Federer > Woods

[listen2me 23 1,529]

Opinions that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread but are about golf and tennis.

 

Id rather be Woods than Federer.

 

Even though I agree, you have to be in better shape to play Tennis, it is still a more girly sport than golf. (what would you rather do? Drink your tea with the englishmen, or smoke your cigars while walking up to your ball, while drinking some brew?)

 

Tennis is boring compared to golf, more so on the playing it aspect, but also watching on TV, sure there is more high paced action, but they do about the same thing every second.

 

What would I rather play on a pro level?- Golf (easy, more money)

 

What would I rather to recreationally?- Golf (relax, drink some beers, have side bets with the buddies on a weekend vs going to a tennis court with 1 other guy and bat a ball with a racket over a net repeatedly.

 

Just my opinion, but seems like golf is more universal, and is much more fun even to the average joe.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Well for all you who say Tiger faces the entire field, doesn't that mean Tiger faces the 200th ranked opponent on day 1 and day 2

 

Yup...but is the only guy he faces on day 1 and day 2?

[listen2me 23 1,529]

Well for all you who say Tiger faces the entire field, doesn't that mean Tiger faces the 200th ranked opponent on day 1 and day 2

 

Yes he does.....also the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th .......you get the point. And he competes against all of these guys for 4 days in a row.

[edjr 5,540]

Yup...but is the only guy he faces on day 1 and day 2?

 

Tell me the last time Woods won a match play event?

 

OHHHHHHHHHHH, that's going to leave a mark.

 

 

How many guys does he play in the Match play?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Tell me the last time Woods won a match play event?

 

OHHHHHHHHHHH, that's going to leave a mark.

How many guys does he play in the Match play?

 

So its just about match play right?

Besides the Ryder Cup...Woods has been a very good match play guy...or do you forget everything he won before going pro?

or do you forget the WGC events he has won?

 

[Rybo5 0]

We seem to be arguing different things in this thread.

 

IMO:

 

-In terms of dominance in their respective sports, it's pretty much a toss up.

 

-In terms of which player is more impressive, you can look at it a few ways. From a strict difficulty standpoint, you probably have to give Tiger a slight edge, because professional level golf is insanely difficult, albeit mostly mentally. From a physical standpoint, you have to give the edge to Federer. Pro tennis is FAR MORE demanding physically, and a pro tennis player is lucky to be productive for more than 5 years considering the wear on the body and the amount of athlete turnover.

 

Lost in all of this though is how mentally difficult it is to play tennis let alone pro level tennis. Hitting a good golf shot isn't that much more difficult than hitting a good tennis shot IMO. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me it's incredibly difficult to not only make good contact with the ball(which is coming at you at a tremendous speed most of the time), but also to actually keep it from going into the net or going 50 ft in the air. These pros have to hit pro level shot after shot after shot after shot, and not only have to keep it within the boundaries, but also get it over the net with the lowest and fastest trajectory possible.

 

 

Anyone who can master either game is pretty incredible in my book.

[edjr 5,540]

So its just about match play right?

Besides the Ryder Cup...Woods has been a very good match play guy...or do you forget everything he won before going pro?

or do you forget the WGC events he has won?

 

 

 

Who cares what woods did when he was 17, you need to go back 15 years to make a point? I said who was the most dominant in their sport, NOW, not when they were 17.

 

Woods has won 2 of the 7, that's not very good, for someone so "dominant" and it's not even a grand slam.

 

Let's talk about TODAY and the last couple years. Woods hasn't won squat at a match play event, last time was 2004 That's head to head right? He lost to Nick focking O'hern at this years Match Play. WHO????

 

Could you tell me the last time a 5'9 250 pound man that smokes won a tennis grand slam event?

 

It's so much harder to dominate Tennis than Golf. No one has ever done what Federer has done, EVER. 10 grand slam finals in a row? The record before him was 5!

[Sho Nuff 719]

Who cares what woods did when he was 17, you need to go back 15 years to make a point? I said who was the most dominant in their sport, NOW, not when they were 17.

 

Woods has won 2 of the 7, that's not very good, for someone so "dominant" and it's not even a grand slam.

 

Let's talk about TODAY and the last couple years. Woods hasn't won squat at a match play event, last time was 2004 That's head to head right? He lost to Nick focking O'hern at this years Match Play. WHO????

 

Could you tell me the last time a 5'9 250 pound man that smokes won a tennis grand slam event?

 

It's so much harder to dominate Tennis than Golf. No one has ever done what Federer has done, EVER. 10 grand slam finals in a row? The record before him was 5!

 

My point is how often do the pros even play match play? Not very often.

In addition...how much does Woods care about match play...or even any tournament other than a major. Pretty well documented that he, like Jack, uses other tournaments to prepare his game for the majors.

 

And again...who gives a damn about match play...other than the Ryder cup...they are pretty low on the totem pole for events.

 

You mean like when Federer lost to Canas twice in a few weeks?

or to Volandri?

As if anyone has heard of them?

Nick Ohern is ranked 24th in the world by the way.

 

Can you tell me what size and smoking habits have to do with this conversation? I think its pretty well been agreed upon that Tennis is the more physically demanding sport.

 

Much harder to dominate Tennis than Golf? Not really...there is little to no competition for him right now. Nadal is the only real hurdle for him at these majors. The other guys are complete scrubs.

 

You may think the same about Golf...but the guys Tiger goes up against, how many have won multiple time this year? Multiple majors even?

 

Tennis right now is at its most easy to dominate point in quite some time.

[JScott 20]

Yes he does.....also the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th .......you get the point. And he competes against all of these guys for 4 days in a row.

I get what you're saying and disagree. Woods AND Federer compete against everyone in the field, but while Federer may only face 7 different opponents, Woods faces no opponent but the coarse. He plays the course to the best of his ability to post the lowest score possible, and he'll only concern himself with other golfers towards the end of day 4 if he's in position to win (eg. up by 2 with 3 to play, he'd play safer shots rather than down by 2 with 3 to play where he'd be more aggressive). Tiger doesn't play against anyone, they're all just competing in the same tournament. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

Hypotheitcally, take Tiger and 17 other golfers and put them each on a seperate hole (i.e shot-gun) with no leaderboard. Let them play 4 rounds this way. They're still going to play the course, to post the best score possible and at the end they'll compare scores to see who wins. Whether those other 17 golfers are ranked 2 - 18 or 102 - 118 it won't change how Tiger plays the course. He'll play to post the lowest score. In other words the other golfers don't have a direct impact on his play. This is not the case in tennis. So to say Federer only faces 7 opponents is mute considering Tiger faces no opponents.

[edjr 5,540]

 

 

Much harder to dominate Tennis than Golf? Not really...there is little to no competition for him right now. Nadal is the only real hurdle for him at these majors. The other guys are complete scrubs.

 

You may think the same about Golf...but the guys Tiger goes up against, how many have won multiple time this year? Multiple majors even?

 

Tennis right now is at its most easy to dominate point in quite some time.

 

What competition is there for Woods? And he still isn't winning Majors.

 

Mickleson is one of the biggest chokers, considering his talent. Seriously, who is Woods going against?

 

Of course the PGA is going to have a lot more multiple time winners, guys can play for 30 years and how long is a tennis career? Fred Funk is playing on the champions tour and the PGA tour.

 

When I made this thread Federer was more dominant than Woods and since then he has only gone on to prove it even more.

 

Since the start of the 2004 season.

 

ROGER FEDERER. 11 Grand Slam wins.

 

 

2003 Wimbledon

2004 Australian

2004 Wimbledon

2004 U.S. Open

2005 Wimbledon

2005 U.S. Open

2006 Australian

2006 Wimbledon

2006 U.S. Open

2007 Australian

2007 Wimbledon

 

 

TIGER WOODS 4 Grand Slam wins

 

2005 The Masters

2005 The Open Championship

2006 The Open Championship

2006 PGA Championship

 

 

C'mon now, it's not even CLOSE!

[Sho Nuff 719]

I get what you're saying and disagree. Woods AND Federer compete against everyone in the field, but while Federer may only face 7 different opponents, Woods faces no opponent but the coarse. He plays the course to the best of his ability to post the lowest score possible, and he'll only concern himself with other golfers towards the end of day 4 if he's in position to win (eg. up by 2 with 3 to play, he'd play safer shots rather than down by 2 with 3 to play where he'd be more aggressive). Tiger doesn't play against anyone, they're all just competing in the same tournament. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

Whats so hard to understand? Its BS....despite all this he is playing the course crap...he is playing against those other players. Their good play directly affects his chances at winning.

 

Hypotheitcally, take Tiger and 17 other golfers and put them each on a seperate hole (i.e shot-gun) with no leaderboard. Let them play 4 rounds this way. They're still going to play the course, to post the best score possible and at the end they'll compare scores to see who wins. Whether those other 17 golfers are ranked 2 - 18 or 102 - 118 it won't change how Tiger plays the course. He'll play to post the lowest score. In other words the other golfers don't have a direct impact on his play. This is not the case in tennis. So to say Federer only faces 7 opponents is mute considering Tiger faces no opponents.

 

Too bad they don't play golf in the manner you described making it pretty much irrelevant garbage.

 

 

 

What competition is there for Woods? And he still isn't winning Majors.

 

Yeah...there are not other multiple major winners on tour...Vijay, Mickleson, Els (though he is struggling a bit lately in the majors, but still ranked 5th) ... then guys like Furyk with one major but finishes top 10 in majors all the time.

 

Mickleson is one of the biggest chokers, considering his talent. Seriously, who is Woods going against?

He may very well be...but he is better comparatively than everyone except maybe Nadal on the Tennis tour.

 

 

Of course the PGA is going to have a lot more multiple time winners, guys can play for 30 years and how long is a tennis career? Fred Funk is playing on the champions tour and the PGA tour.

 

Im saying even recent multiple major winners...because there is more top talent out there in the PGA than there are playing tennis.

Yup...Fred is...and he is what, the 100th ranked Golfer...and that much better than the 100th rated tennis player right now.

 

When I made this thread Federer was more dominant than Woods and since then he has only gone on to prove it even more.

 

Since the start of the 2004 season.

 

ROGER FEDERER. 11 Grand Slam wins.

2003 Wimbledon

2004 Australian

2004 Wimbledon

2004 U.S. Open

2005 Wimbledon

2005 U.S. Open

2006 Australian

2006 Wimbledon

2006 U.S. Open

2007 Australian

2007 Wimbledon

TIGER WOODS 4 Grand Slam wins

 

2005 The Masters

2005 The Open Championship

2006 The Open Championship

2006 PGA Championship

C'mon now, it's not even CLOSE!

 

And again, look at the competition...and you are only taking majors into consideration...look at the whole body of work. Look at the money list, the rankings...everything...its much closer than you could ever imagine...and its much tougher to do what Tiger is doing givent he competition involved.

[t.j 35]

Arguably, Woods has passed his prime. He was probably a more dominant golfer in his mid-20s than he is now. IMO there is no question Federer is more dominant right now. For their careers, you could go either way but I would still go Federer. I almost feel bad for his opponents. But I would rather eat glass than argue with Sho Nuff, so that's all I have to say about that.

[edjr 5,540]

Whats so hard to understand? Its BS....despite all this he is playing the course crap...he is playing against those other players. Their good play directly affects his chances at winning.

Too bad they don't play golf in the manner you described making it pretty much irrelevant garbage.

Yeah...there are not other multiple major winners on tour...Vijay, Mickleson, Els (though he is struggling a bit lately in the majors, but still ranked 5th) ... then guys like Furyk with one major but finishes top 10 in majors all the time.

He may very well be...but he is better comparatively than everyone except maybe Nadal on the Tennis tour.

Im saying even recent multiple major winners...because there is more top talent out there in the PGA than there are playing tennis.

Yup...Fred is...and he is what, the 100th ranked Golfer...and that much better than the 100th rated tennis player right now.

And again, look at the competition...and you are only taking majors into consideration...look at the whole body of work. Look at the money list, the rankings...everything...its much closer than you could ever imagine...and its much tougher to do what Tiger is doing givent he competition involved.

 

How come when people talk about the golden bear they always say 18 majors and nothing else? Because in Golf and Tennis majors are all that matters.

 

Tiger plays a very limited schedule, 18 tournies a year, most guys play upwards of 30. How many you think Federer plays a year? 10 maybe? YOu can't play every 2 weeks in Tennis, no one can, it's too taxing on your body. Tiger only cares about winning majors, that's why he plays so few events.

 

 

Arguably, Woods has passed his prime. He was probably a more dominant golfer in his mid-20s than he is now. IMO there is no question Federer is more dominant right now. For their careers, you could go either way but I would still go Federer. I almost feel bad for his opponents.

 

Very well said.

 

I must admit though, next year may be the end of Federer's dominance, Nadal looked awesome yesterday. We shall see.

[Sho Nuff 719]

How come when people talk about the golden bear they always say 18 majors and nothing else? Because in Golf and Tennis majors are all that matters.

 

Tiger plays a very limited schedule, 18 tournies a year, most guys play upwards of 30. How many you think Federer plays a year? 10 maybe? YOu can't play every 2 weeks in Tennis, no one can, it's too taxing on your body. Tiger only cares about winning majors, that's why he plays so few events.

 

When talking about records...yes...when talking about the dominance of 2 players....you take it all into consideration.

 

10 maybe?

Its July and he has already played in 9 tournaments.

Again, quit saying stupid ignorant things, and people will quit mocking you for doing so. Now...cue to you calling me a stalker again.

 

Its not that they cant play tournaments every 2 weeks...its that their tournaments take up quite a bit of time.

[edjr 5,540]

When talking about records...yes...when talking about the dominance of 2 players....you take it all into consideration.

 

10 maybe?

Its July and he has already played in 9 tournaments.

Again, quit saying stupid ignorant things, and people will quit mocking you for doing so. Now...cue to you calling me a stalker again.

 

Its not that they cant play tournaments every 2 weeks...its that their tournaments take up quite a bit of time.

 

 

I said 10 maybe, I didn't check the records, it was a guess. With 1 major to go how many more you think he'll play?

 

So this of course makes you ignore the fact that majors are all that matter. Way to go torridjoe

 

Of course you forget to answer why people say 18 majors when talking about Jack and they say nothing else.

 

I guess jacks whole body of work didn't mean a thing.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I said 10 maybe, I didn't check the records, it was a guess. With 1 major to go how many more you think he'll play?

 

So this of course makes you ignore the fact that majors are all that matter. Way to go torridjoe

 

Of course you forget to answer why people say 18 majors when talking about Jack and they say nothing else.

 

I guess jacks whole body of work didn't mean a thing.

 

You said 10 maybe...the year is half over and he has played 9...so in your mind he will play 1 more tournament...you call me torrid yet you are trying to spin out of that tidbit of ignorance.

 

Majors are all that matter? Again, not really when you are trying to compare people, take the whole career into consideration.

 

I forget to answer why people say that about Jack? Its because it is the record...and one of the more recognizable ones.

What do people talk about when they mention Hank Aaron? The HR record...is that all he did in his career?

Again, you continue to just say idiotic things and wonder why people mock you when you do.

 

Jacks body of work meant alot...but people are talking majors because someone is chasing his record of majors. Look above to the hank aaron comparison. How about Dimaggio...is all he did was hit in 56 straight games? I guess he did nothing else right?

[listen2me 23 1,529]

Tell me the last time Woods won a match play event?

 

OHHHHHHHHHHH, that's going to leave a mark.

How many guys does he play in the Match play?

 

He has won the only Match play PGA tournement like 3 times already?....what are you talking about?

[edjr 5,540]

He has won the only Match play PGA tournement like 3 times already?....what are you talking about?

 

2 times in 7 years. not very good for the most dominant golfer, is it?

[Sho Nuff 719]

2 times in 7 years. not very good for the most dominant golfer, is it?

 

Not bad actually...especially given the talent on the PGA tour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the talent on the Tennis tour. Something you simply cannot get past in this thread.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

I get what you're saying and disagree. Woods AND Federer compete against everyone in the field, but while Federer may only face 7 different opponents, Woods faces no opponent but the coarse. He plays the course to the best of his ability to post the lowest score possible, and he'll only concern himself with other golfers towards the end of day 4 if he's in position to win (eg. up by 2 with 3 to play, he'd play safer shots rather than down by 2 with 3 to play where he'd be more aggressive). Tiger doesn't play against anyone, they're all just competing in the same tournament. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

Hypotheitcally, take Tiger and 17 other golfers and put them each on a seperate hole (i.e shot-gun) with no leaderboard. Let them play 4 rounds this way. They're still going to play the course, to post the best score possible and at the end they'll compare scores to see who wins. Whether those other 17 golfers are ranked 2 - 18 or 102 - 118 it won't change how Tiger plays the course. He'll play to post the lowest score. In other words the other golfers don't have a direct impact on his play. This is not the case in tennis. So to say Federer only faces 7 opponents is mute considering Tiger faces no opponents.

 

How much harder is it to have to post a better total score than 100 other golfers in a 4 day span, and have to have played that course better in 4 days than 100 others, while not being able to play Def on anyone, than it is to knock a guy off 1 on 1?

 

Seriously Woods and any other golfer has to post a better score than numerous other pro golfers to win a tournement. Its hard to compare because it is totally different in the way you win a tounement between the 2 sports.

[edjr 5,540]

Not bad actually...especially given the talent on the PGA tour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the talent on the Tennis tour. Something you simply cannot get past in this thread.

 

 

Again.

 

I made this thread saying Federer is more dominant in his sport than Woods.

 

Since I made the thread Federer has proved my point even more.

 

Why are you arguing?

 

Way go to Tiger.

 

When it's 1 on 1 you choke again.

 

I still love you and you're my favorite golfer, but it's obvious Federer is better in his sport than you are in yours. Thanks for playing.

 

Can't you admit you were wrong and just move along?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Again.

 

I made this thread saying Federer is more dominant in his sport than Woods.

 

Since I made the thread Federer has proved my point even more.

 

Why are you arguing?

Can't you just admit you were wrong and move along?

 

Though, Im not...given the overall status of each tour and the competition involved, I don't believe your premise to be true, nor has he proven it anymore.

 

But funny that you stoop to this after your other points were getting blown out of the water and you were getting called for making some very idiotic and ignorant posts.

 

HTH

[edjr 5,540]

Though, Im not...given the overall status of each tour and the competition involved, I don't believe your premise to be true, nor has he proven it anymore.

 

But funny that you stoop to this after your other points were getting blown out of the water and you were getting called for making some very idiotic and ignorant posts.

 

HTH

 

 

I didn't think you could admit you were wrong.

 

T.J. was right. Where is the glass?

[Sho Nuff 719]

I didn't think you could admit you were wrong.

 

T.J. was right. Where is the glass?

 

As if you have ever admitted to being wrong when actual facts prove you to be so.

This is a subjective thing were its all opinion and you make that claim.

 

Too freakin funny.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

I think its about 5 times harder to win a golf tourney than a tennis tourney.

 

That said Federer has been much more dominate recently over his lesser competition.

 

That said, I think If you want to go strickly numbers Federer is much more dominant than Woods.

 

However if you used common sense and factor in how hard a golf tourney is to win, and the level of competion in golf, it evens it right out.

[rallo 132]

Hypotheitcally, take Tiger and 17 other golfers and put them each on a seperate hole (i.e shot-gun) with no leaderboard. Let them play 4 rounds this way. They're still going to play the course, to post the best score possible and at the end they'll compare scores to see who wins. Whether those other 17 golfers are ranked 2 - 18 or 102 - 118 it won't change how Tiger plays the course. He'll play to post the lowest score. In other words the other golfers don't have a direct impact on his play. This is not the case in tennis. So to say Federer only faces 7 opponents is mute considering Tiger faces no opponents.

 

 

i don't know what to say... you shoot your own argument down here... the fact is they DO have a leaderboard, and they aren't shot-gunned out there playing seperately so no one has contact with eachother... he IS competing with other scores out there... it is effected by both the scores others put up, and the shots people in his group put up.

 

and edjr going on the match play argument again... who cares??? do i care how federer does when he plays doubles??? no... doesn't matter... tiger match play... also doesn't matter

[rallo 132]

You might want to go back and read your own post. You made an arguement FOR a tennis player being tougher A tennis player's opponent effects his play with EVERY return. A golfer is only effected by an opponent on the last day on the last few holes if the match is on the line (like your example). But besides that a golfer plays the course on day 1, 2 and 3. And if a golfer has a bad round, he still has other rounds to recover with. If tennis player has a bad match, he's out; no second chance.

 

IMO Federer and Woods are pretty much at an equal point in their respective careers. Right now both are talked about as "one of the best" along other greats in their sports. IMO Federer will win at least another 5 Grand Slam championships (one of which being the French) over the next 2 - 3 seasons, which will solidify him as the greatest with the most GS titles ever. After that he'll be on the down side of his career and will maybe win 1 or 2 more Grand Slams. As for Tiger, he'll be playing golf for a very long time and I do think he'll break the record for Major wins. And then, he too will be considered the greatest golfer.

 

i'll slightly disagree with the first part of your post... granted if a golfer has a 'bad' first day he can maybe still make the cut, and yes he can probably have a chance to go out and win the tournament...

 

but i also see this with federer in the early rounds... i'd also wager if he had a bad match vs a first or second rounder like Juan-Pablo Guzman (some low ATP ranked guy) that he could still beat him??? i mean federer would have have to play god awful to get ousted by the likes of a first or second rounder.

 

One thing of note that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the window of opportunity for Woods v. Federer. They each play the same number of Major/GS championships (4) each year. And Federer has won his championships at a faster pace (11 in 5 years) than Woods, but Federer realistically only has a few more years in his prime when he'll be considered a top contender. Obviously there's more longevity in golf so Woods probably has another 10 years of dominance, and would still have a very good shot to win after that. So for those making the arguement that there are more players in the field for Woods to contend with I would say that's offset by the fact that he has more time/years to face those contenders and collect his wins than Federer, who you say has less contenders, but I say wins at a faster rate.

 

this however is a very interesting argument... that is one great argument for tennis... when this is all over and you count both federer's and woods' championships how will they stack up.

 

For the sake of this argument will assume tiger and roger are equally dominant (and they very well might be... who knows)

 

On one hand.... It's easier for federer to win a championship because of sheer statistics because of the 7 round system vs the 1 vs all as are PGA events. So because of this (Assuming woods and federer are equally dominant) so federer should win his tournaments at a faster pace than woods...

 

On the other hand... because of the physical nature of each game... woods will be at his peak longer than federer as golfers can still be very competitive in their 30s and 40s... so tiger has more opportunites to win his majors than federer...

 

it'll be interesting to see if they both continue to dominate their respective games and then how people in the sports world will measure their feats once they are both done. that would be a tough argument...

 

so who would you guys consider to be more dominant at their respective sport

 

pete sampras 14 majors in 13 years???

 

jack nicklaus 18 majors in 25 years????

 

 

 

 

then there are federer and woods

 

federer 11 majors in 6 years???

 

tiger 12 majors in 11 years???

[Strike 3,934]

Now that it's come out that Tiger has been doing Steroids for the last 4 years I think this discussion is moot.

[edjr 5,540]

Did Tiger win the British?

 

Tiger does roids? it wouldn't shock me to find that out.

 

Federer > woods

[edjr 5,540]

I win, I win, I win!

[mayhem39 3]

I said 10 maybe, I didn't check the records, it was a guess. With 1 major to go how many more you think he'll play?

 

So this of course makes you ignore the fact that majors are all that matter. Way to go torridjoe

 

Of course you forget to answer why people say 18 majors when talking about Jack and they say nothing else.

 

I guess jacks whole body of work didn't mean a thing.

 

 

Are you really this stupid???

[rallo 132]

I win, I win, I win!

 

 

I'm not impressed son... you've always been a disappointment.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Are you really this stupid???

 

Yes...he really is.

[edjr 5,540]

I win and the what's left?

 

Insults and stalkers.

[mayhem39 3]

I win and the what's left?

 

Insults and stalkers.

 

 

What did you win?

[rallo 132]

I win and the what's left?

 

Insults and stalkers.

 

you still didn't answer my argument from above...

 

about how you measure dominance in each sport...

 

who do you think was more dominant???

 

jack nicklaus or pete sampras???

[edjr 5,540]

you still didn't answer my argument from above...

 

about how you measure dominance in each sport...

 

who do you think was more dominant???

 

jack nicklaus or pete sampras???

 

 

Pete Sampras won 14 grand slams over 12 years.

 

Jack Nicklaus won 18 grand slams over 24 years.

 

Jack won a grand slam when he was 44? give me a break. Tennis is a way more demanding sport.

 

Pete > jack

[rallo 132]

Tennis is a way more demanding sport.

Pete > Jack

 

tennis is a way more physically demanding sport, but that is not the argument. The argument is who is more dominant in their respective sport. And i'd venture to guess... in the grand scheme of things... even tennis enthusiasts on this board as well as probably every respected sports writer would say jack nicklaus was better at his game than sampras.

 

My argument (that you missed entirely) was about the nature of both sports, it was a very good idea brought up by JSCOTT... the only way to truly compare their dominance is to look to past dominant players. Like i already stated... in tennis you SHOULD win a very concentrated amount of majors in a very short period of time... This happens because the window for a tennis player is so small.

 

golf however has a much larger window of opportunity... and it is statistically harder to win a major tournament in golf, so the wins will be more spaced out, yet a golfer has more opportunities to win simply because he will play in more majors than a tennis player.

 

so how do you compare the two??? Federer fights against longevity while woods faces statisically greater odds to win??? You have to look at past players and how they stack up against the greats. I'll have this argument with you again in 20 years, by then it will be apparent who was more dominant at their game.

[gocolts 300]

[edjr 5,540]

tennis is a way more physically demanding sport, but that is not the argument. The argument is who is more dominant in their respective sport. And i'd venture to guess... in the grand scheme of things... even tennis enthusiasts on this board as well as probably every respected sports writer would say jack nicklaus was better at his game than sampras.

 

My argument (that you missed entirely) was about the nature of both sports, it was a very good idea brought up by JSCOTT... the only way to truly compare their dominance is to look to past dominant players. Like i already stated... in tennis you SHOULD win a very concentrated amount of majors in a very short period of time... This happens because the window for a tennis player is so small.

 

golf however has a much larger window of opportunity... and it is statistically harder to win a major tournament in golf, so the wins will be more spaced out, yet a golfer has more opportunities to win simply because he will play in more majors than a tennis player.

 

so how do you compare the two??? Federer fights against longevity while woods faces statisically greater odds to win??? You have to look at past players and how they stack up against the greats. I'll have this argument with you again in 20 years, by then it will be apparent who was more dominant at their game.

 

Honestly, I didn't watch Jack golf much and i'm assuming neither did you. I don't know how dominant he was.

 

I've watched Federer play in each of his 11 grand slam wins (in 4 years) and Tiger in each of his 12 (in 10 years).

 

Federer is more dominant in his sport than Tiger. (right now and over the last year, when I made the thread)