Federer > Woods

[listen2me 23 1,537]

I guess you were asleep, when it was expressed countless times how physically difficult it is to play pro level tennis.

 

Wow.....we have a fool on our hands.

 

No one has said Tennis isn't harder physically.!!!!!!! get it through your head.

 

That is not a point to why it is harder to win a Tennis tourney than a golf tourney.

 

 

Get a clue please.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Apparently that guy doesn't.

 

"Tennis Backers have given no real reason or point to why Tennis is harder to win."

 

how is this quote of mine say anything about me thinking Tennis isn't harder physically?

 

 

Harder to win. That is what I said. You have given no point to why a Tennis tourney is harder to win than a Golf tourney.

 

How is it that difficult? Please read. Think. And then respond. Please.

 

Its harder to win the lottery than either a Tennis of Golf Tourney. But that doesn't make it more physically demanding.

 

DO YOU GET IT? Or NO?

[t.j 35]

I don't follow tennis but heard that Federer is practically unbeatable. How did this match turn out?

 

If your score was cumulative like in golf, Federer would have won the match. Djokovic won 7-6, 2-6, 7-6. Overall 18 games won by Federer, 16 by Djokovic. I made the point earlier that in a tennis tournament, you have to be consistent from match to match. You also have to be consistent from set to set. In golf, if you are the best, your performance just has to average out to being the best over the course of several days' competition.

[Rybo5 0]

That is not a point to why it is harder to win a Tennis tourney than a golf tourney.

 

Why not?

 

Also, have you ever played tennis with a pro? Not only does tennis take a crap load of physical endurance, but it is very hard to hit good tennis shots. Maybe you're perfect and can do everything, but I can't even hit a decent tennis shot against someone who stinks.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Why not?

 

wow, you are dumb.

[Rybo5 0]

wow, you are dumb.

 

Then please explain it to me, so I could possibly one day become as smart as you.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

Why not?

 

Also, have you ever played tennis with a pro? Not only does tennis take a crap load of physical endurance, but it is very hard to hit good tennis shots. Maybe you're perfect and can do everything, but I can't even hit a decent tennis shot against someone who stinks.

 

WHen did I ever say Tennis was not harder to do than Golf...physically?

 

WHEN?

 

show me please. give me a link to where I said Tennis isn't hard, and that golf is more physically demanding than Tennis. Show me.

 

That is not a part of this argument because all Tennis players are in good shape. The argument is. Which sports tourney is harder to win overall. Is it harder for Tiger to win a golf tourney? Or Federer to win a Tennis Tourney?

 

what does Tennis being more physically demanding (which I like everyone else here, have agreed on) have to do with that question?

 

Please tell me?

[Rybo5 0]

"Tennis Backers have given no real reason or point to why Tennis is harder to win."

 

how is this quote of mine say anything about me thinking Tennis isn't harder physically?

Harder to win. That is what I said. You have given no point to why a Tennis tourney is harder to win than a Golf tourney.

 

How is it that difficult? Please read. Think. And then respond. Please.

 

Its harder to win the lottery than either a Tennis of Golf Tourney. But that doesn't make it more physically demanding.

 

DO YOU GET IT? Or NO?

 

So because you say that golf is harder to win at, that magically makes it so? How exactly do you know that golf is harder? How exactly do you know that it's harder to win the lottery than the other two. Did you figure out the exact odds? Congrats on making such an absolute statement with nothing substantial to back it up.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

So because you say that golf is harder to win at, that magically makes it so? How exactly do you know that golf is harder? How exactly do you know that it's harder to win the lottery than the other two. Did you figure out the exact odds? Congrats on making such an absolute statement with nothing substantial to back it up.

 

wow.

 

 

I have no time to deal with someone so dumb.

 

I havn't been here for the whole thread, but I have been here to see the points made. God back and read it.

 

The Fact that Tiger has to play against more competitors....a whole lot more than Federer, was the big point I said Golf backers made. That can't be argued.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

So because you say that golf is harder to win at, that magically makes it so? How exactly do you know that golf is harder? How exactly do you know that it's harder to win the lottery than the other two. Did you figure out the exact odds? Congrats on making such an absolute statement with nothing substantial to back it up.

 

I need facts to back up me saying it is harder to win the lottery?

 

Ok. Sorry.

 

I thought it was obvious.

 

For some it isn't I guess.

[Rybo5 0]

WHen did I ever say Tennis was not harder to do than Golf...physically?

 

WHEN?

 

show me please. give me a link to where I said Tennis isn't hard, and that golf is more physically demanding than Tennis. Show me.

 

That is not a part of this argument because all Tennis players are in good shape. The argument is. Which sports tourney is harder to win overall. Is it harder for Tiger to win a golf tourney? Or Federer to win a Tennis Tourney?

 

what does Tennis being more physically demanding (which I like everyone else here, have agreed on) have to do with that question?

 

Please tell me?

 

You can't completely ignore the physical aspect of something when determining how "hard" it is to accomplish. That aside, even if you do throw the physical aspect of tennis out, that doesn't give you a concrete answer as to which accomplishment is more difficult. As I said before, how could you possibly know how difficult it is to hit a pro level tennis shot off of a shot hit by another pro? If you think it's harder to win a pro golf tournament, great, but you have no substantial evidence to make that opinion into a fact.

[Rybo5 0]

I need facts to back up me saying it is harder to win the lottery?

 

Ok. Sorry.

 

I thought it was obvious.

 

For some it isn't I guess.

 

When you try to pass your opinions off as fact and then throw childish insults at someone who disagrees, I would hope you had more to offer than a "because I say so" attitude.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

When you try to pass your opinions off as fact and then throw childish insults at someone who disagrees, I would hope you had more to offer than a "because I say so" attitude.

 

Sorry I guess I was way off by saying it is harder to win the lottery than a golf or tennis tourney. I should get the numbers first.

 

Try reading the whole post before saying something too.

 

Please give me a quote to where I said Golf was harder, just because.

 

WHere do you get this stuff.

 

Please someone else deal with this toolbag.

 

I'm done.

[Sho Nuff 719]

You can't completely ignore the physical aspect of something when determining how "hard" it is to accomplish. That aside, even if you do throw the physical aspect of tennis out, that doesn't give you a concrete answer as to which accomplishment is more difficult. As I said before, how could you possibly know how difficult it is to hit a pro level tennis shot off of a shot hit by another pro? If you think it's harder to win a pro golf tournament, great, but you have no substantial evidence to make that opinion into a fact.

 

Ummm...but all tennis players are basically in great shape.

The physical aspect of it is not what makes it any harder or easier to win when compared to golf.

 

How could you know how it is to hit a pro-level golf shot with everything on the line and crowds lining the fairways as another competitor just birdied to get within one stroke?

[Rybo5 0]

Sorry I guess I was way off by saying it is harder to win the lottery than a golf or tennis tourney. I should get the numbers first.

 

Try reading the whole post before saying something too.

 

Please give me a quote to where I said Golf was harder, just because.

 

WHere do you get this stuff.

 

Please someone else deal with this toolbag.

 

I'm done.

 

Please take a step back and read your last few posts. I doubt most here would disagree that you came off as a total d!ckhead and acted as if your argument somehow completely validated that a pro golf tournament is harder to win than a pro tennis tournament.

[Rybo5 0]

How could you know how it is to hit a pro-level golf shot with everything on the line and crowds lining the fairways as another competitor just birdied to get within one stroke?

 

I don't know exactly how it is, and I don't think I've ever claimed to. I of course can assume though that it's pretty damn difficult(at least it would be for me). I could also very easily throw a similar argument right back at you about tennis. How could you know how it is to successfully return pro tennis level shots and serves again and again and again and again and again? How could you know how it is to compete DIRECTLY with several extremely talented tennis players in a given tournament?

 

My only point here is that both sides could put together a good argument.

[listen2me 23 1,537]

This is NOT the point....or any part of the argument! For the last time.

 

 

It is hard to master any sport as much as each have. Any sport. Every sport is very tough.

 

The argument is What is harder to win? A tennis tourney? Or a Golf tourney?

 

How hard golf or tennis is does not matter! Each sport has pros who are the best at what they do. How hard it is for a pro to win a major in each of these sports is the question.

 

How hard is that to get? wow.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I love the banter back and forth. So much passion on something that does not have a right or wrong answer

[listen2me 23 1,537]

I love the banter back and forth. So much passion on something that does not have a right or wrong answer

 

I agree that it doesn't have a right or wrong answer.

 

But at least the people who say Tiger, have made some points to why a golf tourney is harder to win than a tennis tourney.

 

With a sport as stupid as tennis I don't know why I bother caring.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I don't know exactly how it is, and I don't think I've ever claimed to. I of course can assume though that it's pretty damn difficult(at least it would be for me). I could also very easily throw a similar argument right back at you about tennis. How could you know how it is to successfully return pro tennis level shots and serves again and again and again and again and again? How could you know how it is to compete DIRECTLY with several extremely talented tennis players in a given tournament?

 

My only point here is that both sides could put together a good argument.

 

See...the problem is not as much about how hard it is to hit those shots...because it is very hard. Its more about what type of competition is in both sports right now.

IMO the competition on the PGA tour is far better than the competition on the pro tennis tour.

[t.j 35]

IMO the competition on the PGA tour is far better than the competition on the pro tennis tour.

 

Based on what?

 

(If you've already explained, feel free to quote or link to the earlier post)

[mayhem39 3]

See...the problem is not as much about how hard it is to hit those shots...because it is very hard. Its more about what type of competition is in both sports right now.

IMO the competition on the PGA tour is far better than the competition on the pro tennis tour.

 

 

This is really the major crux of the argument. Of course it is an opinion....I agree with this opinion. I just don't think the competition is near as good in tennis right now as it is in golf. Also, and again this is just my opinion, I feel that golf is a much more difficult sport to dominate. That is why I feel what Tiger is doing is just incredible. Before Tiger came along I thought that the sport would never be dominated by any one person ever again. I think Jack dominated in his day. I also think that the quantity and quality of the players on the PGA tour is much better now than it was in Jack's day. That is another reason why Tiger is so phenomenal. I remember watching him when he won his amateur championships and just realizing that this guy was different. What sets him apart from everyone else is he has that something that can't be explained...that will to win and the ability to get it done. He finds a way to defeat his opponents and he has a mental intimidation factor that is unmatched in any sport.

[birdbrain3X 0]

Federe loses in the finals of a meaningless tournament.

 

Also, this thread was made a 7 months ago. Ownt

 

I know how old the thread is, I've been following it. The sentence above says it all, if Federer was as great as Tiger he wouldn't be losing in the finals of a meaningless tournament. That's not what the greatest champions of all-time do. Isn't that obvious?

[jerryskids 5,172]

While there is no right answer, I find the subject quite interesting. Points are made on both sides:

- Tennis requires consistent excellence. If you have a bad stretch during a golf tourney, you can win still win over 4 days. If you have a bad stretch during a tennis match, you lose.

- Similarly, a golfer has to beat the entire field. A tennis player only has to beat the person in front of him for any given match.

 

Tennis seems to have had more players that rarely lost in their eras. Federer is arguably the best of such players. The nature of golf is that you cannot win as often as such dominant players do in tennis, I think nobody would argue that. That being said, Tiger wins at a staggering rate for his sport.

 

So in the end, I'm left with the conclusion that there is no right answer. HTH.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Based on what?

 

(If you've already explained, feel free to quote or link to the earlier post)

 

Based on people's records...based on looking at the rankings of say the top 100 players and the resumes of those who are ranked at each position on each tour.

[Sho Nuff 719]

This is really the major crux of the argument. Of course it is an opinion....I agree with this opinion. I just don't think the competition is near as good in tennis right now as it is in golf. Also, and again this is just my opinion, I feel that golf is a much more difficult sport to dominate. That is why I feel what Tiger is doing is just incredible. Before Tiger came along I thought that the sport would never be dominated by any one person ever again. I think Jack dominated in his day. I also think that the quantity and quality of the players on the PGA tour is much better now than it was in Jack's day. That is another reason why Tiger is so phenomenal. I remember watching him when he won his amateur championships and just realizing that this guy was different. What sets him apart from everyone else is he has that something that can't be explained...that will to win and the ability to get it done. He finds a way to defeat his opponents and he has a mental intimidation factor that is unmatched in any sport.

 

And here is the other thing...and the same can be said for both Federer and Woods.

Is the competition today not as good as compared to other great players in the past (Sampras and Jack) or are Roger and Tiger just so much better that they make the competition look weaker?

 

And I agree about Tiger...he just has that "it" quality. The complete package of an athlete with great skill, incredible mental toughness, and the right attitude without just being a complete douche...oh, and his wife is super hot.

[KSB2424 3,082]

So in the end, I'm left with the conclusion that there is no right answer. HTH.

I read the thread title and came to this conclusion. It really amazes me that this thread is 9 pages long.

[Sho Nuff 719]

While there is no right answer, I find the subject quite interesting. Points are made on both sides:

- Tennis requires consistent excellence. If you have a bad stretch during a golf tourney, you can win still win over 4 days. If you have a bad stretch during a tennis match, you lose.

- Similarly, a golfer has to beat the entire field. A tennis player only has to beat the person in front of him for any given match.

 

Tennis seems to have had more players that rarely lost in their eras. Federer is arguably the best of such players. The nature of golf is that you cannot win as often as such dominant players do in tennis, I think nobody would argue that. That being said, Tiger wins at a staggering rate for his sport.

 

So in the end, I'm left with the conclusion that there is no right answer. HTH.

 

I disagree with that first point. You can have a bad stretch and miss your shots and could still win a set...and even if you lose the set...you still have a chance in the other sets.

Just like Tiger could be off in the first two rounds and still hang around...Federer can be off and probably that off game could still beat some of the chumps he sees in the first few rounds.

 

Tiger is several majors ahead of where Jack was at this point in his career. And a down year for Tiger....he has 1 major win, 2 2nd place finishes in the majors, and a 12th place finish.

[parrot 789]

I disagree with that first point. You can have a bad stretch and miss your shots and could still win a set...and even if you lose the set...you still have a chance in the other sets.

 

Hell, you can lose more games than you win in a tennis match and still win the match.

[parrot 789]

Why? Am I wrong?

 

Saying one shot can cost you a golf tournament, but one shot can't cost you a golf tournament? :oldconfused:

My post was in response to another poster saying "One fluck up and you are history." in regards to tennis. Any single bad shot has much more potential to fock you in golf than in tennis due to the compounding nature of it. If a tennis player hits a shot into the stands, he loses the point and starts over from the baseline, a golfer has to track down his bad shot and play it where it landed. Also, every fock up in golf counts towards your eventual total, unlike tennis where you get a fresh start every match. Of course I know you understand this and are just being intentionally obtuse.

[edjr 5,547]

While there is no right answer, I find the subject quite interesting. Points are made on both sides:

- Tennis requires consistent excellence. If you have a bad stretch during a golf tourney, you can win still win over 4 days. If you have a bad stretch during a tennis match, you lose.

- Similarly, a golfer has to beat the entire field. A tennis player only has to beat the person in front of him for any given match.

 

Tennis seems to have had more players that rarely lost in their eras. Federer is arguably the best of such players. The nature of golf is that you cannot win as often as such dominant players do in tennis, I think nobody would argue that. That being said, Tiger wins at a staggering rate for his sport.

 

So in the end, I'm left with the conclusion that there is no right answer. HTH.

 

 

Well said.

 

That's a wrap folks.

 

Move along now.

[jerryskids 5,172]

 

Hell, you can lose more games than you win in a tennis match and still win the match.

I should have said tournament, not match, my mistake. What I was trying to say was that if you have a bad day in tennis, or your opponent has a superior day, you lose. If the same happens in golf, you have three other days to catch up.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I should have said tournament, not match, my mistake. What I was trying to say was that if you have a bad day in tennis, or your opponent has a superior day, you lose. If the same happens in golf, you have three other days to catch up.

 

Depends how bad...in each instance.

Federer having a bad enough day to lose to one of the chumps he faces in the 3rd round would be about as bad as Tiger having a bad enough day to basically miss the cut.

[mayhem39 3]

And here is the other thing...and the same can be said for both Federer and Woods.

Is the competition today not as good as compared to other great players in the past (Sampras and Jack) or are Roger and Tiger just so much better that they make the competition look weaker?

 

And I agree about Tiger...he just has that "it" quality. The complete package of an athlete with great skill, incredible mental toughness, and the right attitude without just being a complete douche...oh, and his wife is super hot.

 

 

This is why I think Tiger is so amazing and Roger not so much. I think the competition in golf is alot better than it was in Jack's days. I also think the competition in tennis has dwindled when you compare it to say the 70's and 80's.

[edjr 5,547]

This is why I think Tiger is so amazing and Roger not so much. I think the competition in golf is alot better than it was in Jack's days. I also think the competition in tennis has dwindled when you compare it to say the 70's and 80's.

 

Like I mentioned already.

 

The competition in golf is better???? If it's so good, why when they play in the same group as Tiger on Saturday or Sunday they forget how to play?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Like I mentioned already.

 

The competition in golf is better???? If it's so good, why when they play in the same group as Tiger on Saturday or Sunday they forget how to play?

 

Because Tiger is intimidating...because he is that good?

Its been explained to you already.

 

 

Cue edjr making his "Moth to a flame" comment and his claim that he ignored me.

You are right...I am like a moth drawn to a flame, I am drawn towards ignorant comments and mocking them severely.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Like I mentioned already.

 

The competition in golf is better???? If it's so good, why when they play in the same group as Tiger on Saturday or Sunday they forget how to play?

 

Back in Jack Nicklaus' day, there were really only a few really good golfers. Guys that you knew had a chance to win. Trevino, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, etc.

 

Now, there are 15 guys that have a chance to win just about any tournament.

 

Riddle this for me, Batman. If Federer is so dominant in the game today, why don't they change the layout of the court so that it can be fairer for everyone else? It sure seems that they have changed courses as a direct result of Tiger's bomb and gouge approach to the game. Then when they do that, he alters his game (see: last year's British Open). When Federer can win on any court or when they change the layout of the court for him, then I will probably pay more attention.

[edjr 5,547]

Back in Jack Nicklaus' day, there were really only a few really good golfers. Guys that you knew had a chance to win. Trevino, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, etc.

 

Now, there are 15 guys that have a chance to win just about any tournament.

 

Riddle this for me, Batman. If Federer is so dominant in the game today, why don't they change the layout of the court so that it can be fairer for everyone else? It sure seems that they have changed courses as a direct result of Tiger's bomb and gouge approach to the game. Then when they do that, he alters his game (see: last year's British Open). When Federer can win on any court or when they change the layout of the court for him, then I will probably pay more attention.

 

Gary Player won 9 majors and Tom Watson won 8. If everyone in this era is so good why doesn't anyone else besides Tiger have more than 3?

 

Why did Jack Nicklaus come in second 19 times in majors? BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE PLAYED AGAINST HIM, THEY DIDN'T FORGET HOW TO PLAY!?!

 

Since he won his 1st major from 1963 to 1986 Jack missed 6 cuts in majors. Since he won his 1st major, Tiger missed 1 so far (because he was coming off an injury) Why is that? Simple, Jack played against better competition.

 

[tony the tiger] that's some GRRRRREATT competition there [/tony the tiger]

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Gary Player won 9 majors and Tom Watson won 8. If everyone in this era is so good why doesn't anyone else besides Tiger have more than 3?

 

Why did Jack Nicklaus come in second 19 times in majors? BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE PLAYED AGAINST HIM, THEY DIDN'T FORGET HOW TO PLAY!?!

 

Since he won his 1st major from 1963 to 1986 Jack missed 6 cuts in majors. Since he won his 1st major, Tiger missed 1 so far (because he was coming off an injury) Why is that? Simple, Jack played against better competition.

 

[tony the tiger] that's some GRRRRREATT competition there [/tony the tiger]

 

Umm. No. The reason is that there is a larger gap between Tiger and his competition than the gap between Nicklaus and HIS competition. If you look at the level of player that is out there today in golf, it is vastly superior to the level of player even 20 years ago. Technology has something to do with that, but you cannot deny that there are far more people playing golf today than there were 20 years ago. Can you say the same with tennis? I don't think so.

 

In addition, the increase in popularity of golf is DIRECTLY related to the impact of Tiger Woods.

[edjr 5,547]

Umm. No. The reason is that there is a larger gap between Tiger and his competition than the gap between Nicklaus and HIS competition. If you look at the level of player that is out there today in golf, it is vastly superior to the level of player even 20 years ago. Technology has something to do with that, but you cannot deny that there are far more people playing golf today than there were 20 years ago. Can you say the same with tennis? I don't think so.

 

In addition, the increase in popularity of golf is DIRECTLY related to the impact of Tiger Woods.

 

The reason there is a large gap is because the competition isn't as good.

 

You think maybe because players can come in 40th in a tournament and make enough money to live there isn't as much motivation to practice like they used to back in the day? In jack's day you had to win to make money, in todays game you have to make the cut to survive. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

Since Tiger made golf way more popular than it was, say when? around the late 90s? let's say 97 when he won the masters.

 

I don't think anyone is old enough to be able to beat tiger yet.