Federer > Woods

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

Damn! I meant the Open.

 

Gotta hate when a good ole fashioned Pwning turns around to bite you in the ass.

Oh, don't sell yourself short. You're a tremendous slouch.

[kutulu 1,561]

...or Metallica play a concert.

 

Torbin Ulrich > Federer > Woods

[GettnHuge 1]

Lets settle this

 

woods >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> federer

 

time to move on

[jocstrap 8]

Lets settle this

 

woods >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> federer

 

time to move on

 

 

in saving a sport destin for tv suicide - this is a correct statement. We saw what happened when tiger was out with the knee injury. Jocstrap wouldn't even watch a PGA event knowing they all suxor with Woods on the sideline. I even even enjoyed Tiger's victory at the AT&T this afternoon.

 

for the record.

 

Federer is #1 all time at his sport

 

Woods is not #1 all time (yet) at his sport

[listen2me 23 1,574]

Federer - the greatest ever in the sport of tennis

 

let me know when Tiger gets there.

 

When Tiger becomes the greatest Tennis Player?

[GettnHuge 1]

Rod Laver is #1 all time at his sport

 

Fixed

[jocstrap 8]

When Tiger becomes the greatest Tennis Player?

 

 

come on now listen - you know what I meant. When Fed becomes the best golfer in the world at age 45.

[tikigods 76]

Federer is a better tennis player than Tiger Woods?

 

edjr is a genius.

[edjr 5,709]

Cabrera didn't win the Open.

 

Lucas who?

 

Another nobody in a long line of noones to win a major in golf.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Cabrera didn't win the Masters.

 

Learn the sport would ya?

 

Only he did.

[BMoney 0]

The fact that you responded to a post almost a month old...and it was a foolish one at that...pretty much read the thread...you and newbie are the 2 continuing to look foolish.

 

And neither of you know a lick about golf.

 

 

you were waiting for an answer..i dont go crazy with F5 waiting for your answers..sorry...

 

 

i know more about golf than you know about tennis...im not sure why you need to go to 1 side in a discussion and never have an open mind...

 

you honestly think woods > federer even though roger just broke the sports all time record for slams today?...good grief...

[BMoney 0]

Kicked his ass?

Oh...and it was Cabrera...not at all a nobody...pretty well accomplished player.

Quick...name any decent Tennis player not named Nadal or Federer?

 

Face it...the competition outside of Nadal right now sucks.

 

 

besides Roddick, Andy Murray, Djokovic, Karlovic, Hewitt etc...not to mention the clay court specialists when they are at the French..think road races for nascar....

 

face it..you were lost long ago on this topic...youre the guy from tin cup..8 strokes down,..out of it..but you still think you can hole out and win something with a post thats going to wow everyone..it isnt happening....

 

its over, roy....you have looked goofy....touting angel as amazing competition..and turning around and bashing tennis...really?...

[NewbieJr 541]

Game. Set. Match.

 

[listen2me 23 1,574]

Lucas who?

 

Another nobody in a long line of noones to win a major in golf.

 

The only conclusion is that golf has a much deeper pool of talent... Anyone can win when they come to a tourney.

[NewbieJr 541]

The only conclusion is that golf doesn't have a dominant figure like tennis does... Anyone can win when they come to a tourney.

Fixed.

 

 

Thank you. That's what we've been saying all along.

[listen2me 23 1,574]

Fixed.

Thank you. That's what we've been saying all along.

 

Besides the fact that I am sure you know that Tiger is on a better pace than Jack was. But I wouldn't expect you to admit that. Or the fact that winning in golf isn't the same as tennis.

 

You are pretty ignorant when it comes to understanding that no one player can dominate golf like one player can in tennis. Phil doesn't play....doesn't mean Tiger wins. They both play doesn't mean 1 of them wins. Tennis you can use that math before the thing even starts and you will be correct 90% of the time.

[NewbieJr 541]

Besides the fact that I am sure you know that Tiger is on a better pace than Jack was. But I wouldn't expect you to admit that. Or the fact that winning in golf isn't the same as tennis.

 

You are pretty ignorant when it comes to understanding that no one player can dominate golf like one player can in tennis. Phil doesn't play....doesn't mean Tiger wins. They both play doesn't mean 1 of them wins. Tennis you can use that math before the thing even starts and you will be correct 90% of the time.

The reason ytou can use that formula in tennis is because the best player in it's history is currently playing. Now that Nadal has become more than just a clay court specialist, Nadal may also be someday considered on eof the best-ever if he can stay healthy.

 

We all knew that Federer was a pretty sure thing to win the Wimbledon, but what if he hadn't entered? Would anyone have picked Roddick? No. Some said Murray had a good shot at reaching the finals. Others may have said Djokovic. Others yet may have picked Juan Carlos Ferrero or Robin Soderling.

 

If not for Roger Federer, tennis would be just like golf. You'd never know who'd be winning these things.

 

I'll tell you what, for teh next tennis Slam event, excluding Federer (who we all know is the best-ever in his sport), tell me the next three semi-finalists. We'll see if your 90% theory holds up.

 

You terribly confusing Federer's domination as being an indication that tennis championships are easier than golf.

[listen2me 23 1,574]

The reason ytou can use that formula in tennis is because the best player in it's history is currently playing. Now that Nadal has become more than just a clay court specialist, Nadal may also be someday considered on eof the best-ever if he can stay healthy.

 

We all knew that Federer was a pretty sure thing to win the Wimbledon, but what if he hadn't entered? Would anyone have picked Roddick? No. Some said Murray had a good shot at reaching the finals. Others may have said Djokovic. Others yet may have picked Juan Carlos Ferrero or Robin Soderling.

 

If not for Roger Federer, tennis would be just like golf. You'd never know who'd be winning these things.

 

I'll tell you what, for teh next tennis Slam event, excluding Federer (who we all know is the best-ever in his sport), tell me the next three semi-finalists. We'll see if your 90% theory holds up.

 

You terribly confusing Federer's domination as being an indication that tennis championships are easier than golf.

 

Fed just got back to #1 in the world. As good as he is slow the hell down.

 

Why do you want to know who is winning these "things" before they happen?

 

I think you do not understand my "formula" it doesn't include who finishes 3rd 4th 5th 6th. Who the hell cares who finishes 5th in tennis? The whole point was, 90% of the time you can gaurentee Nadal or Fed win if they are both playing. If 1 isn't playing the other will win. It is that simple.

[listen2me 23 1,574]

And it is no real knock on Federer. Tennis as a sport to follow, just isn't exciting. No one here mentioned 1 thing about it until the final. The same thing happens about each final. If Federer wins in a good final match, everyone is pleased.

 

If the Patriots won each year in the NFL, but if Brady went down then it was the Steelers....would you care? Or watch? Tennis is about the only sport in which you can safely bet money that 2 guys can win the thing each and every time. It isn't a knock on Fed, it is showing that he is the best at his sport right now and Tiger is at his. The winning %s of the 2 guys is unfair because of the 2 different sports they play. Golf like every sport besides tennis, has parity.

[NewbieJr 541]

Golf like every sport besides tennis, has parity.

Golf wouldn't have parity if they had a dominant figure like Federer.

 

thread/

[Sho Nuff 720]

you were waiting for an answer..i dont go crazy with F5 waiting for your answers..sorry...

i know more about golf than you know about tennis...im not sure why you need to go to 1 side in a discussion and never have an open mind...

 

you honestly think woods > federer even though roger just broke the sports all time record for slams today?...good grief...

 

No...I really was not waiting for any answer.

I don't give a rat's ass what you think I know of Tennis...but that you know more about golf than I do about Tennis means you pretty much don't know a damn thing about Golf.

 

I think Woods > Federer yes...his breaking of the slams record yesterday did not change that. He won again in a field of mediocrity that was missing his only true competition.

 

My biggest question to people is this...was yesterday's match so great because of how many games it went in the 3rd? Or because it was good/great tennis?

Im betting most were more compelled by how long it went more so than by the level of the actual play.

 

I think Tiger will also hold the record for golf when he is done as well...will that make him better than Federer just because he holds the records?

 

Is Favre better than other QBs because he has the passing records? I don't think so.

[Sho Nuff 720]

besides Roddick, Andy Murray, Djokovic, Karlovic, Hewitt etc...not to mention the clay court specialists when they are at the French..think road races for nascar....

 

face it..you were lost long ago on this topic...youre the guy from tin cup..8 strokes down,..out of it..but you still think you can hole out and win something with a post thats going to wow everyone..it isnt happening....

 

its over, roy....you have looked goofy....touting angel as amazing competition..and turning around and bashing tennis...really?...

 

You mentioning those guys....yet claiming I am lost on the topic is hilarious.

And the only one trying to wow everyone is you continuing on your quest to try and insult others in as big of a way as you can.

 

Where did I tout Angel as amazing competition...Newbie asked a question, I answered it correctly and noted that the guy is a pretty well accomplished player.

[NewbieJr 541]

No...I really was not waiting for any answer.

I don't give a rat's ass what you think I know of Tennis...but that you know more about golf than I do about Tennis means you pretty much don't know a damn thing about Golf.

 

I think Woods > Federer yes...his breaking of the slams record yesterday did not change that. He won again in a field of mediocrity that was missing his only true competition.

 

My biggest question to people is this...was yesterday's match so great because of how many games it went in the 3rd? Or because it was good/great tennis?

Im betting most were more compelled by how long it went more so than by the level of the actual play.

 

I think Tiger will also hold the record for golf when he is done as well...will that make him better than Federer just because he holds the records?

 

Is Favre better than other QBs because he has the passing records? I don't think so.

So, uhhhhh. Do you have a point or are you just showing us that you know how to type?

[listen2me 23 1,574]

Golf wouldn't have parity if they had a dominant figure like Federer.

 

thread/

 

You name a golfer in history that was able to dominate the game. And is Tiger not on the best pace any golfer has competed at in the PGA?

 

Boy you are an idiot. I don't call people names too often on here.....but really...you are.

[listen2me 23 1,574]

And also how is Fed that much more dominate at his sport than Tiger? He wasn't even ranked #1 until he won a slam the previous #1 wasn't in. How long has Tiger been ranked #1 in his sport?

[edjr 5,709]

And also how is Fed that much more dominate at his sport than Tiger? He wasn't even ranked #1 until he won a slam the previous #1 wasn't in. How long has Tiger been ranked #1 in his sport?

 

 

When was this thread created?

 

oh right, thanks!

[listen2me 23 1,574]

When was this thread created?

 

oh right, thanks!

 

What does the date of the thread creation have to do with the dumb comments you and Newbie post today? Are you guys speaking as if we were back a coupel years or now?

 

You make zero sense.

[edjr 5,709]

What does the date of the thread creation have to do with the dumb comments you and Newbie post today? Are you guys speaking as if we were back a coupel years or now?

 

You make zero sense.

 

What does being ranked #1 have to do with the price of fruit in china?

 

When people talk about Jack, do they mention how many weeks he was #1 or do you they mention 18 majors?

 

Why all of a sudden does #1 matter in Tennis?

 

Majors are what matter, not being #1

 

You want to talk about making sense?

 

Federer > woods

[listen2me 23 1,574]

What does being ranked #1 have to do with the price of fruit in china?

 

When people talk about Jack, do they mention how many weeks he was #1 or do you they mention 18 majors?

 

Why all of a sudden does #1 matter in Tennis?

 

Majors are what matter, not being #1

 

You want to talk about making sense?

 

Federer > woods

 

Because how can someone be better at a sport when he isn't ranked #1 (or wasn't) while the other is and has been? If we are talking about a career as a whole why are we comparing a guy that has a couple years left in his sport to a guy that is maybe in his prime of his career in his sport?

[edjr 5,709]

Because how can someone be better at a sport when he isn't ranked #1 (or wasn't) while the other is and has been? If we are talking about a career as a whole why are we comparing a guy that has a couple years left in his sport to a guy that is maybe in his prime of his career in his sport?

 

ROGER FEDERER OVERALL GRAND SLAM CHAMPIONSHIPS RECORDS 

15 Grand Slam titles  
20 Grand Slam finals 
10 consecutive Grand Slam finals 
21 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals

 

 

Roger Federer is more dominant in Tennis than Woods is in Golf.

[listen2me 23 1,574]

ROGER FEDERER OVERALL GRAND SLAM CHAMPIONSHIPS RECORDS 

15 Grand Slam titles  
20 Grand Slam finals 
10 consecutive Grand Slam finals 
21 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals

Roger Federer is more dominant in Tennis than Woods is in Golf.

 

Why? Tiger has 10 plus years of good golf ahead. They are different sports in which players win at totally different rates.

[edjr 5,709]

Why? Tiger has 10 plus years of good golf ahead. They are different sports in which players win at totally different rates.

 

 

Roger is more dominant TODAY in tennis than Tiger is in golf.

 

Where does that say "in 10 years"

 

I've already said in a couple years this won't be the case.

 

John Daly can play golf until he's 50, I'm not impressed. Not the same for Tennis, is it?

[NewbieJr 541]

Why? Tiger has 10 plus years of good golf ahead. They are different sports in which players win at totally different rates.

No sh!t Sherlock. Golf is a physically easy sport to play. No one is arguing the fact vthat Tiger will probably have more majors when it's all said and done. ######, why don't we add darts or poker to the competition as long as you're giving bonus points for playing an easy sport.

[listen2me 23 1,574]

 

Roger is more dominant TODAY in tennis than Tiger is in golf.

 

Where does that say "in 10 years"

 

I've already said in a couple years this won't be the case.

 

John Daly can play golf until he's 50, I'm not impressed. Not the same for Tennis, is it?

 

How can you say a guy that wasn't even ranked #1 in his own sport and won a slam when the #1 wasn't playing more dominant than a guy who has been ranked #1 in his sport for quite soome time? They are both the best in their sport. I see no reason why Fed is more dominant in his though?

[edjr 5,709]

How can you say a guy that wasn't even ranked #1 in his own sport and won a slam when the #1 wasn't playing more dominant than a guy who has been ranked #1 in his sport for quite soome time? They are both the best in their sport. I see no reason why Fed is more dominant in his though?

 

How many weeks was Jack Nicklaus #1?

 

Oh right, it doesn't matter, the 18 majors is what everyone knows.

[listen2me 23 1,574]

How many weeks was Jack Nicklaus #1?

 

Oh right, it doesn't matter, the 18 majors is what everyone knows.

 

Exactly and Tiger is on a pace to beat that. I don't get what you are trying to say. You said "TODAY" and today they are both ranked #1, while Fed just got back there by winning a slam without the #1 in it. While Tiger has been #1 for a while. Then you want to talk about TOTAL majors....something Tiger obviously won't have since he is like 33.

 

So what is it Career? Today? Tomorrow? You flop around each post. Or just say Tiger isn't as dominant because he isn't at the end of his career yet. If that is what it is, we all agree. Fed has the slam record in tennis, Tiger doesn't have the majors record in golf yet.

[Rybo5 0]

And it is no real knock on Federer. Tennis as a sport to follow, just isn't exciting.

 

This is your opinion, while my opinion is that grand slam tennis is more exciting than grand slam golf. Do I follow the regular tennis tournaments as closely? No, pretty much, because they don't really mean as much. I don't really follow regular golf tournaments either.

[edjr 5,709]

Exactly and Tiger is on a pace to beat that. I don't get what you are trying to say. You said "TODAY" and today they are both ranked #1, while Fed just got back there by winning a slam without the #1 in it. While Tiger has been #1 for a while. Then you want to talk about TOTAL majors....something Tiger obviously won't have since he is like 33.

 

So what is it Career? Today? Tomorrow? You flop around each post. Or just say Tiger isn't as dominant because he isn't at the end of his career yet. If that is what it is, we all agree. Fed has the slam record in tennis, Tiger doesn't have the majors record in golf yet.

 

Most dominant in their respective sport

 

Federer > Woods

[The Moz 69]

still say

 

Borg > Fed

 

Sampras > Fed

 

McEnroe > Fed

 

Federer has won a lot an is a great player one of the greatest - the only real signifigant rival he had he is basically owned by. Nadal's record against Fed is crazy. Fed hasn't beaten anyone else of signifigance - unless you count Roddick. Borg had McEnroe , Connors , Lendl Pete has his wars with Aggassi , Mac had Connors , Borg , Lendl , etc.

[Cruzer 1,993]

Federer has won a lot an is a great player one of the greatest - the only real signifigant rival he had he is basically owned by. Nadal's record against Fed is crazy. Fed hasn't beaten anyone else of signifigance - unless you count Roddick. Borg had McEnroe , Connors , Lendl Pete has his wars with Aggassi , Mac had Connors , Borg , Lendl , etc.

this is what i go back to, well this besides the fact the format of tennis makes it easier for an individual to win more often than golf - but the fact that rog isn't even the most dominant player of his sport. nadal owns him.