BrokenVisage
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2005
- 24,770
- 12
- 81
Put me down for Federer > Tiger, watching him dispatch of Roddick last weekend was so impressive, I've never seen a Tennis player hit the shots he did with so little ease. He easily has much more athleticism then Tiger.
Tiger did not fundamentally change the game. He may have introduced new swings into the required arsenal, or elevated his opponent's play, but it's not like suddenly you have to play with a nerf ball and use gunpowder in your club. They are not redoing the game of golf like some sort of anti-tiger thing. They make changes to courses each year, and sometimes they work against tiger, sometimes not. It's not like tiger has some specific style of play that can be targetted in course re-designs. The only thing I can think of that comes close is courses designed to severely punish you if you don't hit the fairway. And I'd say that hurts guys like phil mickelson even more.
Furthermore, this question, again, is who is CURRENTLY the most dominant. Golf has changed as a result of tiger's popularization, as cycling has changed as a result of lance armstrong. But lance is not currently the most dominant in his sport, being that he is practically retired. And Tiger is not currently as dominant as he once was. Players have caught up.
Federer has changed the game somewhat, in that only players with virtually every shot in their arsenal stand much of a chance against him. Even at his best, roddick could not compete because he had too many weaknesses. That's what he's working on now and why he managed to take a set from federer and make another set competitive. Guys like Safin and Nadal are the only real threat to federer, because they have a brilliant arsenal as well, even though it's not as good as federer's.
Federer is dominating men's tennis unlike anyone since I've been alive. McEnroe had to vie with Connors and Borg, and on any given day those guys could beat him. The last people to beat Roger Federer in a major were Safin and Nadal, both of whom went on to win the title, both of whom he trounced since then.
I don't think so. It's no question that both are dominating. I just think there is always somebody dominating tennis. My point is nobody really "dominates" the game of golf, but yet Tiger somehow manages to do so. For that I put him above Federer.
But even Federer knows what tiger has done and is doing. Tiger even promised he'd show up to the match if Federer made it to the finals. You are starting to see mention/comparisons being made..."he's starting to dominate like Tiger Woods"
Nice snipet about yesterday's match...
"When it was over, Federer returned to the locker room, cracked open the champagne and spent an hour with perhaps the only other athlete on the planet who understands such sheer domination.
They'd met for the first time earlier in the day, but had been distant admirers. And after Federer's third Grand Slam win this year and ninth overall - Woods has won 12 majors - they visited. Federer sat while Woods stood with his foot on a chair, two champions in the zone.
"More and more often, over the last year or so, I've been kind of compared to Tiger - what he's doing on the golf tour, me doing on the tennis tour," Federer said. "I asked him how it was for him. Many things were similar. He knew exactly how I kind of felt out on the court.
"
i'm ignoring competitve eating because i find it obscene... anyways, moving on to the golf vs. tennis debate:
Tennis
tennis requires insane endurance and even a slight injury can be enough to knock someone off their game. as you get older, endurance goes down, # of injuries goes up. this extremely tough preqrequisite of physical conditioning is why no one can dominate tennis for very long. obviously, experience and skill count, but ultimately, someone younger will knock the champ off.
moreover, tennis is played against other people. those of you who think adjusting to a different golf course or the weather is tougher than adjusting to another human being's style of play either:
a) have never played tennis
and/or
b) are so athletically inept that playing against you might actually make that true.
Golf
golf can be played by 85 year olds, and the only physically strenuous act is driving the ball. however, 18 drives per golf game can't even come close to the number of shots a tennis player makes per game/set/match. unlike tennis, anyone at almost any age can be good at golf, so having one person dominating for a long time is more unusual, but it does happen.
golf is almost entirely a mental game: it's just you versus the course. obviously, knowing there's a good player going up against you will play a significant role on your psyche, but the actual physical act of making a shot has NOTHING to do with the opponent. you can play the course a thousand times to practice and, unlike a person, the course doesn't change its strategy.
Conclusion
so who is the most dominant? the key is that in tennis, you are really playing against other people. these opponents change their strategy and younger opponents can always show up with better conditioning.
in golf, it's just you against the course. if you can focus and drown your opponents out, you can dominate, as tiger has. in fact, they had to change the golf courses BECAUSE it was too easy to dominate the sport.
my vote is for federer. in a sport where every game is different, almost no one can even come close to touching him. at his current pace, assuming he stays healthy (which is far less likely in tennis than golf), he will shatter the records and go down as the most dominant tennis player ever.
Tennis
tennis requires insane endurance and even a slight injury can be enough to knock someone off their game. as you get older, endurance goes down, # of injuries goes up. this extremely tough preqrequisite of physical conditioning is why no one can dominate tennis for very long. obviously, experience and skill count, but ultimately, someone younger will knock the champ off.
moreover, tennis is played against other people. those of you who think adjusting to a different golf course or the weather is tougher than adjusting to another human being's style of play either:
a) have never played tennis
and/or
b) are so athletically inept that playing against you might actually make that true.
Golf
golf can be played by 85 year olds, and the only physically strenuous act is driving the ball. however, 18 drives per golf game can't even come close to the number of shots a tennis player makes per game/set/match. unlike tennis, anyone at almost any age can be good at golf, so having one person dominating for a long time is more unusual, but it does happen.
golf is almost entirely a mental game: it's just you versus the course. obviously, knowing there's a good player going up against you will play a significant role on your psyche, but the actual physical act of making a shot has NOTHING to do with the opponent. you can play the course a thousand times to practice and, unlike a person, the course doesn't change its strategy.
Conclusion
so who is the most dominant? the key is that in tennis, you are really playing against other people. these opponents change their strategy and younger opponents can always show up with better conditioning.
in golf, it's just you against the course. if you can focus and drown your opponents out, you can dominate, as tiger has. in fact, they had to change the golf courses BECAUSE it was too easy to dominate the sport.
my vote is for federer. in a sport where every game is different, almost no one can even come close to touching him. at his current pace, assuming he stays healthy (which is far less likely in tennis than golf), he will shatter the records and go down as the most dominant tennis player ever.
Just as Tiger must study the course and adjust for the weather. I'm not downtrodding on tennis, its a hard and much more physically demanding game. I think golf is extremely tough mentally (even more so than tennis) and while a small miss in tennis might mean a couple more volley's a small miss in golf can mean the difference between shooting from the fairway and taking a swim in a pond to retrieve your ball.
But this is false. The only men's tennis players to dominate for anywhere near the amount of time we are talking about are ... sampras, often hailed as the greatest tennis player of all time, and federer, also often hailed as the greatest tennis player of all time. If you talk about the women's game, yeah, you have streaks of dominance by Serena, the cheater henin-hardenne, etc. But in the men's game it is not that common at all. Before Sampras, I'd say the last dominant player was probably Borg.
If you really want to talk about women's tennis, let's talk about steffi graf who won a calendar year grand slam in 1988 and also a "steffi slam" in 93-94 and a total of 22 majors, 4 more than jack nicklaus. Also the only player to win a grand slam on all three surfaces. And was #1 for almost 400 weeks straight. It's going to be a while before tiger matches that...
I think I read this entire thread, and in it I don't think anyone defined what it exactly means to be dominant. Everyone has had their own opinion of course, and everyone takes side deciding on whether or not tennis or golf is a more difficult sport to dominate. By what criteria other than personal bias? Number of grand slams? The delta between the winner of the tournament and the closest competitor? Records broken? Performance relative to past players?
Tennis and golf are both complex, difficult and demanding sports, and comparing the two without acknowledging that is a disservice. Both Tiger and Federer are both going to go down in the history books as being exceptional players, but I honestly believe that Federer has more momentum right now. That could change, and of course Tiger's momentum could pick back up.
It reminds me of the line from A Beautiful Mind when one of Nash's colleagues asked him, "What is the difference between genius and most genius?"
Tennis and golf are both complex, difficult and demanding sports, and comparing the two without acknowledging that is a disservice. Both Tiger and Federer are both going to go down in the history books as being exceptional players, but I honestly believe that Federer has more momentum right now. That could change, and of course Tiger's momentum could pick back up.
It reminds me of the line from A Beautiful Mind when one of Nash's colleagues asked him, "What is the difference between genius and most genius?"
Inspector Jihad
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
Both sports have made changes to affect the game. Tennis decided to use "slower" balls and by slowing down the courts to increase rallies especially in the men's division where 1 serve points are boring. I am not a fan of Federer but watching him take apart Roddick was impressive. His forehand was deep and had MUCH more speed than Roddick's. It was unfair actually.
I think golf has also tried to ban certain types of driver clubs to even out the sport.
Tiger can dominate golf but on any given tournment some of the other top players can win. Roger Federer has dominated tennis and he wins almost every time. I have to give it to Federer.
I'd say Federer, because Tiger hit a slump a couple times, while Federer seems to be consistently getting better.
You obviously haven't been following Tennis that closely if you just said that. Leyton is barely ranked in the top 20 and rapidly falling and Roddick just made his way up to #6. Players have ousted Federer in the past year- the most notably Nadal (whom he is 1-4 against in the past year). Nadal isn't far behind Federer at all, especially with a commanding lead against Federer in the times they faced. Nalbandian too can give Federer a very competitive match.
Still, I vote Federer as the most dominant athlete. You can argue as much as you want with the surfaces playing a factor in tennis and gold, but really the competition is all the same. In both of these sports there is intense competition to reach the top of the ladder; to be one player to dominate thousands of top competitors around the world is remarkable. I think in tennis especially, the challenge is much more rigid. More people play tennis because it is simply more accessible, buying a decent raquet and a couple of tennis balls will run you 40-100. On top of that playing in public courts is free. This is why you see players from less wealthy families able to make pros. Contrastingly, you need A LOT of money to play golf- which significantly lowers the playing field of athletes available. So undoubtedly, the pool of tennis players to grow to challenge a player like Federer is much larger.
Schadenfreude
Lifer
- Dec 28, 2001
- 11,391
- 3
- 0
Federer because competitive eating isn't as popular of a sport so many of the "athletes" aren't trained as hard and so Kobayashi can beat them with better training.
Federer is just tons better than the best at a very popular sport.
Tiger Woods is getting older.
Federer is just tons better than the best at a very popular sport.
Tiger Woods is getting older.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter