Federer > Woods

[Sho Nuff 719]

Back in Jack Nicklaus' day, there were really only a few really good golfers. Guys that you knew had a chance to win. Trevino, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, etc.

 

Now, there are 15 guys that have a chance to win just about any tournament.

 

Riddle this for me, Batman. If Federer is so dominant in the game today, why don't they change the layout of the court so that it can be fairer for everyone else? It sure seems that they have changed courses as a direct result of Tiger's bomb and gouge approach to the game. Then when they do that, he alters his game (see: last year's British Open). When Federer can win on any court or when they change the layout of the court for him, then I will probably pay more attention.

 

Not just last year's British...look how he played this past PGA...he changed his game to fit the course. A course many thought he could not win on. A course that both Jack and Arnie never won a major on (I think I heard that last part).

[Sho Nuff 719]

The reason there is a large gap is because the competition isn't as good.

 

You think maybe because players can come in 40th in a tournament and make enough money to live there isn't as much motivation to practice like they used to back in the day? In jack's day you had to win to make money, in todays game you have to make the cut to survive. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

Since Tiger made golf way more popular than it was, say when? around the late 90s? let's say 97 when he won the masters.

 

I don't think anyone is old enough to be able to beat tiger yet.

 

I think its the opposite. There is deeper competition out there. But nobody is standing out because of how far ahead of the pack Tiger is.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The reason there is a large gap is because the competition isn't as good.

 

You think maybe because players can come in 40th in a tournament and make enough money to live there isn't as much motivation to practice like they used to back in the day? In jack's day you had to win to make money, in todays game you have to make the cut to survive. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

Since Tiger made golf way more popular than it was, say when? around the late 90s? let's say 97 when he won the masters.

 

I don't think anyone is old enough to be able to beat tiger yet.

 

I don't know if you really believe the stuff that spews out of your mouth or not. If you do, then it certainly explains an awful lot.

 

The talent level of the 40th rated player in the world today is better than the 40th rated player 30 or 40 years ago. Hands down. These guys work very hard at their game and they do it with tools that are vastly superior to the old days. These guys are motivated by staying in the top 125, which is not easy. If you think that they are not hungry, then you have never watched a practice round or guys like Tiger and Vijay out there hitting balls after finishing their round in the dark.

 

I was pointing out that Tiger has been so dominant at his sport that he has changed the game and made them change the courses. When Federer is that dominant, please let me know.

[surferskin 30]

if golfs competition was so fierce these days it'd be a whole helluva lot easier to name the top 5 golfers besides tiger...and where are all their major victories? face it...tiger is a stud but he's surrounded by a buncha chokers.

[edjr 5,567]

if golfs competition was so fierce these days it'd be a whole helluva lot easier to name the top 5 golfers besides tiger...and where are all their major victories? face it...tiger is a stud but he's surrounded by a buncha chokers.

 

 

Phil Chokelson? When Tiger gets within 400 yards of him he wets his pants.

[edjr 5,567]

I don't know if you really believe the stuff that spews out of your mouth or not. If you do, then it certainly explains an awful lot.

 

The talent level of the 40th rated player in the world today is better than the 40th rated player 30 or 40 years ago. Hands down. These guys work very hard at their game and they do it with tools that are vastly superior to the old days. These guys are motivated by staying in the top 125, which is not easy. If you think that they are not hungry, then you have never watched a practice round or guys like Tiger and Vijay out there hitting balls after finishing their round in the dark.

 

I was pointing out that Tiger has been so dominant at his sport that he has changed the game and made them change the courses. When Federer is that dominant, please let me know.

 

The reason they changed the courses is because EVERYONE is hitting it longer, not just Tiger. Also, how are they going to change a tennis court?

[Sho Nuff 719]

if golfs competition was so fierce these days it'd be a whole helluva lot easier to name the top 5 golfers besides tiger...and where are all their major victories? face it...tiger is a stud but he's surrounded by a buncha chokers.

 

Thats kind of the point. The overall competition is better/deeper. Like was just mentioned, the 40th best player today is much better than the 40th best player in Jack's time.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The reason they changed the courses is because EVERYONE is hitting it longer, not just Tiger. Also, how are they going to change a tennis court?

 

... and they are hitting it straighter, and putting better, and tougher around the greens, etc.

 

The golfers today are much better than the golfers in previous eras.

[edjr 5,567]

... and they are hitting it straighter, and putting better, and tougher around the greens, etc.

 

The golfers today are much better than the golfers in previous eras.

 

The golfers of today are better because of the equipment.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

[Sho Nuff 719]

The golfers of today are better because of the equipment.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

Yeah...its just the equipment.

 

And Federer is using a retro 1972 wood racket too right?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The golfers of today are better because of the equipment.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

Ed, I have watched you play the game before. You could have the best equipment in the world and you would still suck.

 

There are some things that are better because of equipment - no doubt about that. However, the skill of the players is better as well. They play more golf, they have better instruction, and they are better athletically than the cigar smoking, booze drinking guys that used to be on the tour. John Daly is behind the times

[listen2me 23 1,544]

Gary Player won 9 majors and Tom Watson won 8. If everyone in this era is so good why doesn't anyone else besides Tiger have more than 3?

 

Why did Jack Nicklaus come in second 19 times in majors? BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE PLAYED AGAINST HIM, THEY DIDN'T FORGET HOW TO PLAY!?!

 

Since he won his 1st major from 1963 to 1986 Jack missed 6 cuts in majors. Since he won his 1st major, Tiger missed 1 so far (because he was coming off an injury) Why is that? Simple, Jack played against better competition.

 

[tony the tiger] that's some GRRRRREATT competition there [/tony the tiger]

 

I would not say there are more GREAT players today. But from top to bottom everyone seems to have a chance in any tournement. I see guys all the time I havn't heard of on the leader board.

 

Today from top to bottom the level of play is much better.

 

In Tennis there is about 3 or 4 guys that could win a tournement. Golf there seems to be about 50....with the added in Rich Beems and Ben Curtis....guys that come from no where.

 

When Tiger has to go out and beat out 150 pro golfers for 4 days, it is tough. If you were to ask any golf expert...even Jack...they would say there were more great golfers back in the day....but from top to bottom the field is strong now.....with many more guys capible of winning.

[t.j 35]

Based on people's records...based on looking at the rankings of say the top 100 players and the resumes of those who are ranked at each position on each tour.

 

What about the rankings of the top 100 players makes you think the tennis field is weaker? As for the resumes, the resumes of the other players are affected by the fact that they have to play against Tiger and Federer. Pretty much no one else in tennis has a great resume right now because Federer hogs all the grand slam titles.

[t.j 35]

 

Hell, you can lose more games than you win in a tennis match and still win the match.

 

Which, as I pointed out, is exactly how Federer's opponent beat him in the finals of the latest tournament. Once again, this is a factor that makes tennis harder to dominate.

[mayhem39 3]

This thread may last forever... Anyway Ed, there is no way for me to prove to you that the golfers of today are better. It is my opinion and several other people's also that there are many, many more good players today then there were even 20 years ago. It is much tougher to win a golf tourney now more than ever IMO. Golf has just boomed in the last two decades which has created more good players. I think the exact opposite is true in tennis.

[jerryskids 5,207]

edjr has caught his limit today and it is still early.

[Sho Nuff 719]

What about the rankings of the top 100 players makes you think the tennis field is weaker? As for the resumes, the resumes of the other players are affected by the fact that they have to play against Tiger and Federer. Pretty much no one else in tennis has a great resume right now because Federer hogs all the grand slam titles.

 

When I first looked at it, I cannot recall who the 100th rated tennis player was...Id have to look back when I posted it. For the PGA Tour it was Fred Funk.

 

Funk killed the tennis guy as far as what he has accomplished and it was not even close.

 

And its not just about titles...look at things like top 10s in golf or how far the guys went in Tennis.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Which, as I pointed out, is exactly how Federer's opponent beat him in the finals of the latest tournament. Once again, this is a factor that makes tennis harder to dominate.

 

How does being able to be off more during a match and still win make it tougher to dominate in Tennis?

[edjr 5,567]

edjr has caught his limit today and it is still early.

 

 

|

|

|

J

[gocolts 300]

[surferskin 30]

Thats kind of the point. The overall competition is better/deeper. Like was just mentioned, the 40th best player today is much better than the 40th best player in Jack's time.

says who? because they use better drivers and golf balls?

[t.j 35]

When I first looked at it, I cannot recall who the 100th rated tennis player was...Id have to look back when I posted it. For the PGA Tour it was Fred Funk.

 

Funk killed the tennis guy as far as what he has accomplished and it was not even close.

 

So because the 100th rated golfer at the time you checked happened to have a better resume than the 100th rated tennis player, that's your evidence that the golf field is stronger? That's a silly argument. The #100 guy right now is Ken Duke who hasn't accomplished squat

 

And its not just about titles...look at things like top 10s in golf or how far the guys went in Tennis.

 

Again, can you be a little more specific? What did the top 10 golfers do, and what didn't the top 10 tennis players do, that you find to be compelling?

[Sho Nuff 719]

says who? because they use better drivers and golf balls?

 

Its an opinion...but one that is shared by many people at this time and is a generally accepted one in the sport today.

The equipment has changed for sure. But courses are also getting longer and adjusted for that equipment.

[surferskin 30]

Its an opinion...

you should just stop right there.

 

but one that is shared by many people at this time and is a generally accepted one in the sport today.

i'm interested to see if you could provide a link that might actually back this up....

[Sho Nuff 719]

So because the 100th rated golfer at the time you checked happened to have a better resume than the 100th rated tennis player, that's your evidence that the golf field is stronger? That's a silly argument.

Again, can you be a little more specific? What did the top 10 golfers do, and what didn't the top 10 tennis players do, that you find to be compelling?

 

Who said it was the only part of the argument. Its just one piece and easy to see example of how the field is deeper in golf right now than Tennis.

 

Not the top 10 golfers/tennis players.

But top 10 finishes by people...or how far guys make it in the tennis tournaments.

( I say top 10 because that gives you some look at how players are doing since they cannot win the tournaments when Tiger or Roger play).

[Sho Nuff 719]

you should just stop right there.

 

Who ever claimed it was fact?

 

 

i'm interested to see if you could provide a link that might actually back this up....

 

I would link to it, but I don't have a link to several broadcasts of the PGA tour events that I have watched where I heard this mentioned.

 

There are plenty of articles out there...not too hard to find that talk about the depth...and there is debate on both sides of it. Jack mentions that the top players were better back then...as I agree, but others will talk about top to bottom there are better players. This link is kind of old, and features a great quote where a guy claims Tiger is as good as he will ever be (when he was 23).

 

"I think it was more difficult for me than it is for him. I had a bunch of guys who knew how to win,'' Nicklaus said in a USA Today article in 2001. "I mean, all his best players are all fighting for the category, 'Best Player Never to Win a Major.'

 

"If I wasn't playing well, and I fell on my face a little bit, I had a bunch of guys that had won six, seven, eight majors. Arnold, Gary, (Lee) Trevino or Watson, they didn't blow the chance when they had it.''

 

Woods, in a Golf Digest piece that extolled Nicklaus' accomplishments, took a different approach:

 

"Chasing Jack isn't easy. Eighteen professional major championships. It's a daunting task,'' Woods wrote. "Some would suggest that Jack's record is unattainable today because of the strength of field at majors. Even though the depth of field wasn't as good then as it is now, in major championships the top players always seemed to be in contention. That hasn't changed.''

 

Seitz, the Golf Digest editor who has been following pro golf since the 1960s, can see both sides of the argument.

 

"It's very hard to compare generations. (Nicklaus) did win against a lot of guys who were accustomed to winning majors,'' Seitz said. "Tiger hasn't had that kind of challenge, not through any fault of his own.''

 

Seitz also sees a deeper talent pool these days.

 

"I think you could draw a distinction between talent and depth and major championship winners,'' he said.

 

http://www.augusta.com/masters/stories/040...e_3684502.shtml

 

So I was wrong when saying it is generally accepted....but I have heard it more often lately than ever before.

[Strike 3,979]

I thought this discussion was over?

[edjr 5,567]

I thought this discussion was over?

 

It's impossible to answer, it's all a matter of opinion.

 

Christ, there is no way to compare Jack to Tiger, forget Roger to Tiger.

[t.j 35]

Who said it was the only part of the argument. Its just one piece and easy to see example of how the field is deeper in golf right now than Tennis.

 

See my edit above. The fact that Funk happened to be #100 at the time was arbitrary. The guy who is #100 right now is a nobody. I don't think it means anything at all.

 

Not the top 10 golfers/tennis players.

But top 10 finishes by people...or how far guys make it in the tennis tournaments.

( I say top 10 because that gives you some look at how players are doing since they cannot win the tournaments when Tiger or Roger play).

 

Ok, so tell me what is it about the top 10 finishes in golf and tennis that makes you think the golf field is stronger?

[Sho Nuff 719]

See my edit above. The fact that Funk happened to be #100 at the time was arbitrary. The guy who is #100 right now is a nobody. I don't think it means anything at all.

Ok, so tell me what is it about the top 10 finishes in golf and tennis that makes you think the golf field is stronger?

 

I looked at who was #100 now...he is still more accomplished than the #100 tennis player.

 

Ummm...I don't think you get the point...and don't think you ever will.

 

I said look at the top of each sport...look at not only wins, but top 10s in the major events. I would bet there are more accomplished players in the top 10, top 20, top 40 of golf than there are in tennis.

[t.j 35]

How does being able to be off more during a match and still win make it tougher to dominate in Tennis?

 

Did you not pay attention to the example at a hand? The reason is because an inferior player (in this case Djokovic) can win fewer games but still win the match.

[Sho Nuff 719]

See my edit above. The fact that Funk happened to be #100 at the time was arbitrary. The guy who is #100 right now is a nobody. I don't think it means anything at all.

Ok, so tell me what is it about the top 10 finishes in golf and tennis that makes you think the golf field is stronger?

 

I looked at who was #100 now...he is still more accomplished than the #100 tennis player.

 

Ummm...I don't think you get the point...and don't think you ever will.

 

I said look at the top of each sport...look at not only wins, but top 10s in the major events. I would bet there are more accomplished players in the top 10, top 20, top 40 of golf than there are in tennis.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Because an inferior player can win fewer games but still win the match.

 

Umm...but a better player can also not be on his game yet still pull it out.

[t.j 35]

I looked at who was #100 now...he is still more accomplished than the #100 tennis player.

 

Doesn't matter, he's no threat whatsoever. He has absolutely no effect on the ability of Tiger or any other top golfer to win a major.

 

I said look at the top of each sport...look at not only wins, but top 10s in the major events. I would bet there are more accomplished players in the top 10, top 20, top 40 of golf than there are in tennis.

 

Ok, so your argument is that the top finishers in golf events are guys that have accomplished more in their careers. That doesn't remotely prove that the competition is tougher, sorry.

 

Ummm...I don't think you get the point...and don't think you ever will.

 

I think the point is you are just making shit up and expecting people to take it at face value.

[t.j 35]

Umm...but a better player can also not be on his game yet still pull it out.

 

Show me where Federer has ever won a meaningful match while losing the majority of the games in that match.

This type of outcome is more likely to happen in favor of the underdog. As rare as it is for Federer to lose a match, it's even more rare for him to lose most of the games in a match.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Doesn't matter, he's no threat whatsoever. He has absolutely no effect on the ability of Tiger or any other top golfer to win a major.

Ok, so your argument is that the top finishers in golf events are guys that have accomplished more in their careers. That doesn't remotely prove that the competition is tougher, sorry.

I think the point is you are just making shit up and expecting people to take it at face value.

[jerryskids 5,207]

Show me where Federer has ever won a meaningful match while losing the majority of the games in that match.

This type of outcome is more likely to happen in favor of the underdog. As rare as it is for Federer to lose a match, it's even more rare for him to lose most of the games in a match.

I don't agree with most of this. Cmon t.j, plenty of matches go 7-6, 3-6, 7-6...

[edjr 5,567]

I don't agree with most of this. Cmon t.j, plenty of matches go 7-6, 3-6, 7-6...

 

How is that relevant though?

 

In a tennis grand slam a person can lose, 0-6 0-6 7-6 7-6 7-6 and still win. What the fock does it matter who wins more games?

 

Tiger can hit zero fairways in a round and still win a tournament?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Show me where Federer has ever won a meaningful match while losing the majority of the games in that match.

This type of outcome is more likely to happen in favor of the underdog. As rare as it is for Federer to lose a match, it's even more rare for him to lose most of the games in a match.

 

How about won as many as he lost...as he did in the Wimbeldon final to Nadal?

7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2.

[Sho Nuff 719]

How is that relevant though?

 

In a tennis grand slam a person can lose, 0-6 0-6 7-6 7-6 7-6 and still win. What the fock does it matter who wins more games?

 

Tiger can hit zero fairways in a round and still win a tournament?

 

Wow.....this cannot be serious.

 

What does it matter? Others have claimed that Tiger can have a bad day and still contend for a tournament. But if you are losing more games per match, it shows you can have a bad day and still advance.

 

If you think Tiger would ever be able to his 0 fairways in a round (especially a meaningful round) and really compete in a major, you have some issues. Certainly not in a US Open.