Federer vs Tiger

**glenn__davis** · 04-30-2007 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by EddieO's21

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.

Are you kidding me? Winning 5 or 6 matches against 4 very poor opponents? Doesn't the fact that no one can compete with him completely define how dominant he is?

OK, Tiger has never lost a major where he had the lead in the final round. He also never won a major when he wasn't leading the last day. Do you realize Federer went through the Aussie Open without dropping a set? That's freaking unbelievable.

Again, if you want to make the case that, because of competition, Tiger is more impressive, I can accept that argument. But he's not as dominant as Federer.

**EddieO's21** · 04-30-2007 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by square634

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.

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.

see i disagree...Federer plays a sport in which you play NO ONE until the semi's. It's true...it just is. They are just very low competition that almost every top 20 makes it by. Actually, it's shocking when someone makes it passed a ranked player. Federer...if you wanna talk skill, and let's do that, can not beat Nadal on Clay. He never will. Tiger...he's won Augusta with those lightning greens...the British with the fast links conditions...the open...with the rough and horrible greens...and the PGA, as well as a host of other extremely tough tourneys. Federer has adapted to grass and hard court...I'm not saying he's not dominant, he is...but Tiger is more impressive in his dominance of his sport. He adapts to every condition and comes out on top. 30% in wins...come on now, thats rediculous.

**mweb** · 05-01-2007 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sports Guy

How athletic is tennis really?

Very...need more endurance than most sports, speed and quickness play as much or more of a role than most sports, there's as much or more hand-eye coordination than most sports, and strength is certainly an important attritribute as well. Those are probably the top 4 traits of athleticism, and they all play a vital role in tennis.

**mweb** · 05-01-2007 12:21 AM

I don't see any argument for Tiger being more dominant, maybe more impressive, but pretty much every point that has been brought up for Tiger being more dominant does not pertain to that argument, it pertains to him being more impressive which is a different argument. Federer dominates his competition in terms of wins and losses more than Tiger does, it's that simple.

**MTOsFan** · 05-18-2007 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by mweb08

I don't see any argument for Tiger being more dominant, maybe more impressive, but pretty much every point that has been brought up for Tiger being more dominant does not pertain to that argument, it pertains to him being more impressive which is a different argument. Federer dominates his competition in terms of wins and losses more than Tiger does, it's that simple.

Going by your logic I am by far the most dominant. I've beaten my 9 year old son every time we've played horse in the driveway. Every time. Never even close. I rule.

**mweb** · 05-18-2007 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by MTOsFan

Going by your logic I am by far the most dominant. I've beaten my 9 year old son every time we've played horse in the driveway. Every time. Never even close. I rule.

Way to go! And there's nothing wrong with that logic, the way to determine dominance is to look at how one does vs their competition.

**glenn__davis** · 05-20-2007 12:28 PM

Federer breaks Nadal's clay court streak. Gotta give him a ton of confidence going into the French Open.

**Pedro Cerrano** · 05-21-2007 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by mweb08

Way to go! And there's nothing wrong with that logic, the way to determine dominance is to look at how one does vs their competition.

I think you need to take into account the level of competition as well, but that's just me. Dominance includes, IMO, how skilled the opponents are. If Roger Federer played against weak opponents every tournament, I don't think that makes him a dominant tennis player.

If I beat a 5-year-old in one-on-one basketball game, sure I may dominate that opponent but that does not make me a dominant player -- hope that makes sense...

**mweb** · 05-22-2007 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by TejadaTheyFall

I think you need to take into account the level of competition as well, but that's just me. Dominance includes, IMO, how skilled the opponents are. If Roger Federer played against weak opponents every tournament, I don't think that makes him a dominant tennis player.

If I beat a 5-year-old in one-on-one basketball game, sure I may dominate that opponent but that does not make me a dominant player -- hope that makes sense...

It makes you dominate over your competition and that's what we're talking about here. And we obviously aren't talking about 5 year olds, we're talking about the best tennis players in the world. I don't see how level of competition has anything to do with determining who is more dominate between Roger and Tiger.

If Roger was less dominate, many would think his competition was better.

**mweb** · 07-08-2007 09:14 PM

At this point, I think it's hard to dismiss Nadal as a worthy adversary for Federer.

**TGO** · 07-09-2007 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by mweb08

At this point, I think it's hard to dismiss Nadal as a worthy adversary for Federer.

Nadal is a brilliantly gifted tennis player. He played better than Federer for much of the match yesterday. Federer managed to find a "next level" on his serve, and that is what won him the match. Nadal hit better ground strokes IMO.

Nadal will be ranked up there with Federer in due time if he stays as healthy as Federer has throughout his run. I think Federer/Nadal is better than Sampras/Agassi, and if they aren't yet, they will be. These two are that good. And Nadal just turned 21 a month ago.

As for Federer vs. Tiger, who cares? I don't need to compare them. Both are dominant, both are legends. I just don't buy the "men's tennis is weak right now" argument. It may be a little bit weaker than at times in the past, but the two main factors behind people making the claim are that there are no great American men playing now, and the fact that Federer is just so unbelievably good that he destroys almost every other player. When the entire sport is looking to you and trying to catch up to you, that's dominance. It's the same situation as Tiger. Yes, there are other great golfers, but they all look at/to Tiger.

**gallden** · 07-09-2007 04:20 PM

Does Federer have to fall down after he wins everytime!!

**Nigel Tufnel** · 06-29-2011 12:15 PM

Well, Federer and Tiger really do seem to be on similar career paths.

**glenn__davis** · 06-29-2011 12:32 PM

Wow, nice thread bump!

Nadal certainly has upped his game considerably since this thread. Would have love to have seen these 2 get to play more in their prime, as Federer nearing the end of his just as Nadal was entering.

As far as Federer and Tiger, Federer is still one of the Top 3 players in the world. Can't say that about Tiger at this point. However, due to their sports, I think Tiger has a few majors left in him. Don't know if I feel that way about Federer.

**Nigel Tufnel** · 06-29-2011 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by glenn__davis

Wow, nice thread bump!

Nadal certainly has upped his game considerably since this thread. Would have love to have seen these 2 get to play more in their prime, as Federer nearing the end of his just as Nadal was entering.

As far as Federer and Tiger, Federer is still one of the Top 3 players in the world. Can't say that about Tiger at this point. However, due to their sports, I think Tiger has a few majors left in him. Don't know if I feel that way about Federer.

Yeah, in the time since this thread was started, Federer broke the record for majors, while Tiger is still short. On the other hand, Nadal has clearly dominated Federer, on all surfaces, for most of Nadal's career. So how can you be the greatest of all time, when you're not the greatest of your own time?

It's now been 3 years since Tiger won a major, and a year and a half for Federer. If Federer can't win the US Open, then he won't have won a major in a calendar year for the first time since 2002.

Federer also turns 30 in August, which is ancient for tennis, so Tiger has a longer window, assuming he eventually gets healthy.

Thread: Federer vs Tiger

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions