Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 Yesterday was the first time all year that Tiger looked like he was a 'great' golfer. If he didn't pull that great round out of his ass yesterday, he would have finished, yet again, below a bunch of guys no one ever heard of. (Ok, I admit. I remember hearing about Furyk back in the 90's). He has a long way to go until anyone (not including guys like you who'd love to have his cack permanently stapled inside your ass) is going to say he's near what he was in his dominant years. And ypou love to discredit Federer's French Open win by saying he played "some guy", but 'that guy' beat the world's second best player. Woods win yesterday (in a non-major, by the way) didn't even have Phil Mickelson in it. So big deal. Woods won some puny little tournament (of which the tennis-equivalent wouldn't have even been televised) against a field that didn't include his best competitor. I'm really impressed. Wow...yesterday was the first time all year that a guy coming off of a major knee injury looked great. No one has ever heard of? Umm...you mean like Robin Soderling? Id bet more people have heard of the guys who finished behind tiger yesterday than had ever heard of Robin Soderling. Yup...it had no Mickleson...because he must be the only other guy out there right? Even if Phil had been there you and Bmoney would be whining about how he is not that good anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 I will say this though. We as sports fan are very lucky to be able to watch these 2 all time greats competing at the same time and even able to have this discussion. When all is said and done. Roger Federer will be the greatest tennis player ever without question. Tiger Woods will be the greatest golfer ever without question. Agreed...I actually watched some of the tennis this week/weekend too. Watched the Nadal match and the last 2 sets of the finals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Just as you are confusing Tiger's domination as being due to lack of competition. I think Roger probably is the best ever (though...I would have loved to have seen some of the past guys with the bigger rackets and such). But I think until the last few years with Nadal...he really has had little to get in his way. Oh my God. Come on, dude. Do you think Arnold Palmer had a composite driver? or fancy balls that eliminate spin? Who cares about improvements in equipment? The competition is playing with the same stuff. It's not Federer is playing opponents with tiny rackets. That was the dumbest statement made in this entire thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Wow...yesterday was the first time all year that a guy coming off of a major knee injury looked great.No one has ever heard of? Umm...you mean like Robin Soderling? Id bet more people have heard of the guys who finished behind tiger yesterday than had ever heard of Robin Soderling. Well, everyone's talking about how awesome Nadal is on clay, yet this guy no one ever heard of somehow beat him. No one ever heard of Federer at one point either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 At least Federer's next closest competitor was in the tournament. Mickelson was nowhere to be seen yesterday. Woods practically won by default. See you are confusing the 2 sports again. Nadal got beat that meant Federer win the tourney. Phil not playing doesn't mean Tiger wins teh tourney. Golf doesn't have 2 guys who win automatically, not even Tiger can be counted as a lock, he just wins a lot more than everyone else. Tennis there are 2 guys and 2 guys only. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 Well, everyone's talking about how awesome Nadal is on clay, yet this guy no one ever heard of somehow beat him. No one ever heard of Federer at one point either. Isn't this guy like 0-9 vs Fed all time? Ok he beat Nadal, huge win for him. Doesn't mean he somehow became a real good tennis player. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 Oh my God. Come on, dude. Do you think Arnold Palmer had a composite driver? or fancy balls that eliminate spin? Who cares about improvements in equipment? The competition is playing with the same stuff. It's not Federer is playing opponents with tiny rackets. That was the dumbest statement made in this entire thread. Umm...I did not claim that the equipment is making Roger the best...nor not helping Woods...so take your spin elsewhere. I also would have loved to have seen the guys like Palmer play with today's equipment (and on today's courses which have changed quite a bit with the equipment). I also know Tiger for a while was not using the most advanced stuff and still winning...Phil even called him out on that years ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoopy1 0 Posted June 8, 2009 Isn't this guy like 0-9 vs Fed all time? Ok he beat Nadal, huge win for him. Doesn't mean he somehow became a real good tennis player. It should be noted that Nadals not even close to 100% right now. They were talking about it during the French final that he's got a problem with his knee and it's not tendinitis as originally thought. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 Well, everyone's talking about how awesome Nadal is on clay, yet this guy no one ever heard of somehow beat him. No one ever heard of Federer at one point either. Yup...Nadal is great on clay...though, perhaps hurt too...or do guys possibly miss Wimbledon because they are fine. http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=reu-...s&type=lgns Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 8, 2009 Federer cannot beat Nadal on any surface right now. sorry but Sampras > Federer. Sampras won in an era when folks actually gave a fock about tennis or at least at the closing of that era. Come on seriously Woods is the greatest Golfer there has ever been and it really isn't close. federer IMO isn't even top 3 IMO -- Borg , Sampras , Mac are... Actually had Borg not retired it wouldn't be close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Federer cannot beat Nadal on any surface right now. sorry but Sampras > Federer. Sampras won in an era when folks actually gave a fock about tennis or at least at the closing of that era. Come on seriously Woods is the greatest Golfer there has ever been and it really isn't close. federer IMO isn't even top 3 IMO -- Borg , Sampras , Mac are... Actually had Borg not retired it wouldn't be close. The tennis experts are saying Federer's the best ever, although a few say it's still Laver. I tend to put more weight into Pete Sampras' opinion than yours. HTH As for Woods, I'd say he's got a ways to go until he's better than Nicklaus. If he can win a bunch more majors, then he can make teh claim. But not yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 Federer cannot beat Nadal on any surface right now. sorry but Sampras > Federer. Sampras won in an era when folks actually gave a fock about tennis or at least at the closing of that era. Come on seriously Woods is the greatest Golfer there has ever been and it really isn't close. federer IMO isn't even top 3 IMO -- Borg , Sampras , Mac are... Actually had Borg not retired it wouldn't be close. I am on the golf side of all of these things. But I wouldn't go that far. I am no historian or tennis fanatic, but Federer, if not the best will be. He is still young enough to win a couple more majors. I think he can beat Nadal, especially with Nadal's new injury. Through this whole debate I have never said Federer isn't the best ever or won't be. Just that tennis is so simple to predict. Nadal loses before the final and it is huge news, just shows you how much or a 1 or 2 man race for each trophy it really is. Tiger or any golfer winning a U.S. Open is much more impressive than 1 of the top 2 tennis players winning any major. In Tennis the #1 and #2 in today's game are expected to win each time they play. In Golf Tiger is hands down the best, but is not expected to win. He is teh heavy favorite compared to any one golfer, but people who actually watch and follow golf realize that anyone can win in any week. As good as Tiger is he isn't expected to win and it isn't HUGE news if he fails to win and finishes 5th. That is just the nature of golf. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoopy1 0 Posted June 8, 2009 The tennis experts are saying Federer's the best ever, although a few say it's still Laver. I tend to put more weight into Pete Sampras' opinion than yours. HTH As for Woods, I'd say he's got a ways to go until he's better than Nicklaus. If he can win a bunch more majors, then he can make teh claim. But not yet. Yeah, cause I'm sure people would really respect it if Pete said" Fock Fed, I'd of kicked his ass all over the court on anything but clay" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,536 Posted June 8, 2009 Yeah, cause I'm sure people would really respect it if Pete said" Fock Fed, I'd of kicked his ass all over the court on anything but clay" McEnroe said it as well. You're pretty hard pressed to find anyone associated with Tennis who doesn't say he's the best ever. At worst you have people making it a tossup between him and Laver but with the win yesterday I think that argument is pretty much done as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 8, 2009 The tennis experts are saying Federer's the best ever, although a few say it's still Laver. I tend to put more weight into Pete Sampras' opinion than yours. HTH As for Woods, I'd say he's got a ways to go until he's better than Nicklaus. If he can win a bunch more majors, then he can make teh claim. But not yet. Federer and Borg play in their primes Borg would kill him. As for the best player to ever play IMO ( I admit I am no expert ) it is Borg and really isn't close. Sampras and Federer played a year or 2 ago - Pete is old as ###### ( in tennis years ) Pete won 1 of 3 matches and wasn't exactly blown out in the other 2 - this is with Pete old and Federer in his prime! I look more at who a player played against to determine there true ranking. What great players in their prime has federer beaten? an old Aggassi , Nadal until Nadal entered his prime now he owns Federer , Roddick ? The greatest to play tennis is Borg it isn't close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoopy1 0 Posted June 8, 2009 McEnroe said it as well. You're pretty hard pressed to find anyone associated with Tennis who doesn't say he's the best ever. At worst you have people making it a tossup between him and Laver but with the win yesterday I think that argument is pretty much done as well. IF GOAT is measured by the best all-around game, sure-give it to Fed. But head's up against Sampras on Grass or Hard Courts-I'd make Sampras a 70/30 favorite. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,536 Posted June 8, 2009 Federer and Borg play in their primes Borg would kill him. As for the best player to ever play IMO ( I admit I am no expert ) it is Borg and really isn't close. Sampras and Federer played a year or 2 ago - Pete is old as ###### ( in tennis years ) Pete won 1 of 3 matches and wasn't exactly blown out in the other 2 - this is with Pete old and Federer in his prime! I look more at who a player played against to determine there true ranking. What great players in their prime has federer beaten? an old Aggassi , Nadal until Nadal entered his prime now he owns Federer , Roddick ? The greatest to play tennis is Borg it isn't close. Oh please. Borg was great but he only won two of the Grand Slams. There's no way he is even in the discussion of greatest ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Federer and Borg play in their primes Borg would kill him. And Larry Csonka is a better running back than Tomlinson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,580 Posted June 8, 2009 Federer and Borg play in their primes Borg would kill him. Congrats for top 10 for dumbest things ever said on this board. alsoihavetheother9 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Oh please. Borg was great but he only won two of the Grand Slams. There's no way he is even in the discussion of greatest ever. Exactly. Borg wasn't even the best of his era. My God, that was a dumb statement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 8, 2009 In Golf Tiger is hands down the best, but is not expected to win. youre kidding, right? how many majors will it take before you expect tigger to win? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 youre kidding, right?how many majors will it take before you expect tigger to win? Go look at the rate Tiger and other past greats have won majors in golf then go look at the rate in which Nadal/Federer win them. Sure Tiger is the favorite but people expect him to win 1 maybe 2 majors each year, not every single one he is in. The Predictability of golf is much smaller than tennis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 youre kidding, right?how many majors will it take before you expect tigger to win? Since Tiger has became pro, who has won more? Him or the field? If he is not winning at least 50% of majors, how in mathematical hell should he be expected to win each tourney? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted June 8, 2009 Are ya'll still debating this topic? It's apples and oranges dummies. There is no 'right' answer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Since Tiger has became pro, who has won more? Him or the field? If he is not winning at least 50% of majors, how in mathematical hell should he be expected to win each tourney? Proof that he isn't nearly as dominant as Federer. thread/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 8, 2009 The tennis experts are saying Federer's the best ever, although a few say it's still Laver. I tend to put more weight into Pete Sampras' opinion than yours. HTH As for Woods, I'd say he's got a ways to go until he's better than Nicklaus. If he can win a bunch more majors, then he can make teh claim. But not yet. What would you expect Pete to say? "Hell no, Im the greatest suckas!!! Federer could never rock the man perm like me!!!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 8, 2009 Exactly. Borg wasn't even the best of his era. My God, that was a dumb statement. Borg has 11 grand slams in 27 attempts - a greater percentage than what Federer now has. He played against 2 other top 10 if not top 8 all time players in Connors and Mac ( towards the end Lendl ) -- Federer has played Nadal - and lately Nadal has owned him. Borg retired at 25 and never even played in the Austrailan open but 1 year. Had he kept playing he would of had at least a few more. it can be argued that either Borg , Sampras , Federer , Mac , or Laver was the greatest player ever. each has an argument - IMO it is either Mac or Borg as they played in tennis's toughest era against the best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Borg has 11 grand slams in 27 attempts - a greater percentage than what Federer now has. He played against 2 other top 10 if not top 8 all time players in Connors and Mac ( towards the end Lendl ) -- Federer has played Nadal - and lately Nadal has owned him. Borg retired at 25 and never even played in the Austrailan open but 1 year. Had he kept playing he would of had at least a few more. it can be argued that either Borg , Sampras , Federer , Mac , or Laver was the greatest player ever. each has an argument - IMO it is either Mac or Borg as they played in tennis's toughest era against the best. Ever think that the McEnroe/Connors/Bork era was considered so wonderful because none of them was dominant enough to take the reins as the undisputed number one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 8, 2009 Proof that he isn't nearly as dominant as Federer. thread/ Proof that you are legally retarded and STILL cannot get the concept that it is 10x harder to win a golf tourney than it is a tennis tourney. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 Proof that you are legally retarded and STILL cannot get the concept that it is 10x harder to win a golf tourney than it is a tennis tourney. It wouldn't be if Federer had chosen golf. thread///// Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 8, 2009 Ever think that the McEnroe/Connors/Bork era was considered so wonderful because none of them was dominant enough to take the reins as the undisputed number one? ever think maybe why they couldn't becasue all 3 were actually pretty damn good? Other than Nadal who has Federer beaten -- and since Nadal has matured he has beaten Federer in 3 straight majors. an old aggasi , an overated Roddick? who?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 8, 2009 ever think maybe why they couldn't becasue all 3 were actually pretty damn good? Other than Nadal who has Federer beaten -- and since Nadal has matured he has beaten Federer in 3 straight majors. an old aggasi , an overated Roddick? who?? Maybe if the greatest overall player and the greatest clay court players of all-time weren't currently playing, some of the "nobodies" of which you speak, would be as well known as Lendl, Borg, etc. HTH Thread//////////////////////////// Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 9, 2009 Maybe if the greatest overall player and the greatest clay court players of all-time weren't currently playing, some of the "nobodies" of which you speak, would be as well known as Lendl, Borg, etc.HTH Thread//////////////////////////// No they wouldn't be. the late 70's early 80's was the greatest era in tennis not close. Hell even the womans game was better - Navratilova and Graf. again Federer in his primed struggled against an old man Sampras! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 9, 2009 Thread/////$)^:<< Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted June 9, 2009 Since Tiger has became pro, who has won more? Him or the field? If he is not winning at least 50% of majors, how in mathematical hell should he be expected to win each tourney? because not everyone wins majors at the % that woods and federer do...i wont get all crazy with the math..but in short...if both are expected to break their sports record for wins in majors..they are expected to win every week...is that expecting too much or are golf fans trying to make tigers run at jack look like some hard to believe miracle?.... do you expect a guy like furyk to win?....rocco? no..you expect tiger to win..even if hes 6 down because he starts getting hot and the field wilts at the mere thought of him... tiger wont win every tourney..ie fed>>woods.. but you still expect him to win each week that hes in... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,536 Posted June 9, 2009 No they wouldn't be. the late 70's early 80's was the greatest era in tennis not close. Hell even the womans game was better - Navratilova and Graf. again Federer in his primed struggled against an old man Sampras! Steffi Graf didn't win her first WTA tournament until 1986. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 9, 2009 because not everyone wins majors at the % that woods and federer do...i wont get all crazy with the math..but in short...if both are expected to break their sports record for wins in majors..they are expected to win every week...is that expecting too much or are golf fans trying to make tigers run at jack look like some hard to believe miracle?.... do you expect a guy like furyk to win?....rocco? no..you expect tiger to win..even if hes 6 down because he starts getting hot and the field wilts at the mere thought of him... tiger wont win every tourney..ie fed>>woods.. but you still expect him to win each week that hes in... You consider him the heavy favorite opposed to any other 1 golfer. But Golf isn't a run through the field gimmie sport like tennis. So if he doesn't finish 2nd or 1st it isn't a huge story like it is in tennis with Nadal or Fed. Yea, compared to other golfer he is expected. But in his career as good as he is, he hasn't won nearly 50% of the majors he enters, so how is he expected to win? That is some bad logic on your part, stick to betting tennis and don't try your hand in the NFL or anything. You can't run through Golf. Tennis you can. That is one of the big differences between the sports. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 You consider him the heavy favorite opposed to any other 1 golfer. But Golf isn't a run through the field gimmie sport like tennis. Dude, do you have any idea how popular tennis is worldwide? There are three and four year-olds all over the globe training to be the best. Just because Federer and, to a lesser degree, Nadal seem to dominate everytournament, doesn't mean that there aren't other great players. As everyone who knows tennis has been trying to tell you, Federer isn't just great, he is very-likely the best who ever played the game. That is bound to make the number 3-5 players in the world during his era seem very mediocre. But who's to say that they wouldn't have had multiple Grand Slam titles if they weren't unfortuante enough to be playing every tournament against a legend? You try to throw insults about the field in tennis being 'nobodies' or 'gimmies', but you'rte only solidifying what I've been telling you all along...Federer is the best ever and much more dominant in his sport than Woods. thread/////%*#@//) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listen2me 23 1,873 Posted June 9, 2009 Dude, do you have any idea how popular tennis is worldwide? There are three and four year-olds all over the globe training to be the best. Just because Federer and, to a lesser degree, Nadal seem to dominate everytournament, doesn't mean that there aren't other great players. As everyone who knows tennis has been trying to tell you, Federer isn't just great, he is very-likely the best who ever played the game. That is bound to make the number 3-5 players in the world during his era seem very mediocre. But who's to say that they wouldn't have had multiple Grand Slam titles if they weren't unfortuante enough to be playing every tournament against a legend? You try to throw insults about the field in tennis being 'nobodies' or 'gimmies', but you'rte only solidifying what I've been telling you all along...Federer is the best ever and much more dominant in his sport than Woods. thread/////%*#@//) Stupid, I actually said Fed is most likely the best or will be. I am not putting down the field. It is the sport that creates it. The nature of the sport is different. Just liek Fed Tiger is perhaps the best golfer ever and easily the best of his era. Yet he isn't 1 or 2 in every single major like Fed is. Why? Not because Fed is better at his sport, but because it isn't really possible to finish 1st or 2nd in every single major. Tiger is hands down the best now and doing it at a better rate than Jack did, but he still doesn't win close to 50% of majors he plays in. Why? Because the format in golf sets up for more variety than Tennis. But you, who I have found out is close to the dumbest regular poster here, cannot understand that just because Fed wins more often doesn't mean ######. When Tiger wins a major it is a bigger deal, because he isn't expected to finish 1 or 2 each time out. It is not tennis. 98% of the field isn't eliminated before they play. Tiger doesn't have the luxury of cruising through to the back 9 on Sunday each time out. Hell he has missed the cut in a major before. Why? Because it is golf, a much different sport than tennis. But you cannot seem to understand that because you are quite stupid. So I will quit trying to make easy common sense to a donkey like you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 9, 2009 Stupid, But you, who I have found out is close to the dumbest regular poster here, And yet another frustrated poster who can't prove a point with facts so, in desperation, starts the insults and namecalling. Game.set.match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
