Federer > Woods

[GettnHuge 2]

20 pages? feh

 

Woods >>>>>>>>>> Fedorov

[jocstrap 8]

Well it looks like MSN wanted to get in on this topic now. Too bad they are a little late.

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/9772...est-ever-debate

 

Roger Federer is the best tennis player of all time. He clinched this title by winning Wimbledon over the weekend, which is to say that he eliminated the last fair argument against him. And in doing so, Federer established a standard for another weekend winner: Tiger Woods.

 

What does it mean to be the best ever? We usually measure this in Grand Slam championships; Federer now has 15, one more than Pete Sampras for the most all-time in tennis, and Woods has 14, four behind Jack Nicklaus in golf. But this should not be as simple as simply counting trophies.

 

Federer is the best ever not just because he has won the most Slams, but because he has played at a consistently higher level than anybody ever, on every surface. Sampras never made the finals of the French Open and only made the semifinals once. Federer has played in the last five French finals, winning one, and has made it to the semifinals of an astounding 21 consecutive Grand Slam events.

 

Grass, hard court, clay — it doesn't matter. They could play a Grand Slam event on ice and Federer would skate to the final weekend.

 

He is the best ever. I don't see how anybody can even argue the point now. Yes, Rafael Nadal has a 13-7 career edge over Federer. But 11 of those matches were on clay, Nadal's favorite surface.

 

Former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash recently told S.L. Price of Sports Illustrated that since Nadal is the better clay-court player and Sampras (in Cash's opinion) was the better grass-court player, it is hard to say Federer is the best ever.

 

It is an interesting argument, but I don't buy it. Let's switch sports for a moment. I don't think Michael Jordan was the best shooter in basketball history, and he certainly was not the best rebounder or passer, and as great as he was defensively, I don't think he was the best defensive player ever.

 

But Jordan was the best overall player. He did everything exceptionally well. In an all-time draft of players, most NBA executives would take Jordan No. 1.

 

Federer and Woods are friends and fellow Nike shills, and for a few years now they have compared career tracks. And if you accept my premise that Federer's all-around dominance and consistency makes him the best tennis player ever, we should then ask if Tiger lives up to the same standard in golf.

 

 

Roger Federer is no longer second best to Pete Sampras. (Clive Brunskill / Getty Images)

 

Golf's four majors, like the four tennis majors, provide different tests. The British Open, played on links courses, is the equivalent of the clay courts in Paris — it emphasizes skills that players might not use in the other three Grand Slam events. The U.S. Open golf tourney requires the most patience and discipline. The Masters is on the same course every year, where the rough is scarce and the greens appear to be made of glass. And the PGA is ... um, none of those things.

 

Tiger conquered all four majors before he turned 24. He has won each major at least three times (and has won four Masters and four PGAs). If he wins one more U.S. Open and one more British Open, he will be the first player ever to win every major four times.

 

That, to me, would be even more impressive than tying Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 total majors. It shows an almost-complete mastery of a game that is impossible to completely master.

 

Woods just won his own tournament, the AT&T National, and this seemed appropriate, almost obvious — like he reached into his mailbox and pulled out a trophy. He wins so often, people seem surprised when he doesn't win — which is absurd in a sport as fickle as golf.

 

But do you realize how often he wins? Tiger has played 245 career tournaments and won 68 of them. Jack Nicklaus played 594 tournaments and won 73.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if Tiger tees it up in another 349 events, he'll win more than five of them.

 

And if he wins 15 more — another safe bet — Tiger will pass Sam Snead in all-time PGA Tour wins. Tiger is going to blow past Snead.

 

The only argument against Tiger is that Nicklaus finished second in 19 majors, while Tiger has only finished second five times. But can you make a whole case for Jack based on that?

 

If Tiger just wins one major every other year, he will still pass Nicklaus at age 42. More likely, he'll catch Jack sooner. And when he does it, Nike can immediately start the ad campaign: Roger Federer and Tiger Woods, both the best ever.

[NewbieJr 541]

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.

11 of Nadal's wins against Federer are on clay. Nadal is already being called the best clay player ever. And who knows, maybe Nadal will end up having a great resume also and will be included in best-ever conversations. But for a career, he can't even be compared to Federer. Not even close.

 

To be considered one of teh all-time greats, you have to be good on all surfaces. Federer has been great on all surfaces. For as great as he was, Samprass never won the french.

 

Even in the French Opens that Federer has lost, he's still been 'right there' at the end.

[BMoney 0]

 

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?

 

 

the golf nuts are going completely off topic...the federer people have all said that woods will end up with more slams..you can play until you are 60 and get invited back to tourneys as a past champion...

 

i dont know why its hurts them to just admit that federer>woods RIGHT NOW....

 

 

as far as tennis rankings go..its a messed up system....isnt serena still #2?...safina gets rewarded for winning smaller tourneys...

[BMoney 0]

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.

 

 

so you say nadal is federers only competition yet the guys i mentioned can and have knocked nadal out of slams....

 

i havent insult anyone..i love both sports...the tennis nuts have actauuly admitted that tiger will own all the record if he lives past 35....but the golf freaks refuse to say anything positive about federer..as if someone will come in the night and take the PGA stickers off of your minivan if you do.....

 

was yesterday the best match ever? nah..ive seen better..but it was riveting for many other reasons....a guy nails 50 aces and over 100 winners and barely escapes and you come on here and say that it was a gimme...that nadals his only competition...thats a double bogey for u in this thread...

[BMoney 0]

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 -

 

 

he beat sampras

 

and players have always had 1 or 2 that they struggled to beat...thats what makes what federer is doing so amazing....

[Sho Nuff 720]

the golf nuts are going completely off topic...the federer people have all said that woods will end up with more slams..you can play until you are 60 and get invited back to tourneys as a past champion...

 

i dont know why its hurts them to just admit that federer>woods RIGHT NOW....

as far as tennis rankings go..its a messed up system....isnt serena still #2?...safina gets rewarded for winning smaller tourneys...

 

Because we don't agree with your opinion that Federer is better right now.

This play until you are 60 and get invited back thing? Talk about getting off topic. You think that is going to help Woods? Seriously? Cause lots of guys go out there winning majors in their 50s and 60s right?

Yes...you just again proved you are either that ignorant about golf...or just purposfully saying stupid things to get a reaction. Either way, its sad and pathetic.

[Sho Nuff 720]

so you say nadal is federers only competition yet the guys i mentioned can and have knocked nadal out of slams....

 

i havent insult anyone..i love both sports...the tennis nuts have actauuly admitted that tiger will own all the record if he lives past 35....but the golf freaks refuse to say anything positive about federer..as if someone will come in the night and take the PGA stickers off of your minivan if you do.....

 

was yesterday the best match ever? nah..ive seen better..but it was riveting for many other reasons....a guy nails 50 aces and over 100 winners and barely escapes and you come on here and say that it was a gimme...that nadals his only competition...thats a double bogey for u in this thread...

 

Many have said Feds is probably the best tennis player ever. Including me.

So that refuse to say anything positive is BS.

 

I did not say yesterday was just a gimme...but Nadal has been his only real competition over the years.

And was yesterday because Roddick is that good...or because Feds has lost something?

[NewbieJr 541]

Yes...you just again proved you are either that ignorant about golf...or just purposfully saying stupid things to get a reaction. Either way, its sad and pathetic.

Dude. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, sad, and/or pathetic. Can't there be two sides to this debate? What are you, Tiger Woods press secretary?

[Rybo5 0]

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.

 

How do you know Fed wouldn't kick Borg, McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl's asses?

[The Moz 69]

he beat sampras

 

and players have always had 1 or 2 that they struggled to beat...thats what makes what federer is doing so amazing....

 

 

Sampras old and not in tourny shape played 3 exhibitions against Fed a while ago -- Sampras won 1 and lost 2 close ones. THis is with Fed in his prime and Sampras old..

 

Fed has 1 rival who beats him almost every time. WHO else has FEd beaten of real talent???

 

Look Fed is great and is one of the top 5 ever but IMO isn't the greatest

[Sho Nuff 720]

Dude. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, sad, and/or pathetic. Can't there be two sides to this debate? What are you, Tiger Woods press secretary?

 

When someone tries to make a point that of course Tiger will win more majors cause he will get invited back til he is 60...yes, I call that ignorant. I have not called everyone who disagrees with me ignorant. Mostly just you two tools.

As for Tiger's press secretary...I wish. Id like a chunk of what that guy makes.

What are you, Roger's ball boy?

[NewbieJr 541]

When someone tries to make a point that of course Tiger will win more majors cause he will get invited back til he is 60...yes, I call that ignorant. I have not called everyone who disagrees with me ignorant. Mostly just you two tools.

As for Tiger's press secretary...I wish. Id like a chunk of what that guy makes.

What are you, Roger's ball boy?

At least I can express my opinion that Federer is more dominant and back it up with facts (15 slams) and not namecall because I'm frustrated that I can't convince the entitre world that they have to agree with me.

 

While Woods obviously won't be winning majors when he's 60, please tell me that you're knowledgable enough to realize that Woods has many, many years left of being a top player, while Federer, at the ripe old age of 28, only has about a two or three year window to win any more. You get that, right? It's golf for crying out loud.

 

Christ, there has to be a Tiger Woods Messageboard where you can find others like you and just talk about how wonderful he is, even when he loses.

[Sho Nuff 720]

At least I can express my opinion that Federer is more dominant and back it up with facts (15 slams) and not namecall because I'm frustrated that I can't convince the entitre world that they have to agree with me.

 

While Woods obviously won't be winning majors when he's 60, please tell me that you're knowledgable enough to realize that Woods has many, many years left of being a top player, while Federer, at the ripe old age of 28, only has about a two or three year window to win any more. You get that, right? It's golf for crying out loud.

 

Christ, there has to be a Tiger Woods Messageboard where you can find others like you and just talk about how wonderful he is, even when he loses.

 

15 slams is nice.

Tiger will get his as well.

We just disagree on the difficulty in today's world of tennis and golf of achieving those things.

Im not frustrated I can't convince the two of you...but keep thinking that if you want.

I agree he has many years left. Probably not as many as you think...but he has more time left...that is for sure.

 

And I guess you can find a Federer board where you and Bmoney can cry about Nadal crushing him when he is healthy and how golf fans don't like him.

[surferskin 30]

Yeah, golf really has some GREAT competition for Tiger.

 

This guy has 2 majors???

 

I think he cut back to only one pack a day to improve his chances of winning.

 

Another guy with 2 majors.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Yeah, golf really has some GREAT competition for Tiger.

 

This guy has 2 majors???

 

I think he cut back to only one pack a day to improve his chances of winning.

 

Another guy with 2 majors.

 

So the smoking makes them bad competition?

[surferskin 30]

So the smoking makes them bad competition?

I'd say, it certainly says something about the sport in general. How many other sports can you chain smoke, WHILE PLAYING and be successful? Beer pong maybe?

[Sho Nuff 720]

I'd say, it certainly says something about the sport in general. How many other sports can you chain smoke, WHILE PLAYING and be successful? Beer pong maybe?

 

Great...get back to us when anyone is pushing how in shape everyone is in golf or that you can't smoke and drink to play the game and so on.

Tennis is more of a grueling athletic sport than golf...great, nobody has claimed otherwise.

 

Soccer is probably more physically taxing than all of them...does that make MLS more competitive than the PGA tour?

[surferskin 30]

Great...get back to us when anyone is pushing how in shape everyone is in golf or that you can't smoke and drink to play the game and so on.

Tennis is more of a grueling athletic sport than golf...great, nobody has claimed otherwise.

 

Soccer is probably more physically taxing than all of them...does that make MLS more competitive than the PGA tour?

Point being, that would you say that if guys like Cabera and Daly took better care of their selves, they'd be better competition to Woods? If the answer is "yes", than I think it's fair to say that competition in golf isn't what it could be. I don't think you could make that claim about a sport like tennis.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Point being, that would you say that if guys like Cabera and Daly took better care of their selves, they'd be better competition to Woods? If the answer is "yes", than I think it's fair to say that competition in golf isn't what it could be. I don't think you could make that claim about a sport like tennis.

 

Umm...its fair to say that nobody has a clue that if Daly and Cabrera quit smoking that they could be better competition in golf.

 

I can say several things about tennis...if so and so worked a bit harder maybe he would be better...you can say that in any sport.

Roddick just switched up his game to try and win from what people said. Others could do it too.

Tiger and golfers do it as well...fix their swings, change their swings and so on...trying to get even better.

[surferskin 30]

Umm...its fair to say that nobody has a clue that if Daly and Cabrera quit smoking that they could be better competition in golf.

 

I can say several things about tennis...if so and so worked a bit harder maybe he would be better...you can say that in any sport.

Roddick just switched up his game to try and win from what people said. Others could do it too.

Tiger and golfers do it as well...fix their swings, change their swings and so on...trying to get even better.

No, you really couldn't say that about Roddick. You don't know how hard he works. I know one thing, he's not a chain smoking fatty.

 

Also, it's not a stretch to say that say that a overweight chain smoker would improve athletically if he got healthier. Just sayin.

[Sho Nuff 720]

No, you really couldn't say that about Roddick. You don't know how hard he works. I know one thing, he's not a chain smoking fatty.

 

Also, it's not a stretch to say that say that a overweight chain smoker would improve athletically if he got healthier. Just sayin.

 

He could improve athletically...may not make his golf swing any better.

Ask David Duval how his fitness kick helped his golf game.

[edjr 6,580]

Yeah, golf really has some GREAT competition for Tiger.

 

This guy has 2 majors???

 

I think he cut back to only one pack a day to improve his chances of winning.

 

Another guy with 2 majors.

 

 

Well played.

[surferskin 30]

He could improve athletically...may not make his golf swing any better.

Ask David Duval how his fitness kick helped his golf game.

Man, you just hate admitting you're wrong, don't you? If we asked 100 golf experts, if Daly took better care of himself, would he win more or less...what do you think the majority would say?

[Cruzer 1,995]

Even in the French Opens that Federer has lost, he's still been 'right there' at the end.

i agree he's been right there - right there in a field that has but one real challenger. the one being the guy who owns him. rog did win 1 french, but that hardly makes him "great" on clay.

 

interesting note though - both rog and tiger have 5 each 2nd place finishes in majors.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Man, you just hate admitting you're wrong, don't you? If we asked 100 golf experts, if Daly took better care of himself, would he win more or less...what do you think the majority would say?

 

Wow...take the one guy who goes on benders and smokes a carton on the course and gambles and has that lifestyle and try to make that example.

Yeah...talk about hating to admit something.

The truth is...nobody knows how well Cabrera or Daly would do if they quit smoking.

Perhaps if Daly quit smoking or drinking he could not handle the grind on the course or other parts of his life. You and I or any expert...just wouldnt know.

[listen2me 23 1,873]

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.

 

This is what gets me. How can a guy be more dominant than Tiger Woods, if in a head to head format like tennis, said guy is owned by another player?

[surferskin 30]

This is what gets me. How can a guy be more dominant than Tiger Woods, if in a head to head format like tennis, said guy is owned by another player?

How come Woods gets owned so much at the Ryder Cup?

[listen2me 23 1,873]

Dude. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, sad, and/or pathetic. Can't there be two sides to this debate? What are you, Tiger Woods press secretary?

 

If you actually read the sad pathetic comment is about how you guys just spew nonsense. Like BMoney talking about how Woods gets invited back to majors when he is 60. Really what is the point? You both just make stupid statements that really mean nothing. And its sad to see people either that ignorant or fishing that much to just make up stuff.

[Sho Nuff 720]

How come Woods gets owned so much at the Ryder Cup?

 

He is 3-1-1 in singles match play in the Ryder Cup.

HTH

[surferskin 30]

He is 3-1-1 in singles match play in the Ryder Cup.

HTH

His overall record blows.

 

HTH

[Sho Nuff 720]

His overall record blows.

 

HTH

 

His overall record is reliant upon other players as well...not just his individual play.

It would be like bagging on Roger because he does not win a ton of majors in doubles.

[edjr 6,580]

His overall record is reliant upon other players as well...not just his individual play.

It would be like bagging on Roger because he does not win a ton of majors in doubles.

 

 

Why did the USA dominate without Tiger there this past Ryder Cup?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Why did the USA dominate without Tiger there this past Ryder Cup?

 

No clue...do you think the absence of Tiger made Kenny Perry play better all year long?

Perhaps people don't like playing with him...but that is pretty much besides the point of his actual ability and match play record now isn't it?

[edjr 6,580]

No clue...do you think the absence of Tiger made Kenny Perry play better all year long?

Perhaps people don't like playing with him...but that is pretty much besides the point of his actual ability and match play record now isn't it?

 

Oh absolutely it has nothing to do with it.

 

I'm just asking you.

 

Why did the US Ryder Cup team play their best ever since Tiger turned pro when he wasn't there?

[Cruzer 1,995]

Oh absolutely it has nothing to do with it.

 

I'm just asking you.

 

Why did the US Ryder Cup team play their best ever since Tiger turned pro when he wasn't there?

i think many will point to the fact tiger's absence freed up the rest of the team. and maybe there is a part of that to it. but i doubt it was a huge factor. there was still a bit of talent on that u.s. team - 4 major winners and a host of others who had played well in pressure cooked majors. i actually point to two factors that helped us win:

 

* strong play from our rookies (if and when you get unexpected production from the bottom, it's hard to lose)

 

* the euros just didn't play like they normally do. the old guard that had carried the team for so long did not play - and they missed them. no montgomery, no mcginley, no clarke, and no olazabal. donald was also not there.

 

bottom line - our newbies out played theirs.

[edjr 6,580]

i think many will point to the fact tiger's absence freed up the rest of the team. and maybe there is a part of that to it. but i doubt it was a huge factor. there was still a bit of talent on that u.s. team - 4 major winners and a host of others who had played well in pressure cooked majors. i actually point to two factors that helped us win:

 

* strong play from our rookies (if and when you get unexpected production from the bottom, it's hard to lose)

 

* the euros just didn't play like they normally do. the old guard that had carried the team for so long did not play - and they missed them. no montgomery, no mcginley, no clarke, and no olazabal. donald was also not there.

 

bottom line - our newbies out played theirs.

 

2 words

 

KENNY PERRY!

 

Dude is a freak, he's kicking azz and taking names and he is 48

 

alsoitmustbesteroids

[Cruzer 1,995]

2 words

 

KENNY PERRY!

always been a big fan of kenny. he's so generous to so many, and he's really approachable.

 

but i'm a little puzzled. if you apply your own principles of "choking" to perry, that you do mickelson - perry is nothing but a choker. losing the '96 pga and '09 masters in playoffs makes him so, no?

[edjr 6,580]

always been a big fan of kenny. he's so generous to so many, and he's really approachable.

 

but i'm a little puzzled. if you apply your own principles of "choking" to perry, that you do mickelson - perry is nothing but a choker. losing the '96 pga and '09 masters in playoffs makes him so, no?

 

I don't recall the 96 pga, but the 09 Masters was brutal.

 

It's pretty safe to say that Kenny Perry is the best golfer right now without a major.

 

He's been playing out of his mind for almost 18 months and what else can you say? He didn't quite Jean Van De Velde the 2009 Masters, but it wasn't far off

 

He has the most consistent drive there is and he just puked on his shoes on 17, 18 and extra holes.

 

I really hopes he wins a major before all is said and done.

[Cruzer 1,995]

I don't recall the 96 pga, but the 09 Masters was brutal.

 

It's pretty safe to say that Kenny Perry is the best golfer right now without a major.

 

He's been playing out of his mind for almost 18 months and what else can you say? He didn't quite Jean Van De Velde the 2009 Masters, but it wasn't far off

 

He has the most consistent drive there is and he just puked on his shoes on 17, 18 and extra holes.

 

I really hopes he wins a major before all is said and done.

i agree on all points. it made me sick to see him lose the masters. the '96 pga was maybe even more brutal. he lost it to mark brooks in a playoff - brooks had a hole in one during the tourney. but it was held at valhalla - right smack in the middle of perry's backyard. he had family & friends all over that place - very heartbreaking fiinish.