listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 9, 2009 And yet another frustrated poster who can't prove a point with facts so, in desperation, starts the insults and namecalling. Game.set.match. I have brought more facts and numbers than you in this thread.....by a mile. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 I have brought more facts and numbers than you in this thread.....by a mile. The only thing you brought was trying to convince people that Federer's wins are against nobodies and that tennis tournaments are gimmies. Then, when I make a case to state otherwise, you get frustrated and start namencalling. Typical fourth-grade posting style. Where I come from, when someone resorts to namecalling in a debate, they are out of ideas and conceding defeat. Thanks. It was a good run. You held it together for quite some time before I frustrated you too much. Work on that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 9, 2009 Nadal - 13 Federer - 7 Borg - 7 Mac - 7 Sampras 20 Aggassi - 14 that's there head to head record. an lately it hasn't even been that close. Fed won the French becasue Nadal was injured and never got to play him losing early. Is it even a rivalry anymore? I mean to be one doesn't the record have to at least be close? I know Newbie ... sucks when stats get in the way doesn't it? Jeebus the man could barely beat an Old Sampras that hadn't played competition in years and you people ( newbie ) act like he is the greatest thing in sports today. I will say Fed is great no doubt but he isn't far an away the best ever an actually prolly isn't the best tennis player ever he just gets annointed that by some becaseu he is playing right now. Put him against Borg , Pete , Mac in their primes and I think people opinion on how dominant Fed is change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Nadal - 13 Federer - 7 Borg - 7 Mac - 7 Sampras 20 Aggassi - 14 that's there head to head record. an lately it hasn't even been that close. Fed won the French becasue Nadal was injured and never got to play him losing early. Is it even a rivalry anymore? I mean to be one doesn't the record have to at least be close? If they were the only two playing, then Nadal would be the better player. Federer has admitted that Nadal's lefty style gives him fits. And who knows, maybe Nadal will play five years after Federer hangs it up and be considered one of the, if not, the best ever himself. When judging a best-ever in any sport, you have to guage them on how they do in the big games- Super Bowls, World Series, Grand Slams, Majors, etc. Nadal needs many more Slams to be in teh conversation. But he's young. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 9, 2009 The only thing you brought was trying to convince people that Federer's wins are against nobodies and that tennis tournaments are gimmies. Other than Nadal who has he beaten - and Nadal has routinley beaten him like a drum most matches --actually Nadal owns a 2 to 1 advantage. An ancient Agassi and Sampras - an overated one trick pony Roddick? who.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 I will say Fed is great no doubt but he isn't far an away the best ever an actually prolly isn't the best tennis player ever he just gets annointed that by some becaseu he is playing right now. I haven't heard anyone make the claim that he is far and away the best ever. Many feel he is the best ever, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 9, 2009 If they were the only two playing, then Nadal would be the better player. Federer has admitted that Nadal's lefty style gives him fits. And who knows, maybe Nadal will play five years after Federer hangs it up and be considered one of the, if not, the best ever himself.When judging a best-ever in any sport, you have to guage them on how they do in the big games- Super Bowls, World Series, Grand Slams, Majors, etc. Nadal needs many more Slams to be in teh conversation. But he's young. same problem Borg had with Mcenroe - yet he still managed to split the head to heads with him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Other than Nadal who has he beaten - and Nadal has routinley beaten him like a drum most matches --actually Nadal owns a 2 to 1 advantage. An ancient Agassi and Sampras - an overated one trick pony Roddick? who.. Then why doesn't Nadal have as many slams as Federer? Is it inconsistency against other ranked players? don't you think that should factor in when considering greatness? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 9, 2009 I haven't heard anyone make the claim that he is far and away the best ever. Many feel he is the best ever, though. Newbie many say that becasue he is playing now and they want to re invigor the interest in tennis again that has been basically lost since Sampras / Agassi left. Newbie please stop and think for a minute Fed at his PEAK - culd not dominate Pete 5 years away from the game - old - and not in tennis shaope. Hell Pete beat him 1 of the 3 matches. Every single person I know that watched Borg play at his peak al say the same thing -- he was the greatest player ever an it isn't close. He struggled against Mac and his awkward serve and overall style - I think Mac was one of the first to do the serve / volley approach ) but still won his share. Fed is great but there are 4 other players that can easily be argued as being better. Woods there is no argumment that anyone is better as he doesn't have to play against an opponet he plays against a course and a score. No one has ever scored the way he has on a course an totally dominated golf since 1997/98. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 9, 2009 Then why doesn't Nadal have as many slams as Federer? Is it inconsistency against other ranked players? don't you think that should factor in when considering greatness? he is 4 years younger and right now he has 7 and should get another 7 if he keeps playing like he has as there's really no one to challenge him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoopy1 0 Posted June 9, 2009 Nadal - 13 Federer - 7 This is reason number 2 why I just can't put Federer ahead of Pete-how can a guy be considered the GOAT, when he can't even beat his biggest current rival on the tour. The number 1 reason is I just don't think the competition Federer faces today is not as good as the 2 though 10 that Sampras had to beat to win his 14 Slams. Comparing the paths each had to win to get achieve there majors gives a huge edge to Sampras Sampras Wimbledon 1993 Quarters Agassi(8), Semis-Becker(6) Final Courrier(4) Wimbledon 1994 Quarters-Chang(1), Semis-Todd Martin, Final-Goran Ivanišević(1,) Wimbledon 1995 Quarters-Shuzo Matsuoka, Semis-Goran Ivanišević(1), Final-Boris Becker(6) Wimbledon 1997 Quarters-Boris Becker(6), Semis-Todd Woodbridge, Final-Cédric Pioline Wimbledon 1998 Quarters-Mark Philippoussis, Semis-Tim Henman, Final-Goran Ivanišević(1) Wimbledon 1999 Quarters-Mark Philippoussis, Semis-Tim Henman, Final-Andre Agassi(8) Wimbledon 2000 Quarters-Jan-Michael Gambill, Semis-Vladimir Voltchkov, Final-Patrick Rafter(2) ---Opponents 40 Major Wins* Aus. Open 1994 Quarters- Magnus Gustafsson, Semis-Jim Courier(4)Final-Todd Martin Aus. Open 1997 Quarters-Albert Costa(1), Semis-Thomas Muster(1),Final-Carlos Moyà(1) ---Opponents 7 Major Wins* US Open 1990 Quarters-Ivan Lendl(8), Semis-John McEnroe(7),Final-Agassi(8) US Open 1993 Quarters-Michael Chang(1), Semis-Alexander Volkov,Final-Cedric Pioline US Open 1995 Quarters-Byron Black, Semis-Jim Courier(4),Final-Andre Agassi(8) US Open 1996 Quarters-Alex Corretja, Semis-Goran Ivanišević(1),Final-Michael Chang(1) US Open 2002 Quarters-Andy Roddick(1), Semis-Sjeng Schalken,Final-Andre Agassi(8) ---Opponents 43 Major Wins* Total Wins = 90 Federer-Opponents 20 Major Wins Wimbledon 2003 Quarters-Sjeng Schalken, Semis-Andy Roddick(1), Final-Mark Philippoussis Wimbledon 2004 Quarters-Lleyton Hewitt(2), Semis-Sebastien Grosjean, Final-Andy Roddick(1) Wimbledon 2005 Quarters-Fernando González, Semis-Lleyton Hewitt(2), Final-Andy Roddick(1) Wimbledon 2006 Quarters-Mario Ančić, Semis-Jonas Björkman, Final-Rafael Nadal(6) Wimbledon 2007 Quarters-Juan Carlos Ferrero(1), Semis-Richard Gasquet, Final-Rafael Nadal(6) ---Opponents 20 Major Wins Aus. Open 2004 Quarters-David Nalbandian, Semis-uan Carlos Ferrero(1)Final-Marat Safin(2) Aus. Open 2006-Quarters-Nikolay Davydenko, Semis-Nicolas KieferFinal-Marcos Baghdatis Aus. Open 2007-Quarters-Tommy Robredo, Semis-Andy Roddick(1)Final-Fernando Gonzalez ---Opponents 4 Major Wins US Open 2004 Quarters-Andre Agassi(8), Semis-Tim Henman,Final-Lleyton Hewitt(2) US Open 2005 Quarters-David Nalbandian, Semis-Lleyton Hewitt(2),Final-Andre Agassi(8) US Open 2006 Quarters-James Blake, Semis-Nikolay Davydenko,Final-Andy Roddick(1) US Open 2007 Quarters-Andy Roddick(1), Semis-Nikolay Davydenko,Final-Novak Đoković(1) US Open 2008 Quarters-Gilles Muller, Semis-Novak Đoković(1),Final-Andy Murray ---Opponents 24 Major Wins French Open 2009 Quarters-Gaël Monfils, Semis-Juan Martín del Potro,Final-Robin Söderling ---Opponents 0 Major Wins Total Wins= 48 *Win totals were counted for each time they faced an opponent in a major, IE 4 wins versus Agassi(8) would equal 32. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 While people like to discredit Federer because of his lack of success on clay against Nadal (who has been called the best clay-court player ever), those same people tend to overlook the fact that Samprass never even made it to the finals of the French Open. I'll repeat that in case you glossed over it...Samprass never made the finals at the French Open. Clay is a whole different monster. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 9, 2009 Tiger has multiple wins in each major. The Greens of the Masters, the rough of the U.S. or the weather of the British. Doesn't matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Tiger has multiple wins in each major. The Greens of the Masters, the rough of the U.S. or the weather of the British. Doesn't matter. It's all grass. MUCH easier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 9, 2009 It's all grass. MUCH easier. Different grasses, unpredictable weather. And they don't delay the play unless puddles start forming or if there is a thunderstorm overhead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Different grasses, unpredictable weather. And they don't delay the play unless puddles start forming or if there is a thunderstorm overhead. "Different Grasses" That's classic. Because Kentucky Bluegrass changes your golf stroke completely when compared to how you have to play on Bermuda grass. Wow. Practiccaly the same as the difference between grass, clay, and asphault. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 9, 2009 "Different Grasses" That's classic. Because Kentucky Bluegrass changes your golf stroke completely when compared to how you have to play on Bermuda grass. Wow. Practiccaly the same as the difference between grass, clay, and asphault. Different to putt on, did I mention they play through the rain? Those damn fat old golfers. Oh Fed and Nadal should encourage a mass of people lining down the court a few yards from their play, give the fans their money's worth! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 9, 2009 While people like to discredit Federer because of his lack of success on clay against Nadal (who has been called the best clay-court player ever), those same people tend to overlook the fact that Samprass never even made it to the finals of the French Open. I'll repeat that in case you glossed over it...Samprass never made the finals at the French Open. Clay is a whole different monster. Who is discrediting Fed for his Clay record? What people are doing is pointing out the fact he has a 1-2 disadvantage with his greatest career rival - Nadal -- Nadal has beat him in Wimbledon and the US open - not just clay recently. The ONLY really all world talent Fed has played in their prime is NADAL - and Nadal owns him. Put Fed against Becker , Lendl , Pete , Mac , Connors , Borg , Edberg , and Agassi -- I doubt people still call Fed the greatest ever. More than likely it would be Borg or Mac.. JMO -- folks that say Fed are certainly entitled as well the man is damn good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Different to putt on, did I mention they play through the rain? Those damn fat old golfers. Oh Fed and Nadal should encourage a mass of people lining down the court a few yards from their play, give the fans their money's worth! Yeah, because hitting a stationary ball in complete silence is quite a challenge. God forbid they do it while it's drizzling a little. That changes everything! Also, I doubt that tennis players would give two sh!ts about spectators standing outside the lines of their courts. They'd be the ones in danger. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 9, 2009 Different to putt on, did I mention they play through the rain? Those damn fat old golfers. you didnt mention that golfers simply walk to their ball...take a club..swing and walk some more...even fatties can do that in the rain without falling thanks to their cleats.... tennis is 2-3 hours of constant running and stopping...back and forth...on clay, it can rain a lil longer before play stops...but cement and grass is a lil different..a lot more athletic...unlike golf..they do play most tournaments when day turns to night and they play through just as much wind as golf does... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Who is discrediting Fed for his Clay record? What people are doing is pointing out the fact he has a 1-2 disadvantage with his greatest career rival - Nadal -- Nadal has beat him in Wimbledon and the US open - not just clay recently. The ONLY really all world talent Fed has played in their prime is NADAL - and Nadal owns him. Put Fed against Becker , Lendl , Pete , Mac , Connors , Borg , Edberg , and Agassi -- I doubt people still call Fed the greatest ever. More than likely it would be Borg or Mac.. JMO -- folks that say Fed are certainly entitled as well the man is damn good. Federer has 14 grand slam titles. How many does Nadal have? It's widely known that Nadal's southpaw strokes give Federer trouble. Especially on clay, where the spin and high bounce plays to Federer's weaknes- his backhand. Take away the clay court matches and see how much of an advantage Nadal has over him. And did I mention that Samprass never even made it to a single finals match at the French Open? And, as noted earlier, the reason everyone thinks there is no competition out there for Federer and/or Nadal is that these guys are so dominant that no one else can emerge as a 'great player'. Maybe in Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendles-day, none of them were good enough to seperate from the pack like Federer has. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 9, 2009 Yeah, because hitting a stationary ball in complete silence is quite a challenge. God forbid they do it while it's drizzling a little. That changes everything! Also, I doubt that tennis players would give two sh!ts about spectators standing outside the lines of their courts. They'd be the ones in danger. anyone who has been to an side court knows a few things..unlike golf. you can take pictures as people serve...you are RIGHT there..and yes, you are danger of getting plunked with a john isner serve after it skips out of play... but stand next to them?...encourage it? if all federer was going to do was serve...why not? but they dont just stand there and watch the flight..they actually have to run right after the serve.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 9, 2009 It's all grass. MUCH easier. Yup...its all the same...no difference between Augusta, Pebble, Bethpage, St. Andrews... Seriously can you be any more ignorant about golf. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 9, 2009 "Different Grasses" That's classic. Because Kentucky Bluegrass changes your golf stroke completely when compared to how you have to play on Bermuda grass. Wow. Practiccaly the same as the difference between grass, clay, and asphault. Change your swing? A little...changes how you approach a shot...different grasses react differently to the club from the fairway...different grasses on the green react different to spin or the ability to stop the ball. And playing the British requires a completely different style of play than playing at Augusta. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 you didnt mention that golfers simply walk to their ball...take a club..swing and walk some more...even fatties can do that in the rain without falling thanks to their cleats.... tennis is 2-3 hours of constant running and stopping...back and forth...on clay, it can rain a lil longer before play stops...but cement and grass is a lil different..a lot more athletic...unlike golf..they do play most tournaments when day turns to night and they play through just as much wind as golf does... The Woods-slobberers are grasping at straws now. The reason golf can be played in teh rain is because there's no chance of a player injuring himself. What's he going to do, slip and fall while walking to the next hole? How is a tennis player going to change directions in teh rain without slipping and getting injured? Golf is a skill, but it sure-as-hell isn't a sport. Craig Stadler was able to compete and be successful. And Daly. You don't have to run, lift, or anything. Get up and go play. Whoopie! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 9, 2009 Federer has 14 grand slam titles. How many does Nadal have?It's widely known that Nadal's southpaw strokes give Federer trouble. Especially on clay, where the spin and high bounce plays to Federer's weaknes- his backhand. Take away the clay court matches and see how much of an advantage Nadal has over him. And did I mention that Samprass never even made it to a single finals match at the French Open? And, as noted earlier, the reason everyone thinks there is no competition out there for Federer and/or Nadal is that these guys are so dominant that no one else can emerge as a 'great player'. Maybe in Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendles-day, none of them were good enough to seperate from the pack like Federer has. Umm...Nadal is also how much younger? Wait...that does not matter in the Newbie spin zone...I was going to save this for a good political thread...but working perfectly for you... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Change your swing? A little...changes how you approach a shot...different grasses react differently to the club from the fairway...different grasses on the green react different to spin or the ability to stop the ball.And playing the British requires a completely different style of play than playing at Augusta. Ok, then how come we never hear of a player that's great on bluegrass or has trouble on St Augustine? Come on. That's just stupid. Golf courses may be harder on some because of total distance, but let's not pretend that there's a whole lot of variance from one tournament to teh next. Look at a picture of the hole, have your caddy tell you which club to use, hit it, walk, have your caddy tell you what club to use, hit it, walk....wash, rinse, repeat. :yawn: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 9, 2009 Federer has 14 grand slam titles. How many does Nadal have?It's widely known that Nadal's southpaw strokes give Federer trouble. Especially on clay, where the spin and high bounce plays to Federer's weaknes- his backhand. Take away the clay court matches and see how much of an advantage Nadal has over him. And did I mention that Samprass never even made it to a single finals match at the French Open? And, as noted earlier, the reason everyone thinks there is no competition out there for Federer and/or Nadal is that these guys are so dominant that no one else can emerge as a 'great player'. Maybe in Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendles-day, none of them were good enough to seperate from the pack like Federer has. A. - Nadal beat him at Wimbledon and the US Open last year B. ever once stop to think the reason no one seperated themselves like Fed is becasue they were all at the top 10 ever elite level? for the 10th time now the only legit elite player Fed has really played in their prime is Nadal and Nadal treats him like a step child. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 9, 2009 Ok, then how come we never hear of a player that's great on bluegrass or has trouble on St Augustine? Come on. That's just stupid. Golf courses may be harder on some because of total distance, but let's not pretend that there's a whole lot of variance from one tournament to teh next. Look at a picture of the hole, have your caddy tell you which club to use, hit it, walk, have your caddy tell you what club to use, hit it, walk....wash, rinse, repeat. :yawn: You do hear of players that have trouble putting on different surfaces and there are plenty who suck at the British because they can't handle that style of play. Is it as dramatic of a difference as Tennis on Grass/Clay/Hardcourt? Not really...but to claim its all grass so its all the same is completely idiotic (par for the course for you though...and yes that poor pun was intended). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 for the 10th time now the only legit elite player Fed has really played in their prime is Nadal and Nadal treats him like a step child. And for the 11th time, how do you know there aren't some guys on Federer's hitlist that wouldn't have been considered top players if they were in their prime ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. It's the chicken or the egg argument. Maybe the domination by Federer (and recently Nadal) makes everyone else seem a lot more mediocre than they really are. (Why do I feel like I've typed that before?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 9, 2009 The Woods-slobberers are grasping at straws now. Says the guy bringing up how many titles Nadal has vs. Federer given there is an age difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 9, 2009 And for the 11th time, how do you know there aren't some guys on Federer's hitlist that wouldn't have been considered top players if they were in their prime ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. It's the chicken or the egg argument. Maybe the domination by Federer (and recently Nadal) makes everyone else seem a lot more mediocre than they really are. (Why do I feel like I've typed that before?) Can you name any? Any at all who have had even moderate success...any who have consistently challenged them even...or gotten into the semis and so on. Please say Roddick...please please please say Roddick. Hah!!!! The closest you might have is Novak Djokovic...but even he gets ousted often enough by some deeper seeded chumps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Grand Slam winners since Federer's first in 2003: 2009 French Open Roger Federer 2009 Australian Open Rafael Nadal 2008 U.S. Open Roger Federer 2008 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal 2008 French Open Rafael Nadal 2008 Australian Open Novak Djokovic 2007 U.S. Open Roger Federer 2007 Wimbledon Roger Federer 2007 French Open Rafael Nadal 2007 Australian Open Roger Federer 2006 U.S. Open Roger Federer 2006 Wimbledon Roger Federer 2006 French Open Rafael Nadal 2006 Australian Open Roger Federer 2005 U.S. Open Roger Federer 2005 Wimbledon Roger Federer 2005 French Open Rafael Nadal 2005 Australian Open Marat Safin 2004 U.S. Open Roger Federer 2004 Wimbledon Roger Federer 2004 French Open Gaston Gaudio 2004 Australian Open Roger Federer 2003 US Open Andy Roddick 2003 Wimbledon Roger Federer Upon closer inspection, Federer has won 14 of the 24 majors played. Oh, and of the ten he did not win, he was a finalist in five of them. Take away his weakness (Did I mention that Samprass never even made to a French Open final) the French Open, and Federer has won an unbelievable 13 of the 18 majors played. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,793 Posted June 9, 2009 Federer has 14 grand slam titles. How many does Nadal have?It's widely known that Nadal's southpaw strokes give Federer trouble. Especially on clay, where the spin and high bounce plays to Federer's weaknes- his backhand. Take away the clay court matches and see how much of an advantage Nadal has over him. And did I mention that Samprass never even made it to a single finals match at the French Open? And, as noted earlier, the reason everyone thinks there is no competition out there for Federer and/or Nadal is that these guys are so dominant that no one else can emerge as a 'great player'. Maybe in Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendles-day, none of them were good enough to seperate from the pack like Federer has. I know you've had a hoooge haul from this fishing expedition, but I need to comment here. Fed's weakness is his backhand? That's like saying a golfer's weakness is his short game. "HEY ROGER, RAFA IS GOING TO HIT IT TO YOUR BACKHAND AND IT IS GOING TO BOUNCE HIGH, YOU MIGHT WANT TO PRACTICE THAT#@!" Or, Roger could try to control the volleys to be his forehand and Nadal's backhand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 I know you've had a hoooge haul from this fishing expedition, but I need to comment here. Fed's weakness is his backhand? That's like saying a golfer's weakness is his short game. "HEY ROGER, RAFA IS GOING TO HIT IT TO YOUR BACKHAND AND IT IS GOING TO BOUNCE HIGH, YOU MIGHT WANT TO PRACTICE THAT#@!" Or, Roger could try to control the volleys to be his forehand and Nadal's backhand. It has more to do with the spin Nadal puts on the ball and his southpaw stroke. And you're right. Federer has admitted as much. He knows that Nadal has found something that is problematic for Federer and that he needs to do something to counter it. He also knows that time is not on his side, as he is five years older than Nadal, which is a huge deal in a sport that requires as much athleticism as tennis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted June 9, 2009 Crap ass tournaments in golf get televised because people still care and watch them...hell, the end of the memorial probably had ratings close to the end of the french. Well, not quite. The Memorial (a.k.a. some Crapass Tournament) had a 3.6 rating (2.8M viewers, up 100% from last year) vs. a 1.8 rating for the French Open final (1.4M viewers, no change from last year). http://www.usatoday.com/sports/weekend-tv-ratings.htm Tennis has decreased in popularity and golf has increased in popularity. A big reason for that is Tiger Woods. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Well, not quite. The Memorial (a.k.a. some Crapass Tournament) had a 3.6 rating (2.8M viewers, up 100% from last year) vs. a 1.8 rating for the French Open final (1.4M viewers, no change from last year). http://www.usatoday.com/sports/weekend-tv-ratings.htm Tennis has decreased in popularity and golf has increased in popularity. A big reason for that is Tiger Woods. This is not shocking at all. For starters, Woods is one of the country's most poplular athjletes in any sport. The fact that he was still in the running over the weekend ensured great ratings. As for tennis, one of the great things about the 70's and 80's was the fact that most of the Grand Slam events were up for grabs. You never knew if it would be Lendl or McEnroe or Connors or Borg. Also, McEnroe and Connors' personalities were fiery and argumentative. It was riveting television. While Nadal's success against Federer certainly makes it a rivalry, the fact that neither of them has a whole lot of personality doesn't really lend itself to great ratings. Add to that the fact that Nadal didn't advance to teh finals, and you had teh makings of a ratings disaster. Tennis desperately needs either a competitive American singles player or a challenger to Federer and Nadal who has a temper or is a media darling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 9, 2009 you didnt mention that golfers simply walk to their ball...take a club..swing and walk some more...even fatties can do that in the rain without falling thanks to their cleats.... tennis is 2-3 hours of constant running and stopping...back and forth...on clay, it can rain a lil longer before play stops...but cement and grass is a lil different..a lot more athletic...unlike golf..they do play most tournaments when day turns to night and they play through just as much wind as golf does... No one is claiming it is a tougher game physically. HTH And don't get all defensive you tennis betty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 6,793 Posted June 9, 2009 Tennis has decreased in popularity and golf has increased in popularity. A big reason for that is Tiger Woods. The correlation between golf and Tiger is well documented. In tennis, the problem here is that America sucks at it. I challenge anyone other than bmoney to, off the top of their head, rattle off the names of the two chicks who played in the French final. All I know is that it was two Russians not named Sharapova with a lot of z's in their names. And the American men totally suck ass. LPGA has a similar problem; South Korea has pretty much taken it over. We could embrace Sorenstam because she was kinda cute and looked like us round eyes, even if she wasn't Amerrrcun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted June 9, 2009 This is not shocking at all. For starters, Woods is one of the country's most poplular athjletes in any sport. The fact that he was still in the running over the weekend ensured great ratings. As for tennis, one of the great things about the 70's and 80's was the fact that most of the Grand Slam events were up for grabs. You never knew if it would be Lendl or McEnroe or Connors or Borg. Also, McEnroe and Connors' personalities were fiery and argumentative. It was riveting television. While Nadal's success against Federer certainly makes it a rivalry, the fact that neither of them has a whole lot of personality doesn't really lend itself to great ratings. Add to that the fact that Nadal didn't advance to teh finals, and you had teh makings of a ratings disaster. Tennis desperately needs either a competitive American singles player or a challenger to Federer and Nadal who has a temper or is a media darling. I guess that could be part of it. For me, tennis in the 70's and early 80's was less about serving speed and more about volley, approach the net, strategy. Points lasted longer and so the entire event was more interesting to watch. I used to actually follow it. Now, I watch a game and then I have lost interest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites