Revisited: More dominant, Federer or Tiger?

Don't downplay people like Vilas and Clerc, both of whom were GS-worthy players, to say nothing of the fact that, in dismissing the period I cited, you completely ignored the endless parade of Swedes -- from Wilander to Edberg -- who were both as good as anyone out there now.

 

FHack beat me to the punch. Many people couldn't name the top tennis players around because Americans are not at the top of the ladder. We followed the days of Connors/Mac and the foursome of Sampras/Courier (sp?)/Agassi/Chang because it was Americans at the top of the food chain.

If Federer was an American, the popularity of tennis would be at an all-time high, similar to what Tiger did with golf. They are both transcendent athletes who are far and away the best in their sports during their prime.

Tiger's run is longer and garners more attention. Federer has been lights out (except on clay) like no other. A couple years ago, Andy Roddick was on the verge of being a superstar in the sport (young, great game, good looks, famous girlfriend), but Federer essentially has turned him into an also-ran. James Blake is a very good player, seems like a great guy and a fantastic story, but he can't seem to make the leap, largely because of Federer's presence.

Both Woods and Federer routinely make world-class athletes/players wet their pants at the thought of having to face off with them.

 

Does anybody really believe, if the PGA Tour went exclusively to a match-play format, that Woods would post anything close to a 91-5 record?

 

No. But that's an absurd comparison. It's like saying if Federer had to stretch all of his matches out over four days, do you think he would go 91-5? Of course not. But that's irrelevant, too.

Stroke-play golf, not match play, is the format used in most professional events.

If Tiger grew up playing match-play golf, and match play was the format used in most golf tournaments for the last century and a half, it stands to reason that Tiger would fare pretty well at that, too.

But he didn't, and it's not. He excels at the game that he plays -- which is almost exclusively stroke play.

Using the same format to compare golf and tennis -- when those games do not use the same formats -- is not applicable.

 

The object of golf is to hit the fewest amount of strokes as possible.

Match play vs. stroke play doesn't really change that dynamic.

And golf DOES have match-play events --- Tiger made his name as a amateur winning match-play events --- so it is possible to see how Tiger does in these events when he "only" has to play one person.

And while his record is very good, it's not Federer-like.

Everyone says Federer "only" has to get through seven people to win a Grand Slam.

Heck, Tiger can't even get through a couple of people to win in Ryder Cup match-play.

And for math experts out there . . . if you have two people of equal talent playing an event, the odds that one person will win seven events in a row is 1:128 . . . which is equivalent to the golf "field" that Tiger beats.

And Federer's 10-1 record in Grand Slam finals --- when it truly can be argued that his opponent is as close to equal as possible --- is staggering.

 

This is really basic.

Anybody who's ever played golf knows it's harder than tennis.

 

40something men don't win tennis tournaments. They do win golf tournaments. 60something Jack Nicklaus actually defeated some players in his last British Open. I don't think Rod Laver is going to defeat anyone at Wimbledon.

Overweight chain-smokers can win golf Grand Slams. Overweight chain-smokers cannot win tennis Grand Slams.

Joe Hacker can at any moment shoot a hole-in-one. Joe Hacker will never ace Roger Federer nor will he ever be able to return Federer's serve.

Retired tennis players and retired baseball players vie for (and acquit themselves pretty well) trying out for the senior golf tour.

No retired golfer or retired baseball player has a snowball's chance in hell of competing on the men's senior tennis tour.

It seems as though the sports world is full of "scratch golfers".

I don't know of many athletes who can take up tennis as their "second" sport and compete on a similar "scratch" level.

 

Tennis is a sport. Golf is a game.

 

Bull-da-bull-bull-bull-shit.

 

Play both, love both. They're both sports. Tennis requires the type of athletic ability that age and injury shrink faster than does golf. But hand-eye co-ordination and small motor skills are athletic abilities, too.
Luggie, golf is not harder than tennis, not even if you carry your own bag. Golf seems harder to us hackers because you're playing an inanimate opponent, the course, in a score expressed as one (in my case lousy) number. I've been lucky enough to play courses Woods plays, and the difference in the scores is an accurate reflection of the difference in our abilities.
The whole point of recreational tennis is playing against opponents of roughly equal ability, otherwise, the game is no fun for either player. That way, you don't notice how much you suck compared to Roger Federer.

 

What an excellent point.

There have been times I have hit a cross-court backhand winner against a 4.0 or 4.5 player and thought, "Pretty damn good."

But that same shot against Roger Federer (7.0+++++++++) gets run down and blasted down the line for a winner.

Same shot, completely different result.

In golf, a good shot is a good shot. Chip in from a bunker, and Tiger can't do anything about it.

 

But in match play, you can win and take dozens of strokes more than your opponent. You could be at a 8 on hole No. 1 while your opponent gets a par 4. But on hole No. 2, you could get a 3 and your opponent a 4. But in strokes, you have take 11 to your opponent's 8, but the match is tied.