Revisited: More dominant, Federer or Tiger?

Golf handicaps were invented to allow players of non-equal ability to make up a foursome and compete in match play. It works. Anyone with a handicap under 20 could have a friendly with Tiger. You're only a little more than a shot a hole worse than he, so except for the fact you're always 150 yards behind him off the tee, it's not an embarrassing experience for you or he.
When he was on top of tennis in the '50s Pancho Gonzalez advocated tennis move to a table tennis scoring system of 21-point sets, allowing for it to have a handicap system in place. That way, Gonzalez felt, tennis could have lucrative pro-ams just like the golfers.

 

Given that Ryder Cup-match play isn't your every man for himself tournament, that's a lousy example. To judge Tiger, you've got to go on your standard PGA tournaments, where he's won seven straight, which includes two majors.

Nothing against Federer, what he's done is incredible. But he could play terrible in his first three matches and still cruise into the next round, because the other guy wasn't near as talented. It's like your classic 1-16 NCAA Tournament game followed by 1-8/9 in the second round, but with a 1-128 match to start. The only way Federer is a story in his first three matches is if he loses, because those should be locks.

Against the field, with one off day, the other 127 guys in the field (or however many there are) can take advantage of it and put Tiger in the hole. And if guys like Els or Mickelson are on, that doesn't leave Tiger with good odds, no matter how well he plays those other three days.

What Federer's done is amazing, no doubt. But I wouldn't put Federer above Tiger's feats or vise versa. I would rather appreciate what both have been doing the past few years and enjoy the streaks while they last.

 

It doesn't work like that.

In tennis there are only 16 or 32 seeds (depending on the event). Everything after that is a blind draw.

So Federer could easily play the No. 17- or No. 33-ranked player in the world in the FIRST round.

 

How many different ways can this be pointed out before it sinks in? He can "shoot over par" for two, three rounds of any given tournament.

 

Annika Sorenstam beat about 40 percent of the men she played against a few years ago in her one PGA event.

If Serena Williams went three sets against any of the top 200 men, she would win about . . . 4 points.

So much for the greatness of the "field" Tiger beats.

 

He can shoot over par for two or three rounds in any given tournament. And damn near every time, he would lose.

 

Except that he can't. You are really underestimating the level of play in professional tennis right now.

 

Maybe.

But I'm doubting it.

You're trying to tell me that the world of professional tennis is so closely bunched that most every time Federer steps out there, he needs his game to be at 95-100% to win?

I'm doubting it.

 

I would say he needs to be at least 85%. Especially in the three-setters, those things can be over before they start.

 

If golf is "a good walk spoiled," what's tennis? "A cardiovascular workout sweattied up"?

It's very simple.

Tennis: Big racquet head, bright ball. Golf: Tiny club head, white ball.

 

And the fact that a 60something man with a hip replacement actually defeated a handful of "in their prime" pros at the British Open went sailing completely over your head.

Tennis: Ball moving 1.5 times faster than a Nolan Ryan fastball. Person also moving to reach ball.

Golf: Ball stationary. Player stationary. Opponent has no effect on your shot. Unlimited time to line up a shot, prepare for shot, walk away from ball if necessary, line up shot again, ask caddy what club to use and finally, maybe, hit the ball.

I guess marbles is tougher than golf beause the ball is smaller and often a dark color and a person's thumb is smaller than the head of a golf club.

 

Tell you the truth I think both of them are great and by the time they both retire there going to be the best at there sport to ever play.