jgcrawfish 232 Posted July 7, 2009 I just heard something that swayed me into the camp of Federer > Woods. Roger Federer has made the semifinals of 21 straight majors...21 straight!!! Tiger never made the final 4 in more than 4 straight. Also, Fed has won is first major 6 years ago...that's 15 majors in a little over 6 years...with limited windows of opportunity for tennis players, Federers accomplishments >>> Woods. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted July 7, 2009 If you actually read the sad pathetic comment is about how you guys just spew nonsense. Like BMoney talking about how Woods gets invited back to majors when he is 60. Really what is the point? You both just make stupid statements that really mean nothing. And its sad to see people either that ignorant or fishing that much to just make up stuff. what are you babblign about? did i state a fact? do past champions get invited back to the Masters? yes or no? and for your info...I never said Tiger would win when hes 60..I dont think he'll be walking much when hes 60...quit focusing on the 60.... point is...tiger will win more majors..he will be playing longer....why is that bashed? its fact.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted July 7, 2009 Because we don't agree with your opinion that Federer is better right now.This play until you are 60 and get invited back thing? Talk about getting off topic. You think that is going to help Woods? Seriously? Cause lots of guys go out there winning majors in their 50s and 60s right? Yes...you just again proved you are either that ignorant about golf...or just purposfully saying stupid things to get a reaction. Either way, its sad and pathetic. easy there.... you and listen need to quit focusing on the 50s and 60s...no...I dont see tiger and his replaced knee winning when hes 50.... the point is...federer is in a sport where the window will close soon....i do think tiger can pull out a major or two 10 years from now...federer will be gone...tiger will pass him in slams....no question... ive proven that i know enough about golf to frustrate you...and you bring up brett favres name..it all comes back to that, doesnt it? you took the managements side..i sided with brett and predicted 7 wins..you called me names like u did here and disagreed... after a 6-10 record you still call names....nice.... and no..I dont think federer is the best ever..though the pros of today and the past say so and their opinion means more....but i agree with navratilova..and this is true with tiger..you say best of this era..not all time... neither are the best of all time.... and right now....fed is more dominant than tiger and here...edjr is more dominant than you are...your replies are all over the place on the topic..i reply with names and facts and you call names..the sure sign of defeat.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted July 7, 2009 I just heard something that swayed me into the camp of Federer > Woods. Roger Federer has made the semifinals of 21 straight majors...21 straight!!! Tiger never made the final 4 in more than 4 straight. Also, Fed has won is first major 6 years ago...that's 15 majors in a little over 6 years...with limited windows of opportunity for tennis players, Federers accomplishments >>> Woods. I'm glad somebody's been paying attention Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted July 8, 2009 Lance > Woods n Federer at his age looks like Lance might win his 8th straight Tour ( that he has raced in ) Lance is more dominant in his sport than anyone maybe ever in any sport. I doubt anyone else was ever given a coin flip chance to live before hand either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rallo 136 Posted July 8, 2009 I just heard something that swayed me into the camp of Federer > Woods. Roger Federer has made the semifinals of 21 straight majors...21 straight!!! Tiger never made the final 4 in more than 4 straight. Also, Fed has won is first major 6 years ago...that's 15 majors in a little over 6 years...with limited windows of opportunity for tennis players, Federers accomplishments >>> Woods. what do you mean by a golfer making the final 4??? finishing in the top four??? playing in one of the final two groups on sunday??? i didn't think that this was a stat that people kept. This argument will go on forever... i still stick by it is statistically harder to win a golf major than a tennis major just by the way that they are set up. it's like having the willie mays or mickey mantle argument... only they played the same sport Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted July 8, 2009 easy there.... you and listen need to quit focusing on the 50s and 60s...no...I dont see tiger and his replaced knee winning when hes 50.... the point is...federer is in a sport where the window will close soon....i do think tiger can pull out a major or two 10 years from now...federer will be gone...tiger will pass him in slams....no question... ive proven that i know enough about golf to frustrate you...and you bring up brett favres name..it all comes back to that, doesnt it? you took the managements side..i sided with brett and predicted 7 wins..you called me names like u did here and disagreed... after a 6-10 record you still call names....nice.... and no..I dont think federer is the best ever..though the pros of today and the past say so and their opinion means more....but i agree with navratilova..and this is true with tiger..you say best of this era..not all time... neither are the best of all time.... and right now....fed is more dominant than tiger and here...edjr is more dominant than you are...your replies are all over the place on the topic..i reply with names and facts and you call names..the sure sign of defeat.... Youve proven you know what about golf? That guys play til they are older? And if you did not mean he would be winning til he was older...why bring up that he would get invited back that late? Makes no focking sense (like most of your posts about golf). As for bringing up Favre...I brought him up with context that actually had something to do with this thread. I called you names because of how you acted...nothing to do with what the record prediction or what it ended up. And the only thing edjr is more dominant than is the plug he is pulling out of his ass. As for your names and facts? Hah!!!...you have posted mostly opinions then try to use some facts and think they support your argument...we disagree there and you can't handle it. And Id say the sure sign of defeat is when someone starts talking about an internet conversation and brings up if they won or lost the argument. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted July 8, 2009 CNNSI is stealing our ideas now... Tiger vs Federer fockers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted July 8, 2009 CNNSI is stealing our ideas now... Tiger vs Federer fockers check post 762 - - you're slowing down in your old age jgcrawfish Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bert 1,128 Posted July 8, 2009 I don't really see why there is an argument. Does Federer have the most majors ever in his sport? Yes Does Tiger have the most majors ever in his sport? No Tiger will probably get there but until he does Federer>Woods This may be an interesting debate after both are finished. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted July 8, 2009 And the only thing edjr is more dominant than is the plug he is pulling out of his ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted July 8, 2009 check post 762 - - you're slowing down in your old age jgcrawfish don't make me whip out the old pro kennex and open a can of whoop-ass on you joc... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted July 8, 2009 I don't really see why there is an argument. Does Federer have the most majors ever in his sport? Yes Does Tiger have the most majors ever in his sport? No Tiger will probably get there but until he does Federer>Woods This may be an interesting debate after both are finished. Many say Lebron is a more dominant and better player than Kobe. Why? Kobe has 4 more rings, more scoring titles, more all-star games. Lets just say who is at the end of their career. Why does being closer to the end of one's career make them more dominant? Tiger is more dominant than Jack was, yet he doesn't have his record....yet. There is a difference that a lot of people here don't seem to understand. There is also a difference in the rate that every tennis player in time won and every golfer in time won, that again many here can't seem to grasp. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted July 8, 2009 don't make me whip out the old pro kennex and open a can of whoop-ass on you joc... pro kennex hah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted July 9, 2009 In tennis youre mesured by the people you play in Golf it's you against the course. No other players influences how you play your game in Golf where in tennis your play in directly influenced by the competition. this is why even with little true rivals to Tiger right now he can be compared to Jack , Arnie , Hogan , Hagen , and Jones where as Fed hasn't played nearly the competition that players like Borg , Connors , Mac , Pete played. hell the one person who is a all time great he has played an is his rival he is owned by. Woods has shattered almost every major course record - Masters - the US Open when he played Pebble - unsure of the others. Both fall short of Lance and Phelps as far as sport dominance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted July 9, 2009 In tennis youre mesured by the people you play in Golf it's you against the course. No other players influences how you play your game in Golf where in tennis your play in directly influenced by the competition. this is why even with little true rivals to Tiger right now he can be compared to Jack , Arnie , Hogan , Hagen , and Jones where as Fed hasn't played nearly the competition that players like Borg , Connors , Mac , Pete played. hell the one person who is a all time great he has played an is his rival he is owned by. Woods has shattered almost every major course record - Masters - the US Open when he played Pebble - unsure of the others. Both fall short of Lance and Phelps as far as sport dominance. Agreed to an extent...though, Tiger has a few advantages (that other players now have as well...really in all sports). Technological advances in equipment...and of course in response Golf has changed up several courses. Also guys back then did not work out...the same is true for all sports really. Working out and keeping fit and keying in on certain muscle groups that could help you was not done throughout most sports back in the day. Not to the extent it is now. I think its possible some of the older gys like Hagen and Hogan, and Jones were probably more naturally gifted than Tiger as far as golf. But his mental makeup and just complete drive to practice and improve is what has pushed him to such heights. And yeah...Lance and Phelps are monsters...though with Phelps it seems like there is a new guy like him every several years to dominate for a bit. Though, none as much as he has recently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted July 10, 2009 Agreed to an extent...though, Tiger has a few advantages (that other players now have as well...really in all sports). Technological advances in equipment...and of course in response Golf has changed up several courses. Also guys back then did not work out...the same is true for all sports really. Working out and keeping fit and keying in on certain muscle groups that could help you was not done throughout most sports back in the day. Not to the extent it is now. I think its possible some of the older gys like Hagen and Hogan, and Jones were probably more naturally gifted than Tiger as far as golf. But his mental makeup and just complete drive to practice and improve is what has pushed him to such heights. And yeah...Lance and Phelps are monsters...though with Phelps it seems like there is a new guy like him every several years to dominate for a bit. Though, none as much as he has recently. Actually I don't think there has ever been a swimmer like Micheal Phelps. Maybe Spitz but that's the only person close. also -- as the clubs are better now - the courses are harder - True put wooden Irons in tigers hands and his distance goes down 50 - 80 yards. Make the greens the way they are now and scores would go up as well in the Bobby Jones era.. I play alot at public course and do well -- i go to my dads club where they twice cut the greens and roll them - it makes it a totally different game when putting on concrete. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted July 10, 2009 also, Tiger does Steroids. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 30 Posted July 10, 2009 also, Tiger does Steroids. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted July 10, 2009 Also, they are totally different sports in every way; so you can't compare. It's beyond apples to oranges. It's like apples to a bowl of rocks. This is 21 pages of garbage. Congrats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted July 10, 2009 Also, they are totally different sports in every way; so you can't compare. It's beyond apples to oranges. It's like apples to a bowl of rocks. This is 21 pages of garbage. Congrats. who puts rocks in a bowl anyway? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted July 10, 2009 who puts rocks in a bowl anyway? Fruity Pebbles? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted July 10, 2009 In tennis youre mesured by the people you play in Golf it's you against the course. No other players influences how you play your game in Golf where in tennis your play in directly influenced by the competition. this is why even with little true rivals to Tiger right now he can be compared to Jack , Arnie , Hogan , Hagen , and Jones where as Fed hasn't played nearly the competition that players like Borg , Connors , Mac , Pete played. hell the one person who is a all time great he has played an is his rival he is owned by. Woods has shattered almost every major course record - Masters - the US Open when he played Pebble - unsure of the others. Both fall short of Lance and Phelps as far as sport dominance. I will never call Federer the best of all time..maybe its because Ive seen his early days and cant put that title on the guy rocking the ponytail.... plus we never saw the guys from the past..so we are judging it based on what others say...God help us if the future era looks at this thread to base opinions on who was great Id just stay with..now..federer more dominant than woods...but thats thanks to woods recovering from an injury... federer was ill last year with mono...it has to factor in... when both get healthy..we shall see whos more dominant..but again, right now its roger... as far as owning players go....sampras NEVER made a slam on clay..so people bashing fed for not being able to beat nadal are off... nadal has never made a final at the us open..so lets not get overboard with him... andy murray is 6-2 vs federer all time... mcenroe would sometimes skip the clay since he wasnt great on it..he rarely played the aussie open.... sampras struggled with stefan edberg... lendl topped mcenroe 21-15 all time and connors 22-13..but no one puts lendl up there..nor should they.... laver was banned from winning slams from age 23 to 28 because he was a pro....yeah, he won early on as an amateur because pros couldnt play..so that gets an * but how can you factor the missed strong years in?.....you cant... best of this era? federer....thats all id say.... same with golf....tiger now..hogan then....let the argument begin about the middle.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted July 17, 2009 Another reason why Federer > Woods Federer always has to play good, he can't play crappy or he'll get knocked out of the tournament. Tiger was terrible yesterday, he's 6 shots back and still has a chance to come back and win? also, Tiger has only won 2 majors that were par 70, you can forget about him winning this one too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted July 17, 2009 Another reason why Federer > Woods Federer always has to play good, he can't play crappy or he'll get knocked out of the tournament. Tiger was terrible yesterday, he's 6 shots back and still has a chance to come back and win? also, Tiger has only won 2 majors that were par 70, you can forget about him winning this one too. IMO...the exact opposite. Tiger is all but out of it because of one bad day. Eventhough he was bad, his score was good enough to beat quite a few of the chumps that he would have been facing the first round. Just as Federer can have a bad day and still knock off his first and 2nd round opponents because they stink. But his one day does not put him in a hole like it does for Tiger. Play bad but still get the win for Feds, and the next round is a new day with no carryover. Tiger has a bad round and sneaks through, he is in a hole and has to make up for it the next 3 days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted July 17, 2009 Tiger's inconsistency has made this thread pretty-much of a joke. Federer brings it every single time. Tiger struggles half teh time. Game. Set. Match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted July 17, 2009 IMO...the exact opposite. Tiger is all but out of it because of one bad day. Eventhough he was bad, his score was good enough to beat quite a few of the chumps that he would have been facing the first round. Just as Federer can have a bad day and still knock off his first and 2nd round opponents because they stink. But his one day does not put him in a hole like it does for Tiger. Play bad but still get the win for Feds, and the next round is a new day with no carryover. Tiger has a bad round and sneaks through, he is in a hole and has to make up for it the next 3 days. who shot 41 on the front 9 at the Masters and came back to win by more than 10 strokes? Federer would have been out in the 1st round if he played that bad. a golf major has 4 rounds, or better yet 8 - sides 9 holes each. a tennis major has what 7 rounds? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted July 17, 2009 who shot 41 on the front 9 at the Masters and came back to win by more than 10 strokes? Federer would have been out in the 1st round if he played that bad. a golf major has 4 rounds, or better yet 8 - sides 9 holes each. a tennis major has what 7 rounds? So Federer did not lose a set 6-3 against Roddick but still won a few weeks ago? Id liken that to having a poor front 9. Federer loses a set...but can still win. It has 4 rounds, the 8 sides is pretty stupid. Tennis major has 7 rounds...and he has 5 sets each round to win 3 of them. He does not have to be on every single shot. One shot will not kill his chances...2 holes pretty much hurt Tiger yesterday and did the same at the US Open too. 2 holes. Pretty much 2 bad swings can take a golfer out of contention. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted July 17, 2009 And now a 3 stretch hole after a birdie going bogey, bogey, and double (after a lost ball I believe) and he may be completely out of it. Now +4 with the projected cut at +3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted July 17, 2009 So Federer did not lose a set 6-3 against Roddick but still won a few weeks ago?Id liken that to having a poor front 9. Federer loses a set...but can still win. It has 4 rounds, the 8 sides is pretty stupid. Tennis major has 7 rounds...and he has 5 sets each round to win 3 of them. He does not have to be on every single shot. One shot will not kill his chances...2 holes pretty much hurt Tiger yesterday and did the same at the US Open too. 2 holes. Pretty much 2 bad swings can take a golfer out of contention. well thought out but wrong.... federer losing a set is PART of 1 possible bad day....same as a hole or 2 being part of tigers.... tiger can still play today...had roger played that poorly, there would be no more 2nd day for him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted July 17, 2009 And now a 3 stretch hole after a birdie going bogey, bogey, and double (after a lost ball I believe) and he may be completely out of it.Now +4 with the projected cut at +3 Federer has made the finals at a major, a record 10 straight times, Tiger is in jeopardy of not making the cut at the British? /thread Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted July 17, 2009 also, Tom Watson is -4 and Tiger is +7 I'd love to see Rod Laver out there at the next French Open. Tiger should be so embarrassed he should just retire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted July 17, 2009 Federer has made the finals at a major, a record 10 straight times, Tiger is in jeopardy of not making the cut at the British? /thread If he doesn't make the cut, they should lock this thread up and put it to bed. There aren't many debates that actually end with a pretty red bow on it, but this one would. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted July 17, 2009 also, Tom Watson is -4 Has there ever been bigger proof that golf is not a sport? His dad just missed the cut. Bwahahaha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted July 17, 2009 Has there ever been bigger proof that golf is not a sport? His dad just missed the cut. Bwahahaha Watson just hit an 80 foot birdie putt on 18 to tie for the lead at -5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted July 17, 2009 well thought out but wrong.... federer losing a set is PART of 1 possible bad day....same as a hole or 2 being part of tigers.... tiger can still play today...had roger played that poorly, there would be no more 2nd day for him Yes...that one bad day losing a set won't hurt Federer the next day would it? Tiger's bad day yesterday was still good enough to beat many chumps...just like Rodger on a bad day is still good enough to beat the chumps he faces in the first few rounds. But a bad day by Rodger where he still wins...does not hurt him the next day...like a bad hole or two can doom Tiger. Just like Tiger's last few holes will doom him and have him back in the states for the weekend it looks like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted July 17, 2009 Watson just hit an 80 foot birdie putt on 18 to tie for the lead at -5 how cool is THAT? not only is tiger not as good as the guys from that era, but now hes being beaten soundly by those players...the guys 59... jack is probably bent that he didnt get in on this.... as pointed out before...unlike tennis..a watson or nicklaus could get in on this if they are still alive and wanted to.... they dont just let sampras enter wimbledon... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted July 17, 2009 how cool is THAT? not only is tiger not as good as the guys from that era, but now hes being beaten soundly by those players...the guys 59... jack is probably bent that he didnt get in on this.... as pointed out before...unlike tennis..a watson or nicklaus could get in on this if they are still alive and wanted to.... they dont just let sampras enter wimbledon... It is nice to see with Watson...but be honest...this is the only style play that would allow someone like Watson to really have a chance. Shorter course where distance is not an issue. And Watson was always pretty darn good in the Open. And can he last all weekend to do it? I hope so...would be a nice story and will get people watching while Tiger is at home. But again...the comparison has never been about which sport is more physically demanding. Jack? I would bet Tiger would be like him and not play around much after he is no longer competitive. Jack said long ago he would not be just taking exemptions just to play. He knows he can't hold up over the long haul and compete and its not in his nature just to go out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted July 17, 2009 It is nice to see with Watson...but be honest...this is the only style play that would allow someone like Watson to really have a chance. Shorter course where distance is not an issue. And Watson was always pretty darn good in the Open.And can he last all weekend to do it? I hope so...would be a nice story and will get people watching while Tiger is at home. But again...the comparison has never been about which sport is more physically demanding. Jack? I would bet Tiger would be like him and not play around much after he is no longer competitive. Jack said long ago he would not be just taking exemptions just to play. He knows he can't hold up over the long haul and compete and its not in his nature just to go out there. And there you have it. By making the courses longer, they have taken the skill players out of it. When was the last time Brad Faxon or Corey Pavin could compete for more than maybe one tournament a year? Basically golf has made it easier for Tiger to dominate, by make the courses longer. Shorten the courses, make the fairways narrower and make the rough thicker. ThAT'S GOLF. not hitting it 300+ yards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted July 17, 2009 And there you have it. By making the courses longer, they have taken the skill players out of it. When was the last time Brad Faxon or Corey Pavin could compete for more than maybe one tournament a year? Basically golf has made it easier for Tiger to dominate, by make the courses longer. Shorten the courses, make the fairways narrower and make the rough thicker. ThAT'S GOLF. not hitting it 300+ yards And they were trying to make it harder for him. Never seen a tennis court that they tried to Roger proof. but yes...Id like to see some shorter narrow courses...but Tiger has done pretty well there too. Because he is pretty darn good hacking it out of rough and so good around the greens. He is not the longest hitter off the tee...some people still think that. Where he is long is from the fairway and how high he can hit those long irons and still get them to stop...that is where he just kills people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites