+ Reply to Thread
Results 16 to 30 of 58
Thread: Federer vs Tiger
01-28-2007 10:18 PM #16
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Camden, DE
And weren't people saying the game was down when Sampras was dominating and Agassi was down?
01-28-2007 10:57 PM #17
01-29-2007 10:02 AM #18Plus Member since 2004 All-Star
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
The answer to this is without a doubt Tiger. Golf is set up in a way that winning every week is not possible but if you look at it in historical terms no one has done 30% of Golf tournements. Tiger's run of dominance has been longer also.
01-29-2007 12:57 PM #19
I'll sit right on the fence. I'd love to say Federer, because I love tennis and think he's just amazing to watch, but what Tiger has done to golf is amazing as well.
And SG, I'll side with mweb and say that Federer is just that much better than everyone else, not that the competition is down. Some very prominent tennis experts were calling him the best ever 5 Grand Slams ago.
01-29-2007 01:25 PM #20
04-29-2007 12:59 AM #21
The answer is UNDOUBTEBLY Federer. Federer plays in a sport that actually requires superior atheticism. Now I know golf is hard, and it really is, but any sport in which John Daly and Phil Mikelson can be some of the best in world doesnt get credit from me.
When watching Federer play I am consistantly amazed, all the points when it seems like he is about to lose and then his an incredible backhand down the line winner. Federer never seems to tire either. To win a single game against him any ofther player in the world must play nearly perfect the entire match, and none of them can do it. I've seen it happen on a number of occasions
04-29-2007 08:44 PM #22
this is obvious imo...tiger is much more dominant...not to take anything away from federer...but 5-6 wins in a tourney does not compare to 120 guys over 4 days of competition...golf is soo fickle and technically imo more difficult. Also, federer has Nadal...tiger has about 20 others
04-29-2007 08:45 PM #23
04-29-2007 11:07 PM #24
LOL. What a ridiculous comment. Ever seen a picture of Babe Ruth?
Federer is dominating his sport, no doubt. His sport however is going through a major decline. Golf is exploding right now. More people are playing now than ever, and every year Tiger is perched at the top looking down.
04-30-2007 09:54 AM #25
Now, if you want to ask who is more impressive, I think that's where the debate comes in. Tiger's sport is definitely more difficult to win, and he does play in a sport which, IMO, has stiffer competition right now. But it would take a lot to convince me that he's more "dominant" right now.
04-30-2007 12:30 PM #26
How athletic is tennis really?
04-30-2007 01:15 PM #27
04-30-2007 01:41 PM #28
04-30-2007 05:15 PM #29
04-30-2007 06:05 PM #30How athletic is tennis really?
Also, I don't see how you can say that men's tennis is "down." I can almost guarantee you that the players today are much better than those of 15-20 years ago. Serves and ground strokes are more explosive and accurate and players are more finely tuned for endurance. I don't think you can attribute all of that to better racquets and equipment. Also, you assert that women's tennis is "strong" now, but I have to agree with MWeb that that is mostly due to perception of storylines. Is the women's game improving? Yes. And it is probably improving faster than the men's game because of a cultural shift, title IX, and other factors. But when Martina Navratilova is still fairly competitive at her age (she even won a first round singles match fairly recenty), I don't see how it has the same depth as men's tennis.
It also goes without saying that the top women's tennis player could not even compete with the lowest-ranked professional men's player, although that doesn't say anything about the parity or depth of the individual leagues. (For example, I believe Venus or Serena in their primes played like the 136th ranked men's player in an exhibition match and lost 6-0, 6-0). I think it says something about the relative athleticism of golf and tennis that female golfers are able to compete well enough to make the cut in major golf tournaments.
As for the actual issue at hand, which is the relative dominance of Tiger and Federer, I don't see how Tiger is more dominant.
you have to look at the competition there, and dominance is shown in tiger and not Federer. HE HAS NONE.
Last edited by square634; 04-30-2007 at 06:30 PM.