PDA

View Full Version : Federer=Tiger???


A-rodd
07-18-2005, 07:52 PM
If you were to compare the two, Tiger Woods and Federer, does anyone here think that what has happen to Tiger will happen to Federer. Tiger when he first started was blowing away the comp, much like Federer is now. But the other golf players finally caught up with Tiger and proved that he was and is not the only great golfer in the world. Will the tennis world catch up with Federer. Will Federer maybe become over confident and complacent (sp?). Allowing the rest to compete? If so when and who will it be? Who could be the next #1?

joesixtoe
07-18-2005, 08:13 PM
i think it will be much the same yes,, federer has a bunch of confidence, so that alows him to go for his shots like he wants too... also he is so diverse compared to the other players, that the other players feel helpless i think,, so when they over come this i think things will start to become a bit more even,, look at nadal

wildbill88AA
07-18-2005, 09:12 PM
no comparison. federer is an athlete.

A-rodd
07-18-2005, 09:15 PM
no comparison. federer is an athlete.

All I am comparing are the career's of two people in perhaps the same situation. Not golf vs. Tennis in any way.

armand
07-18-2005, 09:26 PM
Tiger Woods had all this hype about him before he started winning but Federer basically came from nowhere. In that regard, Tiger's name alone was (is?) worth a few strokes sort of like when they said the hype around Agassi was worth a few games. But the hype and intimidation that is now attached to Federer's name has been created by his victories alone(ok maybe his fluid style has a little to do with it as well).

Basically; Federer earned his name while Tiger was given his.

subtleskeptics
07-18-2005, 10:44 PM
Nadal has already caught up to him. Except on grass.

Exile
07-18-2005, 10:45 PM
You are comparing apples to oranges here.
Federer can do things that tiger can't, like run. Or run and hit a ball at the same time.
You can't compare golf to tennis.
Try doing that with legos and wet socks or something, it doesn't work.

x Southpaw x
07-18-2005, 10:55 PM
no comparison. federer is an athlete.
I think Federer has a much stronger mental game. You don't see him choke much... while Tiger crumbles the moment it's his off-day. Plus as people above mentioned, tennis and golf are very different games and produce very different kinds of players. Federer has skills other pros don't, his near-perfect accuracy on his serve and passing shots, his gameplan etc. Tiger on the other hand has skills very similar to other golf pros, he just happened to be better at those skills at one point of time. Skills like reading the slope on the green, reading wind direction... etc.

A-rodd
07-18-2005, 11:45 PM
You are comparing apples to oranges here.
Federer can do things that tiger can't, like run. Or run and hit a ball at the same time.
You can't compare golf to tennis.
Try doing that with legos and wet socks or something, it doesn't work.

I wish people could understand that this question is not comparing golf to tennis. It is comapring how two different people may or may not have the same results as their careers age. I used Tiger as an example, you can put whom ever you want in his place, as long as they have been on top of their game at one point then came down to no longer domante. That's it. Will this happen to Federer, better yet when?

CoASH
07-19-2005, 12:43 AM
no comparison. federer is an athlete.
tiger can bench 300lbs more than fed

Deuce
07-19-2005, 01:30 AM
Boy - based on some of these nutty responses, one would think that 'A-rodd' didn't make his/her point/question very clear.

But the point/question was phrased very clearly. Some of you need to learn to read ALL of the post, and not merely read a portion, and then jump to your own conclusion.

The question is an interesting one.

Woods totally dominated golf for 2 or 3 years. What happened to him after those years I believe proves two things - 1) Intimidation can only last so long, and 2) It is extremely difficult to maintain an insanely high level of play for a long time, such as for the majority of one's career. How closely 1) and 2) are related is very difficult to determine. Other players could simply become fed up of being intimidated, and raise their level of play, which has the domino effect of lowering the dominating player's play. Or the dominating player's level may eventually lower under the weight of the pressure and increased expectations - and even as a result of the lack of challenge. Either one of these things could occur first, or it could be a combination of the two.

The path Woods has taken is similar to the path the Williams sisters have taken. Venus & Serena dominated women's tennis for two years or so. And then, rather suddenly, they were mere mortals - still top players, but no longer anywhere near dominant.

There is a distinction to be drawn between being the BEST of one's era - or even of all time - and being totally dominant. It is difficult to express the criteria for how this distinction is to be made... It is rare to find an athlete who so dominates his/her sport that it is a top news story when he/she doesn't win an event. Tiger, Venus & Serena, Michael Schumacher in Formula 1... Federer is approaching this level now - but may never attain it. He is not as dominant as any of the above mentioned were - and he perhaps may never be. Only time will tell.

Marius_Hancu
07-19-2005, 01:59 AM
some of you guys haven't read the news this year: Tiger won 2 out of the 3 Slams, and was 2nd in the 3rd. that to me is total domination.

in terms of Slams record, Tiger is ahead: 10 vs 18 the records for the lifetime (Nicklaus'), while Fed is 5 vs 14 (Sampras'). but he is relatively older (29 vs 24). however, golfers play longer, thus he might have more of a chance than Fed to beat the record of Slams.

in terms of money, Tiger's much ahead (esp in endorsements). this is the nature of the sport and Tiger being American.

Tiger's very athletic, contrary to most golfers.

However, I very much prefer the spectacle generated by Fed. Both in terms of sport per se, but also in terms of athleticism.

oldguysrule
07-19-2005, 05:40 AM
Tiger continues to be the dominant golfer in his sport. 10 slams at age 29. Nicklaus was 32 when he won his last slam. Tiger won 7 of 13 slams from 1999 through 2002, then began working on his swing to be able to compete even better. Golfers often have their best performances in their 30's.

Sampras won 8 slams by the time he was 25. Federer would have to win 3 of the next 5 slams just to be on pace to match Sampras. I am not saying he won't match Pete's 14 slams, but Tiger is the better bet.

One, other thing...Nobody in golf has done what Tiger has done. I am guessing there are 3-4 other players in Tennis that have won 5 slams by the time they were 24. (somebody else can do the research).

The point? Tiger has and continues to dominate like no other player in golf. Roger is the dominant tennis player in this decade but has not set himself apart from other dominant players of years past (yet).

NoBadMojo
07-19-2005, 06:05 AM
the metaphor is a bit similar although you really cant compare the two careers i dont think..golf careers last much longer than tennis careers, but as marius indicates, the thread was formed with inaccuracies. one being that tigers' peers have caught up to him..they havent based upon tiger's excellent year and his peers even indicating that tiger is still at least a level above the field. and another is that the rest of the field caught up to tiger..i dont think that is true either..i think tiger went through a spell where he didnt perform his best instead <maybe because he was working on his swing?>. as far as comparing, woods = nicklaus and fed = ???. i dont think there has ever been anyone like fed. also i dont think you can compare golf to tennis because tennis is a sport and golf is more like an activity

FedererUberAlles
07-19-2005, 06:48 AM
He is not as dominant as any of the above mentioned were - and he perhaps may never be. Only time will tell.

Are you on crack? He has only lost three times this year.

newnuse
07-19-2005, 07:18 AM
Tiger>>>>>Federer

What is there to compare. Federer is a great player, the best right now. He has not done anything to be considered special yet (vs Laver, Sampras, Borg etc..). The guy should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Sampras when it comes to career accomplishments, yet.

Tiger is something else. He is the kind of "athlete" that comes around once in a generation. I'm just not talking about golf only. He has done things that no other golfers have ever done. He has held the title to all 4 majors at the same time. Do you know how hard that is to do? The GS in tennis is piece of cake compared to that. Tiger won the Masters by 12, US Open by 15, British Open by 8. I cannot imagine in my wildest wet dream of anybody doing that. He is by far the most dominant golfer ever. Jack Nicklaus is the greatest ever based on career. I'm glad we have the pleasure of watching Tiger at his peak. Tiger in my opinion, will pass Jack when all is said and done.

rhubarb
07-19-2005, 07:27 AM
He has held the title to all 4 majors at the same time. Do you know how hard that is to do? The GS in tennis is piece of cake compared to that.

Nonsense. Why is the GS easier?

uNIVERSE mAN
07-19-2005, 07:31 AM
Tiger continues to be the dominant golfer in his sport. 10 slams at age 29. Nicklaus was 32 when he won his last slam. Tiger won 7 of 13 slams from 1999 through 2002, then began working on his swing to be able to compete even better. Golfers often have their best performances in their 30's.

Sampras won 8 slams by the time he was 25. Federer would have to win 3 of the next 5 slams just to be on pace to match Sampras. I am not saying he won't match Pete's 14 slams, but Tiger is the better bet.

One, other thing...Nobody in golf has done what Tiger has done. I am guessing there are 3-4 other players in Tennis that have won 5 slams by the time they were 24. (somebody else can do the research).

The point? Tiger has and continues to dominate like no other player in golf. Roger is the dominant tennis player in this decade but has not set himself apart from other dominant players of years past (yet).

They call a certain four tournaments in golf "slams" explain why that is. Is there something different about these events, last time I checked they're 4 rounds of 18 holes just like any other tournament, what's the big deal?

newnuse
07-19-2005, 07:42 AM
Nonsense. Why is the GS easier?

Do you remember how golf was before Tiger? The PGA player of the year would win 1 Major, 1/2 other tournaments. If he won 2 Majors, that was an amazing year. You had a bunch of guys taking turns winning tournaments each week.

Golf is a different "sport". It's very hard to dominate on a regular basis. Tiger went through 10 major without winning prior to this year. Can you imagine Fed losing the next 10 majors? The best player in tennis wins 2 majors each year, usually. Roger has lost only 3 times this entire year.

Holding all 4 majors in golf is absolutely amazing. I don't know when was the last time a person held 3 out of the 4. Tiger wins about 15-25% of the tournaments he enters. I don't remember the exact %, but it's very high compared to the rest. Look at Fed's win % this year. It's much higher.

rhubarb
07-19-2005, 07:51 AM
Do you remember how golf was before Tiger? The PGA player of the year would win 1 Major, 1/2 other tournaments. If he won 2 Majors, that was an amazing year. You had a bunch of guys taking turns winning tournaments each week.

Golf is a different "sport". It's very hard to dominate on a regular basis. Tiger went through 10 major without winning prior to this year. Can you imagine Fed losing the next 10 majors? The best player in tennis wins 2 majors each year, usually. Roger has lost only 3 times this entire year.

Holding all 4 majors in golf is absolutely amazing. I don't know when was the last time a person held 3 out of the 4. Tiger wins about 15-25% of the tournaments he enters. I don't remember the exact %, but it's very high compared to the rest. Look at Fed's win % this year. It's much higher.

I do understand that golf is a different sport, but it does have four main championships in the same way that tennis does, so some comparisons can be drawn.

Holding all 4 slams in tennis is absolutely amazing. The last time it was done by a man was 1969 (and that was only the third time in the history of the game). Even winning all 4 in your entire career is very rare - only five men have done it, and the only ATP player to do it since 1969 is Agassi (and it took him seven years).

Yes, Federer's winning percentage is extremely high this year, and also over the past 18 months. You have to look back 20 years to see a similar percentage.

This doesn't prove that Woods is better than Federer or vice versa, but what I'm trying to say is how special Federer is in tennis, and imo it's similar to Woods in golf.

RafaN RichardG
07-19-2005, 07:58 AM
fed has only been dominating for under 2 yrs ppl, some act like it has been five yrs when comparing him to the w sisters domination. he wasnt even number one until feb of last year...calm down, others are raising their game, just as was done with other great players.

prostaff1
07-19-2005, 08:04 AM
Is there any doubt Tiger is the most dominant golfer in the last nine years or so? I don't think so- he already has won a career Grand Slam twice. He is the first golfer ever to earn over $50 million- just in prize money. He has 2 of 3 majors this year alone, and finished second at the other (US Open). He is barely 30 years old, I believe. Even when he was not ranked number one- he has more career victories (and Grand Slams) than those who were number one
for however briefly (Singh and Duval). But he is younger than Vijay by alot- and where is David Duval now?

Hewitt and Federer have been tops since Sampras retired-and Agassi had many years to add to his great stats. But I think in my humble estimation that Roger Federer could be the Tiger of tennis if he keeps this insanely high level. After all, he dominates the guys who were ahead of him so he is a rare breed. He's got more titles than Hewitt now and Roddick and they were both number one at year's end. He won 11 titles last year alone- Henman has 11 in his career- and he's had a great career by any standards. Like TIGER, FED is the man!

DoubleHanded&LovinIt
07-19-2005, 08:14 AM
Marius Hancu, thank you! An informative post that detailed all the key issues! Rock on!

tom-selleck
07-19-2005, 08:19 AM
interesting subject... i am huge golf and tennis fan.

tennis is much more suited to one person being dominant... alot to do with the scoring system. golf penalizes every single mistake very harshly whereas a guy like federer can play horribly for the first hour of a match and still get thru....

also, tennis is much more related to fitness and power so guys like federer and roddick will have huge advantage every week.. golf has alot to do with chipping and putting and that's touch where alot of players can be good.

i think tiger's accomplishments have actually been understated this year... people mentioned other players catching up to tiger which was true, but now tiger has won two majors and finished 2nd in the other (someone mentioned a muffed shot at u.s. open). but i admit tiger doesn't have that scare factor anymore that he used to have (where the competition completely wilted).

newnuse
07-19-2005, 08:24 AM
I do understand that golf is a different sport, but it does have four main championships in the same way that tennis does, so some comparisons can be drawn.

Holding all 4 slams in tennis is absolutely amazing. The last time it was done by a man was 1969 (and that was only the third time in the history of the game). Even winning all 4 in your entire career is very rare - only five men have done it, and the only ATP player to do it since 1969 is Agassi (and it took him seven years).

Yes, Federer's winning percentage is extremely high this year, and also over the past 18 months. You have to look back 20 years to see a similar percentage.

This doesn't prove that Woods is better than Federer or vice versa, but what I'm trying to say is how special Federer is in tennis, and imo it's similar to Woods in golf.

People who feel this way do not understand golf or watch it on a weekly basis. I love both golf and tennis.

You take the next PGA tournament. You can take the 10 best player in the tournament. I'll take the rest of the field. Odds are, I'm going to win. You never know who is going to win in golf. You get unkowns winning majors all the time in golf.

Tiger has had a great year. He has won I think 4 or 5 tournaments. I don't believe that is even close to half the tournaments he has entered. This is considered domination in golf. I cannot state how much harder it is to hold all 4 titles in golf.

The most dominate golfer ever just went 0 for 10 in major prior to this year.

Fed is great, but has not done anything yet to stand out from the greats of the past. Tiger already has. Winning the US Open by 15 strokes is like winning Wimbledon without droping a game.

armand
07-19-2005, 08:57 AM
To be good at golf, one must have an enormous amount of skill.
To be good at tennis, one must have an enormous amount of skill, fitness and athletic ability.

Look at this John Daly guy winning recently: He's old, fat and an alcoholic. When's the last time an old, fat alcoholic won a tennis tournament? Try Nineteen-Neverty-Never.

A-rodd
07-19-2005, 09:43 AM
Boy - based on some of these nutty responses, one would think that 'A-rodd' didn't make his/her point/question very clear.

But the point/question was phrased very clearly. Some of you need to learn to read ALL of the post, and not merely read a portion, and then jump to your own conclusion.

The question is an interesting one.

Woods totally dominated golf for 2 or 3 years. What happened to him after those years I believe proves two things - 1) Intimidation can only last so long, and 2) It is extremely difficult to maintain an insanely high level of play for a long time, such as for the majority of one's career. How closely 1) and 2) are related is very difficult to determine. Other players could simply become fed up of being intimidated, and raise their level of play, which has the domino effect of lowering the dominating player's play. Or the dominating player's level may eventually lower under the weight of the pressure and increased expectations - and even as a result of the lack of challenge. Either one of these things could occur first, or it could be a combination of the two.

The path Woods has taken is similar to the path the Williams sisters have taken. Venus & Serena dominated women's tennis for two years or so. And then, rather suddenly, they were mere mortals - still top players, but no longer anywhere near dominant.

There is a distinction to be drawn between being the BEST of one's era - or even of all time - and being totally dominant. It is difficult to express the criteria for how this distinction is to be made... It is rare to find an athlete who so dominates his/her sport that it is a top news story when he/she doesn't win an event. Tiger, Venus & Serena, Michael Schumacher in Formula 1... Federer is approaching this level now - but may never attain it. He is not as dominant as any of the above mentioned were - and he perhaps may never be. Only time will tell.

Thank You Very Much. One person that can understand my question.I should have used the Lakers instead of Tiger. I don't understand why people can't understand this question. Anyway very good point about the Williams sisters, that's exactly what I am talking about. And it seems to happen in tennis alot, look at the top players that simpley disapeer off the circit. It's almost like some lose their love for the game. Also injuries can play a very big role in this sport, just look at Hingis (sp?).

joesixtoe
07-19-2005, 11:08 AM
Nicklaus was 32 when he won his last slam??? no i believe he was 46,, he won in 86' and he is now 65..

oldguysrule
07-19-2005, 01:07 PM
Nicklaus was 32 when he won his last slam??? no i believe he was 46,, he won in 86' and he is now 65..

He was 32 when he won his 10th slam. He went on to win 8 more. Tiger is 29 with 10 slams....3 yrs ahead of the "greatest golfer ever".

Puma
07-19-2005, 03:14 PM
I was thinking of this same thing last night. Before I address the question in the post I would like to comment on some of the remarks in other posts.


- Like Federer, Tiger has raised the bar as far as excellence goes. Nothing has happend to Tiger. He hasn't gone away. Early in his carrer he went throught a major swing change with Butch Harmon. He then went on to dominate for quite a while.

- He had some type of knee surgery. Afterward it took a while to get back into form. During this time he didn't play his "A" game, which by any standard is unobtainable for the rest of the field. Instead, he won a couple of tournaments here and there.

- I have never seen Tiger choke. As a matter of fact he is one of the best clutch players I have ever seen. Beginning with his tee shot at #17 at the TPC which almost went in to the water, to sinking the putt to go one up with one to play, Ending with his tee shot at #16 at this years masters. He has nerves of steel.

-As far as the PGA Tour being full of fat non-athletes. The sports are different and have different requirements. Yeah, there are some that carry too much weight and some that are really heavy. But, for you guys that like to bash them, why don't you go to the next Tour stop and put up $100.00 and challenge those guys to some one on one basketball, or ping pong or whatever. Go find Greg Norman, he always is accessebile to his fans. Go challeng tell him to his face what you think about Tour golfers and see how long that C not stays in your hands. You will be suprised.


Comparing Tiger and Federer is a good comparison. Both are dominant players. Both have the ability/nerve/talent/discipline to get ready for a major and then elevate their game when the time calls for it. Federers performances throughout all of his matches at Wimby was quite impressive as well as Tiger taking lead first day at the British and never making large enough mistakes to bring the field in close. He made it such that the field would have to come to him. People called Federer arrogant when he made the comment that either Roddick or Hewitt or Agassi would have to be the ones to make the adjustment. Well, Federer was right. Both Tigers and Federers level of play is soo high that the competition has to go outside their comfort range. Some can, but not for long it seems for the moment.

What is most interesting is that for both of them chasing slams and Majors, it will take a long time to get there. Tigers pace is a little faster than Jacks, but it will still take Tiger some years to compile 19 majors. Same thing for Federer, it will take him a long time to get to 15. So, longevity is the real factor here.

ATXtennisaddict
07-19-2005, 03:30 PM
I don't care if Federer comes up short of Sampras's record etc.

His tennis style will forever be one of the first that truly entertained me.

Docalex007
07-19-2005, 04:02 PM
Comparing Tiger and Federer is like comparing black and white......oh. :)

Both are dominating their respective sports. Though I would agree that dominating in golf is a little bit tougher. Tiger has managed to dominate in golf. Federer in tennis. Federer however has such a high winning percentage that I believe this is worthy of comparing it to Tiger's much harder earned dominance. Either way....Federer is EXPECTED to win all the slams except maybe the French where he is still a high favorite. This is complete domination! Remember....losing to Safin at the AO stopped him having that slam. Nadal for the French....since he woulda cake walked in the final. This being said.....he is just inches away from standing at perfect for the year. And, since "perfect" is a term we do not use in this world, that my friend indicates our friend Federer is truely talented.

Marius_Hancu
07-19-2005, 04:31 PM
I don't care if Federer comes up short of Sampras's record etc.

His tennis style will forever be one of the first that truly entertained me.

Right.
Nastase, McEnroe, Federer: artists.
Enjoy the art, only then think of career stats, etc.

Fedubai
07-19-2005, 04:56 PM
I don't care if Federer comes up short of Sampras's record etc.

His tennis style will forever be one of the first that truly entertained me.

Ditto mate. I love watching him play! I don't see a need to get all worried about whether or not he'll be the best ever or anything like that...the way he plays is wonderful. I suppose all you can do is laugh at some of the stuff he comes up with, once you're done picking your jaw up off the floor.