Federer vs Tiger

[mweb]

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?

[Sports Guy]

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.

[Flosman]

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.

[glenn__davis]

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.

[Sports Guy]

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.

[Winning_Season]

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

[EddieO's21]

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

[EddieO's21]

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

[MTOsFan]

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.

[glenn__davis]

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.

[Sports Guy]

How athletic is tennis really?

[EddieO's21]

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.

[Baltimoron]

How athletic is tennis really?

You kid? LOL

[Sports Guy]

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.

[square634]

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.