520 weeks.

That may be, but the point remains the same - and Doc is the one who actually brought it up.

 

Saying, "but Federer has clearly been at the top of his game longer, in a sport where competitive longevity is more difficult" - isn't entirely accurate.



#1207 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:04 AM

 

That may be, but the point remains the same - and Doc is the one who actually brought it up.

 

Saying, "but Federer has clearly been at the top of his game longer, in a sport where competitive longevity is more difficult" - isn't entirely accurate.

 

Ah, well that's not my take.  :thumbsup:


posty


#1208 WhiteWonder

WhiteWonder

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 21,197 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:13 AM

 
Good stats. but  in tennis you typically start around 20 and end around 30.  so if you were #1 for 10 years that's only 520 weeks.
 
I started this thread in February 2007, stating that Roger at the time was more dominant (better) in his sport than Tiger.
 


 
 
 
In 2007, Tiger won the PGA only (2nd in Masters and US open)
 
Since Tiger won the US Open in 2008, he's done nothing as we all know.
 
In 2008 Federer won the US open, Olympic gold, lost in 2 finals to Nadal
 
in 2009 he won the french and wimbledon


Go back a few posts and read what I wrote about Tiger and Roger in terms of majors and grand slams.. Tiger turned pro 2 years before Roger. In their first 11 years they won 14 majors and 15 grand slams, respectively. Federer scraped together 2 more grand slams but has done nothing since 2012. Tiger has done nothing since 2008. So 4 year difference is really 2 since Tiger started 2 years earlier.

The numbers are so close that it really boils down to a discussion on which sport is harder and more impressive to dominate

#1209 BufordT

BufordT

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,643 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 05:18 PM

Since Tiger won the US Open in 2008, he's done nothing as we all know.

Two weeks after he won the '08 US Open the PGA started to test for PED's.  He subsequently missed the rest of the year due to a "knee injury" and hasn't won a major since.

 

Federer is the best athlete this century that doesn't look like he's on the Ivan Drago workout regimen.



#1210 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:38 AM

I believe, here in the States, there are about 18 million tennis players - the latest golfers numbered somewhere around 25 million.
 
As far as actual "dominance":
 
- Rog has a total (combined) of 302 weeks ranked #1, his longest consecutive streak was 237 weeks.
 
- TW has a total (combined) of 683 weeks ranked #1, his longest consecutive streak was 281 weeks - with yet even another consecutive streak of 264 weeks.

Both sports have international appeal, so I think worldwide popularity is a more valid comparison.
 
Good point about the total weeks spent at number 1. I think it is a little unfair to say Roger has done "nothing" since 2012, as he has been runner up in 3 Grand Slams since that time. I don't know what Tiger has done lately, but Fed remains a threat to reach the finals and possibly win another Grand Slam 18 years since turning pro. How close has Tiger come to winning a major in the last ~eight years?

ETA Add another finals appearance for Federer. When was the last time Tiger was relevant?

#1211 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 09:15 AM

Federer is in the Ausie finals, after ousting fellow swede Stan Wawrinka
 

Love to see Rafa win his semi.


posty


#1212 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 09:44 AM

 

well I do believe that golf is far more competitive on an event by event basis and certainly in the 4 'majors'. There are less players in a tennis tournament, correct? And how many have a real shot in those seeded events? Federer doesn't beat them all to win a grand slam event.  You can say that there are less top competitors because of Federers dominance but I could say the same thing about Tiger's dominance. If he doesn't win 14 majors, you might see a few more guys in that 4+ range. 

 

I still don't understand why this is such a foregone conclusion. The most prestigious tennis tournament is Wimbledon, which hosts 128 players. The Masters is the golf equivalent; it fields 90-100. Why are the top ~100 golfers more competitive than the top 100 tennis players? For both tournaments there are a handful of players with a realistic shot to win, and the Federer era of tennis includes more all time greats (Djokovic, Nadal, possibly Murray, and the tail end of Sampras and Agassi's careers) than Tiger's contemporaries, IMO.



#1213 drobeski

drobeski

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 53,383 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 09:47 AM

I still don't understand why this is such a foregone conclusion. The most prestigious tennis tournament is Wimbledon, which hosts 128 players. The Masters is the golf equivalent; it fields 90-100. Why are the top ~100 golfers more competitive than the top 100 tennis players? For both tournaments there are a handful of players with a realistic shot to win, and the Federer era of tennis includes more all time greats (Djokovic, Nadal, possibly Murray, and the tail end of Sampras and Agassi's careers) than Tiger's contemporaries, IMO.

in golf they play the conditions, the different layouts and the entire feild.
How many of the entire field does Federer have to face.

#1214 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 09:55 AM

in golf they play the conditions, the different layouts and the entire feild.
How many of the entire field does Federer have to face.

Tennis has different surfaces and variable weather, too.

 

So is your assertion than sports which utilize brackets are inherently less competitive than free-for-alls? Are the Patriots less credible champions because the AFC East has been weak during their dominance?



#1215 drobeski

drobeski

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 53,383 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 11:01 AM

Tennis has different surfaces and variable weather, too.
 
So is your assertion than sports which utilize brackets are inherently less competitive than free-for-alls? Are the Patriots less credible champions because the AFC East has been weak during their dominance?

yes that is my assertion and the Patriots have to play other teams than those in the east.

#1216 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 11:12 AM

yes that is my assertion and the Patriots have to play other teams than those in the east.

 

Nice job pen, you got drobeski to use a new word.


posty


#1217 giraldi02

giraldi02

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,907 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 11:22 AM

Federer is in the Ausie finals, after ousting fellow swede Stan Wawrinka
 

Love to see Rafa win his semi.

 

Nadal is Federer's kryptonite in the finals. 


WPIAFP

 


#1218 mobb_deep

mobb_deep

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 12:04 PM

 

Nadal is Federer's kryptonite in the finals. 

 

On clay, sure. On hard court they're pretty even.


Sangre Por Sangre


#1219 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 12:13 PM

 

Nadal is Federer's kryptonite in the finals. 

 

Assuming he wins.

Rafa is 30  Feds is 35


posty


#1220 vuduchile

vuduchile

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 9,415 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 12:19 PM

 
Nice job pen, you got drobeski to use a new word.


It doesn't count since the first three letters are
a -s-s

#1221 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 12:58 PM

yes that is my assertion and the Patriots have to play other teams than those in the east.

That assertion is asinine. An athlete or team can only play the opponents on their schedule.

Extending the thought process a little further, should we count every point as a win for Federer? There are far more of those in a tennis tournament than holes in a golf match, and every point represents beating his competition. Are wildcard teams that win the Super Bowl (like say, the Giants) better than teams with byes because they have to beat one extra opponent?

#1222 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:15 PM

Pen, you're sleeping on how well Tiger plays defense, don't forget the defense.

 

 

if no one plays defense, it can't be a sport.

 

soccer > golf


posty


#1223 drobeski

drobeski

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 53,383 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:17 PM

Pen, you're sleeping on how well Tiger plays defense, don't forget the defense.
 
 
if no one plays defense, it can't be a sport.
 
soccer > golf

if it's not a sport, why the comparison? :doh:
Make up your mind.

#1224 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:27 PM

if it's not a sport, why the comparison? :doh:
Make up your mind.

I think it is a valid comparison. I just don't understand how the golfophiles can so smugly proclaim it is more challenging and competitive. Both are very difficult to master, and Tiger and Fed have dominated their respective sports. But only one of them is universally considered the best ever. If you compared Federer to Nicklaus the debate would be even better. 



#1225 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:28 PM

if it's not a sport, why the comparison? :doh:
Make up your mind.

 

 

said federer was better at his sport than woods at his.

 

I wasn;t comparing them,. others have.


posty


#1226 mobb_deep

mobb_deep

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:28 PM

I think it is a valid comparison. I just don't understand how the golfophiles can so smugly proclaim it is more challenging and competitive. Both are very difficult to master, and Tiger and Fed have dominated their respective sports. But only one of them is universally considered the best ever. If you compared Federer to Nicklaus the debate would be even better. 

 

If you added Serena Williams to the debate, there would be no debate.


Sangre Por Sangre


#1227 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:31 PM

 

If you added Serena Williams to the debate, there would be no debate.

Valid point, but I'm pretty sure Federer would beat her handedly.



#1228 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:32 PM

 

If you added Serena Williams to the debate, there would be no debate.

 

Women dominating sports doesn't impress me


posty


#1229 mobb_deep

mobb_deep

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:41 PM

 

Women dominating sports doesn't impress me

 

http://www.cc.com/vi...ating-the-price


Sangre Por Sangre


#1230 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 06:20 AM

Federer's case just got stronger.

#1231 WhiteWonder

WhiteWonder

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 21,197 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 05:58 PM

yeah obviously now my case goes out the window. i still submit that before today it was a valid point but now, tiger would need to win another major for there to really be a discussion again



#1232 Cruzer

Cruzer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 36,931 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 07:11 PM

That's very impressive for Rog, have to give him props.

#1233 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 08:34 PM

yeah obviously now my case goes out the window. i still submit that before today it was a valid point but now, tiger would need to win another major for there to really be a discussion again

Beating arguably the second best player ever to win yet another Grand Slam at an age well past his prime? Tiger would need to win a few more to even think about it.

#1234 Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 9,865 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 10:10 PM

Federer has to be in the conversation of G.O.A.T. with Jack Nicklaus.

Gracchus: I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it.


#1235 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 30 January 2017 - 08:53 AM

I wasn't around this weekend, anything important happen in the tennis world.

 

 

Only the 2 best finals I've ever seen in the same weekend.

 

Williams v Williams, yup I cried.

 

Federer vs Nadal, I screamed, I yelled, I cried.

 

Bunch of old foggies in the tennis world.

 

 

Venus is 36

Feds is 35

Serena is 35

Nadal is 30

 

 

absolutely amazing, incredible tennis. They all did goodly.


posty


#1236 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:47 AM

Guess what.

 

Rogerer Federer won ANOTHER tournament this weekend.

 

Ranked 4th in the world.

 

 

Will Tiger even play at the Masters?


posty


#1237 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 10,222 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:03 AM

Guess what.
 
Rogerer Federer won ANOTHER tournament this weekend.
 
Ranked 4th in the world.
 
 
Will Tiger even play at the Masters?

yeah, this comparison becomes more ridiculous with time. At least one of the tigerphiles admitted as much, but the rest are conspicuously silent.

#1238 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:10 AM

yeah, this comparison becomes more ridiculous with time. At least one of the tigerphiles admitted as much, but the rest are conspicuously silent.

 

35 and still winning tournaments and a major? unheard of.

 

(girls don't count)


posty


#1239 Cruzer

Cruzer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 36,931 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:50 AM

 

35 and still winning tournaments and a major? unheard of.

 

(girls don't count)

Jack won one at 46. :D



#1240 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 103,576 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:08 AM

Jack won one at 46. :D

 

 

He also won the US open and PGA in 1980 I will assume he was 40)

 

Tiger is 41 :(


posty