I think we are witnessing two GOATs
You have to be impressed with these two stats:
You have to be impressed with these two stats:
Damn.
Holy ****. That's insane.
Article about a good summer debate: Tiger vs. Federer - who is more dominant?
- Thread starter Mr Meoff
- Start date
I have to say Federer at this point due to the fact that the prime for a tennis player is a much shorter time period than a golfer. Tiger can play for 17ing ever and increase and increase his records. Federer has to do it in a smaller time frame with younger, more physical guys coming after him
guys like Reggie Miller, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, and Pat Ewing might all have NBA Championship rings. That's sports. Although Fed did finally get over in Paris so he no longer has that small monkey on his back. All he needed was one to cement his status as the GOAT.
And this is just my opinion but Tiger all the way as a more dominant player.
First we all know that Tennis is a harder sport but the fact that Federer only has to play about 7 individual people to win a title
and Tiger has over 150 people to beat.
So many more chances for people like the Lucas Glover's of the world to shoot 4 great rounds and win.
First we all know that Tennis is a harder sport but the fact that Federer only has to play about 7 individual people to win a title
and Tiger has over 150 people to beat.
So many more chances for people like the Lucas Glover's of the world to shoot 4 great rounds and win.
I agree that you cannot compare the two, mainly because of the reasons that are listed above. There are arguments for both styles. Beating 150 players all at once vs. playing 7 great matches.
My question to the board would be:
If golf went to the Match Play format for all majors (or all tournaments for that matter), how dominant would Tiger be over the competition? I think he would have already passed Jack in majors, of course Jack may have won more as well. I remember Tiger winning 6 USGA events (3 Junior Am and 3 Am) in a row. All played in Match play format, once the field is narrowed down. They would be more comparable if this were the format for golf.
Im a golfer, so I tend to lean toward Tiger.
My question to the board would be:
If golf went to the Match Play format for all majors (or all tournaments for that matter), how dominant would Tiger be over the competition? I think he would have already passed Jack in majors, of course Jack may have won more as well. I remember Tiger winning 6 USGA events (3 Junior Am and 3 Am) in a row. All played in Match play format, once the field is narrowed down. They would be more comparable if this were the format for golf.
Im a golfer, so I tend to lean toward Tiger.
I disagree w/ this. Tiger doesn't shoot the best score everyday, he always has a bad round. One bad outing in tennis can get you beat. I happen to think that Tiger would have a worse record in match play, even though he had so much success early in his career in the US Amateur's and World Golf Championships. Tiger's Ryder Cup record and recent WGC record is below average.MSUalum said:
Besides, Federer's consistency in majors the last 5-7 years is unprecedented and the way he can win on all surfaces. Not to mention tennis is more physical. Nagging injuries are more likely to play a role as are issues like fatigue, etc.
Like Tiger, at times Federer can have a less than stellar performance in the early rounds. I am not saying he always does, but when it happens he still wins those matches against lesser opponents.
But when it counts, Federer, in later rounds, normally brings his A-game, as Tiger often does on Saturday and Sunday.
I agree that they are both great players. But I think they both are similar in that their games improve dramatically the deeper they go in the field.
But when it counts, Federer, in later rounds, normally brings his A-game, as Tiger often does on Saturday and Sunday.
I agree that they are both great players. But I think they both are similar in that their games improve dramatically the deeper they go in the field.
Both RT23 and Patdog are Right
We should not be comparing these two giaints of their sports.
But i will say this:
The mental aspects of golf have to be considered (This is Why Tiger is the Best, He Beats you before he gets on the course)...Many times we all have had to wait 10 to 15 minutes between shots (And believe me i am thinking about that last shot into the F@&%ing pond) and golf is completely based on individual effort? Now lets add millions of dollars as well as the crowd and media pressure.
Don't get me wrong Tennis is a very mental game but there is very little time between shots and then Once you serve Or Return the ball you are reacting to what your opposition does. Which is why Tennis is more athletic sport.
We all Remember Pete, Andre, Mcenroe, and Connors....etc
But with Golf there is before Tiger and After Tiger.
<h1>
</h1> <h1>
</h1> <h1>
</h1>
We should not be comparing these two giaints of their sports.
But i will say this:
The mental aspects of golf have to be considered (This is Why Tiger is the Best, He Beats you before he gets on the course)...Many times we all have had to wait 10 to 15 minutes between shots (And believe me i am thinking about that last shot into the F@&%ing pond) and golf is completely based on individual effort? Now lets add millions of dollars as well as the crowd and media pressure.
Don't get me wrong Tennis is a very mental game but there is very little time between shots and then Once you serve Or Return the ball you are reacting to what your opposition does. Which is why Tennis is more athletic sport.
We all Remember Pete, Andre, Mcenroe, and Connors....etc
But with Golf there is before Tiger and After Tiger.
<h1>
</h1> <h1>
</h1> <h1>
</h1>