+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 58
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Camden, DE
    Posts
    25,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Sports Guy View Post
    I think Federer is the best ever and i think the men's game is down.

    I think it is down because practically ever expert i hear says that AND, from watching tennis alot over the years(majors, not anything else), i think the players were better 5-15 years ago than they are now.
    It's kind of funny hearing an argument that mostly relies on experts come from you considering some of your past comments on people using experts to support their cause. And I still don't think most experts mean what your saying they mean in terms of men's tennis being down. But whatever, maybe they do, but there's not really any evidence that I've seen to support it.

    And weren't people saying the game was down when Sampras was dominating and Agassi was down?

  2. #17
    Sports Guy's Avatar
    Sports Guy is offline Plus Member Since 3/04 Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    107,457
    Quote Originally Posted by mweb08 View Post
    It's kind of funny hearing an argument that mostly relies on experts come from you considering some of your past comments on people using experts to support their cause. And I still don't think most experts mean what your saying they mean in terms of men's tennis being down. But whatever, maybe they do, but there's not really any evidence that I've seen to support it.

    And weren't people saying the game was down when Sampras was dominating and Agassi was down?
    I never heard that.

  3. #18
    Flosman is offline Plus Member since 2004 All-Star Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5,618
    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.

  4. #19
    glenn__davis's Avatar
    glenn__davis is offline Plus Member Since 3/04 All-Star Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Westminster
    Posts
    7,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Flosman View Post
    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.
    It's been longer because he's older than Federer.

    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.

  5. #20
    Sports Guy's Avatar
    Sports Guy is offline Plus Member Since 3/04 Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    107,457
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn__davis View Post
    It's been longer because he's older than Federer.

    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.
    It is both...He is the greatest and tennis is down.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    464
    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

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Myersville, MD
    Posts
    2,594
    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

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Myersville, MD
    Posts
    2,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Winning_Season View Post
    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
    your post is nice if this was supposed to be who is the more superior athlete...this is about dominance, and that belongs to tiger

  9. #24
    MTOsFan's Avatar
    MTOsFan is offline Plus Member Since January 2010 Major Leagues Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Billings, MT
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by Winning_Season View Post
    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

    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.

  10. #25
    glenn__davis's Avatar
    glenn__davis is offline Plus Member Since 3/04 All-Star Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Westminster
    Posts
    7,437
    Quote Originally Posted by EddieO's21 View Post
    your post is nice if this was supposed to be who is the more superior athlete...this is about dominance, and that belongs to tiger
    If you're just talking strictly about dominance, then the answer is Federer. He is so far above his peers it's not even fair. How certain are you that Tiger will win 2 of the next 3 majors? How certain are you that Federer will win 2 of the next 3 Grand Slams? He's a virtual lock at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

    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.

  11. #26
    Sports Guy's Avatar
    Sports Guy is offline Plus Member Since 3/04 Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    107,457
    How athletic is tennis really?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Myersville, MD
    Posts
    2,594
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn__davis View Post
    If you're just talking strictly about dominance, then the answer is Federer. He is so far above his peers it's not even fair. How certain are you that Tiger will win 2 of the next 3 majors? How certain are you that Federer will win 2 of the next 3 Grand Slams? He's a virtual lock at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

    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.
    you have to look at the competition there, and dominance is shown in tiger and not Federer. HE HAS NONE. Yeh maybe Nadal. But tiger has a 4 day tourney with guys beating down on him every round. He has NEVER lost a major when he has the lead in the final round. That is dominance. Winning 5 or 6 matches against 4 very poor opponents is not. The only challenge he has is in the semi-finals and even then it is sometimes sparse.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Quis custodes ipso custodiet?
    Posts
    3,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Sports Guy View Post
    How athletic is tennis really?
    You kid? LOL

  14. #29
    Sports Guy's Avatar
    Sports Guy is offline Plus Member Since 3/04 Hall of Fame Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    107,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
    You kid? LOL
    No, not kidding..Obviously it takes speed, endurance and great hand eye coordination.

    Don't get me wrong, i am not saying it isn't athletic and certainly moreso than golf but its not like it is on the level of basketball or something like that.

  15. #30
    square634's Avatar
    square634 is offline Plus Member since 9/06 All-Star Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    6,366
    How athletic is tennis really?
    Really? Are you serious? Maybe as a tennis player myself, I am a little biased on this issue At the professional level, I would say it requires almost as much athleticism as many of the other running sports (like lacrosse and soccer). I would say in some cases it requires more athleticism than basketball. For example, I would not call Shawn Bradley or Gheorge Muresan extremely athletic. They are just tall.

    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.
    Isn't that the definition of dominance? That he has almost no competition because he is so much better than everyone else? How can someone define skill level in completely different sports except by comparison to the competition? It is sort of irrelevant to say that golf has a more competitive field than tennis, not that I agree with that point either. Micahel Jordan was the most dominant basketball player ever, but he couldn't hit a curveball. Does that make baseball more "competitive" than basketball? Does it mean that Barry Bonds is automatically more dominant than Michael Jordan because he is better at baseball? The fact is, Tiger couldn't play tennis at Federer's level and Federer couldn't play golf at Tiger's level. The only thing we can judge is how they fare against their competition.
    Last edited by square634; 04-30-2007 at 06:30 PM.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

OriolesHangout.com is an unofficial site and not associated with the Baltimore Orioles and part of Hangout Ventures LLC. Copyright ©2013 | Privacy Policy | Advertise with us