Federer > Woods

[edjr 5,567]

You're an idiot! Jerk! Your argument is OUT of bounds! Are you BLIND!

 

excellent post.

[t.j 35]

Yeah, cause Mcenroe is known for holding back his opinions

 

 

Oh well you've convinced me with that outstanding argument...

 

Goes well with your, "I've watched both pal, and it isnt close," argument.

[mayhem39 3]

Uh, I'm not gonna imply anything. McEnroe's serve was weak for a top player, after his layoff. He was impossible to read which made it extremely effective but it was not powerful. Before his layoff I'd bet it averaged 95, and after when he knew he had to up it a bit maybe 105. That was one of the problems he had after he came back. Now, as a serve/volleyer you don't necessarily want the fastest serve because if it's too fast you don't have a chance to get to net. Edberg never had a blistering serve, but it was faster than Mac's, and about perfect speed for his game.

 

 

As a serve/volley you don't want a blistering serve??? Um....yeah ok Did you ever actually watch McEnroe play? Im talking about John....not his little brother.

[mayhem39 3]

Goes well with your, "I've watched both pal, and it isnt close," argument.

 

 

Have you watched them both?

[mayhem39 3]

excellent post.

 

 

Yeah....it figures you would think so...you're both a couple of morons.

[Strike 3,979]

As a serve/volley you don't want a blistering serve??? Um....yeah ok Did you ever actually watch McEnroe play? Im talking about John....not his little brother.

 

Yeah I have. A lot. He was my favorite player when he was in his prime. I guess I'm just not blinded by my love of his game and don't have the need to make up aspects of his game he didn't posess. What makes YOU think he had a blistering serve?

[t.j 35]

Have you watched them both?

 

Yes

[t.j 35]

Yeah....it figures you would think so...you're both a couple of morons.

 

It was a funny post. Lighten up, Francis.

[Rybo5 0]

This isn't really related to the this specific thread topic, but today was a pretty crazy day at the cincy masters. Nadal retired, Djokovic lost, Gonzales lost, Ljubicic lost, and Youzhny lost. Federer better bring a 4 leaf clover tonight.

[mayhem39 3]

Yeah I have. A lot. He was my favorite player when he was in his prime. I guess I'm just not blinded by my love of his game and don't have the need to make up aspects of his game he didn't posess. What makes YOU think he had a blistering serve?

 

 

I watched him play...

[Strike 3,979]

I watched him play...

 

 

So did I. Yet somehow we differ on our opinions. Of course I've offered facts and logic to back my opinion up, such as his serve speeds as I remember them. You just keep repeating the same crap and belittling people who don't agree with you, no matter how sound their arguments are. I'm actually beginning to doubt that you watched him, or any tennis players, play. Ever. But who are we to discuss Mac's serve anyways? Here's what one of his contemporaries said about his serve:

 

"His serve is not the hardest, but he can change speed and angle. He also has the advantage of being lefthanded, which causes his spin serves to break in the opposite direction from righthanders and confuse them."

 

But what would someone who actually played against him know

[jocstrap 8]

So did I. Yet somehow we differ on our opinions. Of course I've offered facts and logic to back my opinion up, such as his serve speeds as I remember them. You just keep repeating the same crap and belittling people who don't agree with you, no matter how sound their arguments are. I'm actually beginning to doubt that you watched him, or any tennis players, play. Ever. But who are we to discuss Mac's serve anyways? Here's what one of his contemporaries said about his serve:

 

"His serve is not the hardest, but he can change speed and angle. He also has the advantage of being lefthanded, which causes his spin serves to break in the opposite direction from righthanders and confuse them."

 

But what would someone who actually played against him know

 

 

You forgot to mention how he lined up his serve. His right and left foot were lined up paralel to the baseline. Thus making his back face the opponents. He was the master of service placement and as a returner, you could only guess. No his speed wasn't overpowering, but his placement and deception were unstoppable. I could show you his service motion if you would like a visual.\

 

Strike - - if you claim to have played him...I would love to know your tennis credentials

[Strike 3,979]

You forgot to mention how he lined up his serve. His right and left foot were lined up paralel to the baseline. Thus making his back face the opponents. He was the master of service placement and as a returner, you could only guess. No his speed wasn't overpowering, but his placement and deception were unstoppable. I could show you his service motion if you would like a visual.\

 

Strike - - if you claim to have played him...I would love to know your tennis credentials

 

Never said I played him. I've never played competitive tennis. As far as his serve goes, here's what I said about it above:

 

"He was impossible to read which made it extremely effective but it was not powerful."

 

It was impossible to read for the reasons you mention. It was a great serve and had he grown up in today's game I have no doubt it would also have been faster and more powerful. But it wasn't power that made it great. That's the only point I'm making about his serve.

[jocstrap 8]

Never said I played him. I've never played competitive tennis. As far as his serve goes, here's what I said about it above:

 

"He was impossible to read which made it extremely effective but it was not powerful."

 

It was impossible to read for the reasons you mention. It was a great serve and had he grown up in today's game I have no doubt it would also have been faster and more powerful. But it wasn't power that made it great. That's the only point I'm making about his serve.

 

 

I couldn't tell if you meant by "what would someone who actually played against him know"

 

I took that as if you had played him . I was thinking there might be someone here as good at tennis as me

[mayhem39 3]

So did I. Yet somehow we differ on our opinions. Of course I've offered facts and logic to back my opinion up, such as his serve speeds as I remember them. You just keep repeating the same crap and belittling people who don't agree with you, no matter how sound their arguments are. I'm actually beginning to doubt that you watched him, or any tennis players, play. Ever. But who are we to discuss Mac's serve anyways? Here's what one of his contemporaries said about his serve:

 

"His serve is not the hardest, but he can change speed and angle. He also has the advantage of being lefthanded, which causes his spin serves to break in the opposite direction from righthanders and confuse them."

 

But what would someone who actually played against him know

 

It's obvious to me that you have not watched as much tennis as I have. In John's day his serve was about as hard as anybody's, not to mention the other aspects of his serve. I mean he didn't pound it like Roscoe Tanner, who i think in that time had one of the hardest serves if not the hardest serve in tennis. But it certainly wasnt a wussy serve at all. In fact, his second serve was one of the faster ones in tennis. Really, this is all beside the point. We have drifted way off what this thread was about. I have mentioned several times in this thread that what I am saying is mostly opinion. I happen to feel pretty strongly about it but I realize people will disagree. I think most of those people probably have only seen Mac on film and did not actually follow his career and watch his matches. I enjoyed tennis immensely from mid 70's to around 1990. It was at that time that I felt the overall quality was not as good and it was starting to become a game of baseline players trying to see who could hit it the hardest.....it became somewhat boring. I also think that the quality has diminished even more since that time. Now I realize that Federer is a great player....I just don't feel he would have been that great against the stronger competition that Mac faced. Please feel free to bash away at this post as well.....it will not change my opinion.

[Sho Nuff 719]

This isn't really related to the this specific thread topic, but today was a pretty crazy day at the cincy masters. Nadal retired, Djokovic lost, Gonzales lost, Ljubicic lost, and Youzhny lost. Federer better bring a 4 leaf clover tonight.

 

After all the talk of Mickelson choking....Djokovic ends up going out in that early? how can that be?

[jocstrap 8]

Roscoe Tanner, who i think in that time had one of the hardest serves if not the hardest serve in tennis.

 

 

110 mph to be exact. Then I watched Steve Denton hit the same speed the next serve. Our tennis club in Oklahoma hosted an annual tourney with Connors, Denton, Tanner, Mel Purcel, and a Van Patten I do believe. Ah the good ol days.

[Strike 3,979]

It's obvious to me that you have not watched as much tennis as I have. In John's day his serve was about as hard as anybody's, not to mention the other aspects of his serve. I mean he didn't pound it like Roscoe Tanner, who i think in that time had one of the hardest serves if not the hardest serve in tennis. But it certainly wasnt a wussy serve at all. In fact, his second serve was one of the faster ones in tennis. Really, this is all beside the point. We have drifted way off what this thread was about. I have mentioned several times in this thread that what I am saying is mostly opinion. I happen to feel pretty strongly about it but I realize people will disagree. I think most of those people probably have only seen Mac on film and did not actually follow his career and watch his matches. I enjoyed tennis immensely from mid 70's to around 1990. It was at that time that I felt the overall quality was not as good and it was starting to become a game of baseline players trying to see who could hit it the hardest.....it became somewhat boring. I also think that the quality has diminished even more since that time. Now I realize that Federer is a great player....I just don't feel he would have been that great against the stronger competition that Mac faced. Please feel free to bash away at this post as well.....it will not change my opinion.

 

When you can find a quote from one of his contemporaries substantiating that he hit it about as hard as anyone of his era I'll let you have that one. I already posted a quote from one of his peers who said he didn't. But you won't be able to find one to contradict mine because it's a FACT that he did not serve as hard as most people. His serve was an exceptional serve but not because of power. You've made a bunch of idiotic comments so it's clear you aren't anywhere near as knowledgeable about the game as you try to suggest. I'm just gonna ignore your tennis related posts until if/when you post something even semi intelligent on the topic.

[jocstrap 8]

It's obvious to me that you have not watched as much tennis as I have. In John's day his serve was about as hard as anybody's, not to mention the other aspects of his serve. I mean he didn't pound it like Roscoe Tanner, who i think in that time had one of the hardest serves if not the hardest serve in tennis. But it certainly wasnt a wussy serve at all. In fact, his second serve was one of the faster ones in tennis. Really, this is all beside the point. We have drifted way off what this thread was about. I have mentioned several times in this thread that what I am saying is mostly opinion. I happen to feel pretty strongly about it but I realize people will disagree. I think most of those people probably have only seen Mac on film and did not actually follow his career and watch his matches. I enjoyed tennis immensely from mid 70's to around 1990. It was at that time that I felt the overall quality was not as good and it was starting to become a game of baseline players trying to see who could hit it the hardest.....it became somewhat boring. I also think that the quality has diminished even more since that time. Now I realize that Federer is a great player....I just don't feel he would have been that great against the stronger competition that Mac faced. Please feel free to bash away at this post as well.....it will not change my opinion.

 

 

For your info...Tennis use to be #3 in the world in popularity during the time. Now (in America) it's reemerging but, it's still behind roller blading

[Strike 3,979]

I couldn't tell if you meant by "what would someone who actually played against him know"

 

I took that as if you had played him . I was thinking there might be someone here as good at tennis as me

 

Nah. You might talk to Edjr. I believe he played HS Tennis LOL. I realized afterwards you might have been thinking because of the way I posted the quote I did that I was referring to myself. But no. The quote I posted was from Arthur Ashe and the reference to someone who played against him was again referring to Arthur Ashe.

[Strike 3,979]

After all the talk of Mickelson choking....Djokovic ends up going out in that early? how can that be?

 

Saw a couple of highlights of his match during the Federer match. It looked like he was just mentally, and probably physically to an extent, exhausted from winning the tournament last weekend. Throw in the fact that he had a tough draw in Carlos Moya and I can see why he lost.

[mayhem39 3]

When you can find a quote from one of his contemporaries substantiating that he hit it about as hard as anyone of his era I'll let you have that one. I already posted a quote from one of his peers who said he didn't. But you won't be able to find one to contradict mine because it's a FACT that he did not serve as hard as most people. His serve was an exceptional serve but not because of power. You've made a bunch of idiotic comments so it's clear you aren't anywhere near as knowledgeable about the game as you try to suggest. I'm just gonna ignore your tennis related posts until if/when you post something even semi intelligent on the topic.

 

 

Again, that's your opinion........I have my own opinion and you don't agree with it. I don't agree with your's. And I'm really not going to lose any sleep over you ignoring my tennis posts...

[Strike 3,979]

Again, that's your opinion........I have my own opinion and you don't agree with it. I don't agree with your's. And I'm really not going to lose any sleep over you ignoring my tennis posts...

 

Okay this is my last post directed at you cause I thought of this after I finished the last one, and you're still posting idiotic drivel. See, here's an opinion:

 

"Roger Federer is better than John McEnroe." That's an opinion because they've never played each other in competition and Federer is quite a bit younger than McEnroe. It would be impossible to ascertain with certainty who is better, although we both will have opinions on the matter.

 

Here's a fact:

 

"Federer servers harder than McEnroe." That's not a fact just because it's obvious and even as an opinion we'd share it. It's a fact because they have these things called radar guns and they measure it. And they had them back when McEnroe was in his prime as well. And he did NOT serve as hard as his peers. That's a FACT.

 

So you can go on thinking he served harder than his peers because you don't understand the difference between opinion and fact, but it won't change the fact that you're totally wrong.

[mayhem39 3]

Okay this is my last post directed at you cause I thought of this after I finished the last one, and you're still posting idiotic drivel. See, here's an opinion:

 

"Roger Federer is better than John McEnroe." That's an opinion because they've never played each other in competition and Federer is quite a bit younger than McEnroe. It would be impossible to ascertain with certainty who is better, although we both will have opinions on the matter.

 

Here's a fact:

 

"Federer servers harder than McEnroe." That's not a fact just because it's obvious and even as an opinion we'd share it. It's a fact because they have these things called radar guns and they measure it. And they had them back when McEnroe was in his prime as well. And he did NOT serve as hard as his peers. That's a FACT.

 

So you can go on thinking he served harder than his peers because you don't understand the difference between opinion and fact, but it won't change the fact that you're totally wrong.

 

 

I really don't give a ###### if he served harder or not.......who cares??? This such a minute point it's ridiculous. I have no doubt that Federer serves harder.....give him one of macs old wooden rackets and see how hard he hits that dumbass...

[jocstrap 8]

Sniffs bait...

 

:thinks Edjr. should get better bait:

 

Swims away.

 

Well Well Well, here we go again. If and I say If Federer wins this, he will have done a 4 peat of the US open which hasn't been done in 80 years since 1923. He won the Austailian open to begin the 2007 year, lost in the finals of the French Open in 4 sets, won Wimbledon for the 5th straight year to tie Borgs record from 1979/80, and now the OPEN.

 

Would this put him greater than Tiger for tying a record of Borg with 5 consecutitve titles from Wimbledon, and Bill Tilden of 1923 with 4 consecutive titles.

 

Note...these are consecutive titles. Wimbledon 5, Open 3

I would love to know Tigers CONSECUTIVE TITLES of the Grand Slams/Majors

 

No comparison in my eyes.

[jerryskids 5,206]

This thread is like two wheelchair basketball players in the special olympics dropping lines on the ground hoping to find fish flopping around on the court. Let me know when one of you catches one, I'm hungry.

[mayhem39 3]

Well Well Well, here we go again. If and I say If Federer wins this, he will have done a 4 peat of the US open which hasn't been done in 80 years since 1923. He won the Austailian open to begin the 2007 year, lost in the finals of the French Open in 4 sets, won Wimbledon for the 5th straight year to tie Borgs record from 1979/80, and now the OPEN.

 

Would this put him greater than Tiger for tying a record of Borg with 5 consecutitve titles from Wimbledon, and Bill Tilden of 1923 with 4 consecutive titles.

Note...these are consecutive titles. Wimbledon 5, Open 3

I would love to know Tigers CONSECUTIVE TITLES of the Grand Slams/Majors

 

No comparison in my eyes.

 

 

The answer is no......he does not play against the caliber of competition that Borg had to play against. Again, he is a great player but he is winning in large part because of the competition he is facing.

[Snoopy1 0]

"His serve is not the hardest, but he can change speed and angle. He also has the advantage of being lefthanded, which causes his spin serves to break in the opposite direction from righthanders and confuse them."

 

Back when I played in HS, my practice partner was a lefty with a lot of zip in his serve. The speed wasn't much of a problem but there were days when all he would do would just spin that ball off the serve and it was damn near impossible to get. I hate lefties.

[edjr 5,567]

This thread is like two wheelchair basketball players in the special olympics dropping lines on the ground hoping to find fish flopping around on the court. Let me know when one of you catches one, I'm hungry.

 

 

My wheelchair is faster than your wheelchair.

[Rybo5 0]

he does not play against the caliber of competition that Borg had to play against.

 

....according to you.

[mayhem39 3]

....according to you.

 

 

That's true....we all have our opinion.

[rallo 132]

when did this thread become a sissy slap fight?!?!?

 

over/under: page 7

[rallo 132]

Well Well Well, here we go again. If and I say If Federer wins this, he will have done a 4 peat of the US open which hasn't been done in 80 years since 1923. He won the Austailian open to begin the 2007 year, lost in the finals of the French Open in 4 sets, won Wimbledon for the 5th straight year to tie Borgs record from 1979/80, and now the OPEN.

 

Would this put him greater than Tiger for tying a record of Borg with 5 consecutitve titles from Wimbledon, and Bill Tilden of 1923 with 4 consecutive titles.

 

Note...these are consecutive titles. Wimbledon 5, Open 3

I would love to know Tigers CONSECUTIVE TITLES of the Grand Slams/Majors

 

No comparison in my eyes.

 

just to requote my former argument a million posts back... but it's how you measure 'greatness' in each sport...

 

there are factors working against both players...

 

tiger has a larger window to win his titles because a golf career lasts longer than a tennis career... so he has the advantage of longevity...

 

federer has an advantage because of the way tennis tourneys are set up... 7 rounds of 1 on 1... it is statistically easier to win a tennis tournament...

 

the only way to 'fairly compare' the two is to compare them to their predecessors... so tiger vs jack and federer vs sampras and borg...

 

the fact that federer wins more consecutive titles than tiger is a given... if he is a dominant tennis player

(and he is) in the easier tourney format HE SHOULD win lots of tourneys in a row to be considered one of the best of all time (and he does)

 

i can make arguments for both sides all day, but in reality the only way this will be settled is when both careers are over and compared to their predecessors...

[jocstrap 8]

the fact that federer wins more consecutive titles than tiger is a given... if he is a dominant tennis player

 

 

Well why can't Tiger win back to back to back to back? Hell a no name won the masters this year. You are telling me a Zach Johnson is better than Nadal? And now that no name hasn't done shiet. Same for tennis, one of the 128 can step up anytime to win a single tourney, ask Becker. But yet golf is deeper??? This is a bunch of crap. Where were Phil and Vijay in the pga champs? Gone b/c they aren't that great. Now Nadal has been there time and time again.

 

But seriously, why is it easier to win 5 years in a row in tennis (wimbledon), yet it can't be done in golf?

[rallo 132]

Well why can't Tiger win back to back to back to back? Hell a no name won the masters this year. You are telling me a Zach Johnson is better than Nadal? And now that no name hasn't done shiet. Same for tennis, one of the 128 can step up anytime to win a single tourney, ask Becker. But yet golf is deeper??? This is a bunch of crap. Where were Phil and Vijay in the pga champs? Gone b/c they aren't that great. Now Nadal has been there time and time again.

 

But seriously, why is it easier to win 5 years in a row in tennis (wimbledon), yet it can't be done in golf?

 

it's because it is statistically easier to win a tennis tournament than a golf tournament... (because of this it is easier for no names like johnson to win... an outlier is more probable in 1 vs all tourney than it is in a sequence of rounds) i never said ANYTHING about the talent level being higher in golf... i believe both sports are a little watered down at the moment talent wise.

 

i'd be curious to see if anyone could find a stat where it shows that more no names win golf tournaments than tennis tournaments over the history of the sports... anyone?!?!?

[edjr 5,567]

Well why can't Tiger win back to back to back to back? Hell a no name won the masters this year. You are telling me a Zach Johnson is better than Nadal? And now that no name hasn't done shiet. Same for tennis, one of the 128 can step up anytime to win a single tourney, ask Becker. But yet golf is deeper??? This is a bunch of crap. Where were Phil and Vijay in the pga champs? Gone b/c they aren't that great. Now Nadal has been there time and time again.

 

But seriously, why is it easier to win 5 years in a row in tennis (wimbledon), yet it can't be done in golf?

 

Federer is doing things that have NEVER been done, ever in the history of golf.

[rallo 132]

1974 Jimmy Connors

1975 Arthur Ashe

1976 Björn Borg

1977 Björn Borg

1978 Björn Borg

1979 Björn Borg

1980 Björn Borg

1981 John McEnroe

1982 Jimmy Connors

1983 John McEnroe

1984 John McEnroe

1985 Boris Becker

1986 Boris Becker

1987 Pat Cash

1988 Stefan Edberg

1989 Boris Becker

1990 Stefan Edberg

1991 Michael Stich

1992 Andre Agassi

1993 Pete Sampras

1994 Pete Sampras

1995 Pete Sampras

1996 Richard Krajicek

1997 Pete Sampras

1998 Pete Sampras

1999 Pete Sampras

2000 Pete Sampras

2001 Goran Ivaniševi?

2002 Lleyton Hewitt

2003 Roger Federer

2004 Roger Federer

2005 Roger Federer

2006 Roger Federer

2007 Roger Federer

 

so here is a list of wimbledon winners... notice a trend??? not much diversity... since 1974 many wimbledon champions have won back to back multiple times... supports my argument that tennis is easier to 'dominate' this cannot be done in golf... simply because STATISTCALLY it is much harder to win a golf tournament than a tennis tournament just based on the way they are set up... showing nothing else...

 

here lets look at the same period of time for say... the masters

 

2007 - Zach Johnson

2006 - Phil Mickelson

2005 - Tiger Woods

2004 - Phil Mickelson

2003 - Mike Weir

2002 - Tiger Woods

2001 - Tiger Woods

2000 - Vijay Singh

1999 - Jose Maria Olazabal

1998 - Mark O'Meara

1997 - Tiger Woods

1996 - Nick Faldo

1995 - Ben Crenshaw

1994 - Jose Maria Olazabal

1993 - Bernhard Langer

1992 - Fred Couples

1991 - Ian Woosnam

1990 - Nick Faldo

1989 - Nick Faldo

1988 - Sandy Lyle

1987 - Larry Mize

1986 - Jack Nicklaus

1985 - Bernhard Langer

1984 - Ben Crenshaw

1983 - Seve Ballesteros

1982 - Craig Stadler

1981 - Tom Watson

1980 - Seve Ballesteros

1979 - Fuzzy Zoeller

1978 - Gary Player

1977 - Tom Watson

1976 - Ray Floyd

1975 - Jack Nicklaus

1974 - Gary Player

 

look... much more diversity... and to go to edjr's last post... "federer is doing things that have never been done in the history of golf"... it is next to focking impossible for anyone to dominate the sport of golf like that... tiger won 4 masters in 10 years... no one had done that in the time period i outlined jack nicklaus did it slightly before from 65 to 75... borg had accomplished federer's feat in the time period... thus i feel tiger winning 4 masters in 10 years is equivalent to federer winning 5 in a row...

[jocstrap 8]

1974 Jimmy Connors

1975 Arthur Ashe

1976 Björn Borg

1977 Björn Borg

1978 Björn Borg

1979 Björn Borg

1980 Björn Borg

1981 John McEnroe

1982 Jimmy Connors

1983 John McEnroe

1984 John McEnroe

1985 Boris Becker

1986 Boris Becker

1987 Pat Cash

1988 Stefan Edberg

1989 Boris Becker

1990 Stefan Edberg

1991 Michael Stich

1992 Andre Agassi

1993 Pete Sampras

1994 Pete Sampras

1995 Pete Sampras

1996 Richard Krajicek

1997 Pete Sampras

1998 Pete Sampras

1999 Pete Sampras

2000 Pete Sampras

2001 Goran Ivaniševi?

2002 Lleyton Hewitt

2003 Roger Federer

2004 Roger Federer

2005 Roger Federer

2006 Roger Federer

2007 Roger Federer

 

so here is a list of wimbledon winners... notice a trend??? not much diversity... since 1974 many wimbledon champions have won back to back multiple times... supports my argument that tennis is easier to 'dominate' this cannot be done in golf... simply because STATISTCALLY it is much harder to win a golf tournament than a tennis tournament just based on the way they are set up... showing nothing else...

 

here lets look at the same period of time for say... the masters

 

2007 - Zach Johnson

2006 - Phil Mickelson

2005 - Tiger Woods

2004 - Phil Mickelson

2003 - Mike Weir

2002 - Tiger Woods

2001 - Tiger Woods

2000 - Vijay Singh

1999 - Jose Maria Olazabal

1998 - Mark O'Meara

1997 - Tiger Woods

1996 - Nick Faldo

1995 - Ben Crenshaw

1994 - Jose Maria Olazabal

1993 - Bernhard Langer

1992 - Fred Couples

1991 - Ian Woosnam

1990 - Nick Faldo

1989 - Nick Faldo

1988 - Sandy Lyle

1987 - Larry Mize

1986 - Jack Nicklaus

1985 - Bernhard Langer

1984 - Ben Crenshaw

1983 - Seve Ballesteros

1982 - Craig Stadler

1981 - Tom Watson

1980 - Seve Ballesteros

1979 - Fuzzy Zoeller

1978 - Gary Player

1977 - Tom Watson

1976 - Ray Floyd

1975 - Jack Nicklaus

1974 - Gary Player

 

look... much more diversity... and to go to edjr's last post... "federer is doing things that have never been done in the history of golf"... it is next to focking impossible for anyone to dominate the sport of golf like that... tiger won 4 masters in 10 years... no one had done that in the time period i outlined jack nicklaus did it slightly before from 65 to 75... borg had accomplished federer's feat in the time period... thus i feel tiger winning 4 masters in 10 years is equivalent to federer winning 5 in a row...

 

Or could it be that Federer is that good.

 

and that Tiger can't hit a freakin' fairway in stretches of his career? No wonder he bagged the driver several times. Inconsistent maybe?

[rallo 132]

Or could it be that Federer is that good.

 

and that Tiger can't hit a freakin' fairway in stretches of his career? No wonder he bagged the driver several times. Inconsistent maybe?

 

you are missing the point... i spelled it out for you... can anyone else see what i was saying or am i crazy???

 

we'll resume discussion in 20 years

[mayhem39 3]

you are missing the point... i spelled it out for you... can anyone else see what i was saying or am i crazy???

 

we'll resume discussion in 20 years

 

 

I can see what you are saying....quit beating your head against the wall. These idiots just will never get it.