Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by DoubleDeuce, Jul 14, 2012.
Nothing against them but Nahh....Jerry Rice is the #1 in his sport.
How about Sergei Bubka in pole vault ? His son play tennis though
I agree with this. Squash (not "racquetball") is way more intense and requires MUCH better stamina and endurance. It's an extreme workout and I doubt there are very many pro tennis players who would be able to compete with pro squash players in terms of overall physical conditioning.
but where are the black ppl? to me swimming is like pre-open era tennis.
No he is not. Why do we need to crown him the best for everything?
their are events all year every year, but i see your point about high level competition.
Agreed! Federer being the greatest tennis player of all time is more than enough for me. No need to denigrate the greats of other sports in useless incommensurable comparisions.
and tennis and squash aren't.
15 different winners of majors- 15 for 15 and many 1st time winners. sounds like upsets to me.
Phil Taylor won his 13th World Matchplay title on Sunday, to add to his 15 World Championship titles, 10 World Grand Prix titles, 6 Premier League titles, 4 Grand Slam of Darts titles, and much more besides.
He really is one of the most dominant sportspeople of all time.
That is all.
Let us all know the next time a scoreboard climbs off the wall and plays defense against a golfer.
I'd put Woods above Federer becaues he dominated golf right away(winning his first pro major by 12 shots), winning 4 in a row, 7/11 in a sport which had never seen such domination.
This guy agrees that Tiger is more important then Roger:
Phelps was just owned by Lochte. Phelps is nothing.
Please delete....Don't know why it double posted....
"In this article by Rick Reilly he compares the greatness of Tiger Woods and Roger Federer. He begins by making the argument that they are comparable in the first place. I believe that it is much more difficult to win a major in golf than it is to win a major in tennis. When Roger Federer goes into a major tournament there are only two other legitimate competitors: Djokovic and Nadal. Golf can be much more of a crapshoot. Ernie Els just won the British Open for god’s sake!
Reilly is good at analyzing characteristics of each but I disagree with his premise that their on field accomplishments can be compared at all. He leads you to believe that because they have similarities in their personal lives and their number of major wins their dominance can be compared. I think that it cannot. The ending of the article leads you to believe that Roger Federer is a greater athlete than Tiger Woods. While I disagree with that, an argument for Federer can be made.
In terms of transcendence and effect on the sports world and society itself no question Tiger’s influence has been greater. We understand Roger Federer is a legend in the sport of tennis but he did not have the captivating appeal to America that Tiger did.
Reilly can point out Federer’s greatness but eventually Roger Federer will fall off the national sports scene and be a distant memory. Tiger’s impact, not just on golf, will last far longer. Maybe Roger Federer does not get the credit that he deserves off the field and I consider him to be a great champion. However, Rick Reilly does not convince me that these two are alike. I think these two should be left as “apples and oranges.”"
Wow....going in order of bolded statements:
1. Just because a currently low-ranked (not to mention former #1) player won a big tournament does not in itself indicate that it is harder to win the tournament.
There are two logical fallacies here:
Low-ranked players winning big tournaments can just mean that the top guys are not very strong. There is a reason why many have claimed that the current WTA field is weak.
He is assuming that the current situation in golf is representative of the past field when Tiger Woods dominated golf. Now it would have made sense had he said: Ernie Els, being one of Tiger's rivals in the past, just won the British Open; therefore, Tiger Woods must have dominated a much tougher field compared to today's players. However, that would only mean that Tiger Woods dominated a tough field compared to the field today, in no way indicating that it is harder to win than a tennis major. And in this case, he even is using Ernie Els as an example of a poor player, rather than a past great. It's like saying, Andy Roddick, currently poor player, won Wimbledon this year. Tennis must be a hard sport to play.
2. Agree, but what is the reason he thinks they cannot be compared?
3. So effect on America = effect on "society and the sports world"? So America = society and the sports world? Not to mention how Tiger Woods is American, so maybe that's why he had a bigger influence on America? Why don't we compare Tiger and Fed's effects on Europe or Switzerland and see how that works out?
4. Based on what grounds?
You mean Rafa?
Reilly looks at it too much from the competition and results point of view imo.
He omits something massive though, the fact that a golfer can win a major without being the best player in any round of the event, nor even beating his playing partner every day. In tennis you have to win every encounter, every time you play, in order to win a major. There is no qualifying for the cut or amassing a lead which can make your last day easier. Every match in tennis is a do or die moment.
For this broad reasoning I consider golf to be somewhat of a pigeon sport compared to tennis - even if it is astonishingly hard to play at the level the top pros do.
Add to this there is no immediate, acute physical aspect to golf. They may need to be in shape (who are we kidding though about some top golfers) but there is no immediacy in golf. Players have tons of time to think about and prepare for every shot they hit. In tennis the vast majority of shots you hit have to be made with less than 1 second of thought, preparation and execution. That takes a sort of skill which golfers can't relate to: a different sort of mental mindset and aptitude, one which is much rarer also imo.
In Golf you play against the whole field, in tennis only against one opponent.
Both sports have things that make it harder or easier in different aspects.
Point number 3 is cosigned.
But in golf you can get a lead and hold it over 2 rounds. But in tennis, you can wipe out your opponent in the semis and it resets to 0 for the finals.
In tennis you play the whole field too - it's a fallacy that you "play the whole field" in golf. You directly play one person at a time* for four rounds - and you don't even have to beat all of them - you merely have one milestone to aim to: the cut. In a tennis major you 7 "rounds" and you have to win every encounter or you're out.
Golf is amazingly hard no doubt but it's odd that golf is still being compared to tennis in some sort of "top sport duel". The reality, this happens because they're the two most television friendly and basically universal individual sports. Not because golf can hold a candle to tennis with regards to overall skillset and attributes required to get to the top of the ladder.
*people who play golf understand the effect of the partner you're playing with on your round. Their shots and club selection are often a guide for your own shots etc.
Actually I'd saw swimming is up there with tennis.
There are different formats in golf. If you're playing Match Play you play against a single opponent, but in Medal (Stroke Play) you play against every player who is playing the tournament. I'm not sure those are the specific terms lol, I never talked about golf in english, but anyway. If you have a bad day it's almost impossible to win because you're playing against 50 players, if someone is playing good he will probably beat you. In tennis you can be playing horrible but you can find a way to beat the guy that is in front of you and you know you just have to beat HIM.
I mean, you will never see in golf 3 players winning 29/30 majors, because it's much harder for the TOP players to dominate.
But tennis is much harder physically and you can't play at an old age. At you late 20's you're already declining and by your mid 30's you're retiring. In golf you have players in their 40's winning slams.
They're called MAJORS not slams in golf. I hate it when people get the nomenclature wrong. Also name me the last golfer to win a major after 45.
Even Tiger conceded that Roger was more dominant than him.
Not true. When was Roger ever more dominant? Tiger has it all over him when it comes to dominance in majors, weeks at #1, titles.
In tennis and in golf they're called both ways, Majors or Grand Slams.
I never said after 45, I said after 40. Like Ernie Els did two weeks ago.
The first part of this statement makes sense but you put it down to something which is a faulty definitive reason. The reason you never see three golf players win 29 or 30 majors could well be because they simply haven't got the actual ability to maintain the consistency long enough to dominate.
The lack of dominance could also be down to not that it's simply harder for the top players to dominate, rather the inconsistency of the top players make it easier for others to have good days and take out majors.
In any case, just say a couple of golfers did take out 29 of the next 30 majors - wouldn't people start just saying they're playing in a weak era?
Rubbish. Federer has won three of the four majors in a year three times, Woods only once.
Woods has had more time to achieve it too having turned pro two years earlier than Federer.
Golf is a joke of a sport. No comparisions. Woods only copetition was Mickelson.
Golf with 15 different major winners in a row is in a state of WTA levels. Even the choking Adam Scott produced. Woods also, has he shot a 67 in the third round. Scott woul have choked with Woods finally winning.
Els winning that Open is so wrong. The guy won his lst major in 97.....he was +3 going into 3rd round....he should not have been the winner.
Els win was like Johannson in 02 AO. When Golf can have a legitimate number one winning at least 2 of the 4 majors in a year or one major a year. It not a strong competive sport....just a sport based on who gets hot and lucky.
Els last major win was 02 British Open. Get your facts right geez. Besides Tiger had so many dominant seasons that's not even worth talking about. Remember 2000 when he won 3 majors and 6 other titles? Winning the US Open by 15 shots? That's like issuing out 10 bagels in a slam.
you talk as if phelps has no strikes against him - like he is perfect and federer, and some of the other great athletes have flaws in comparison.
But this is patently untrue.
Phelps is the greatest all round swimmer of all time - no doubt.
But he is no freestyle legend. He never had the 50 and 100 metres records, and doesnt compare to the likes of popov, vdh or even thorpe. Has phelps ever swum the anchor legs of the 4 x 100 m relay in the olympics? he isnt even the best US sprinter
Also counting the relays isn't really fair in the comparison - jason lezak was the reason he won that gold medal in the last olympics. Thats like counting davis cup.
Just compare Federer on clay (his weakest) to phelps weaker races - the sprints (50 and 100 m) - you tell me who is better.
Phelps doesnt have the best sprinting speed among swimmers in the world.
a recent f1 motorsport poll of various F1 drivers had Senna #1 and Schumi #2.
Tiger one of the greats in GOLF....he dominated seasons for sure. Federer dominated mant seasons as well. Woods can be the bestgolfer in skll of all time....doesn't change the fact his rivals were mostly one timers who go ht fr four days.
yea. and where are the asians. *sarcasm*
as if we needed certain races to legitimize a sports competition.
Cullen Jones is black and swims for the americans, btw.
Can Federer swim faster than an average swimmer competing in merely the Olympic trials? No.
Can he beat a retired Arnold Palmer in a single round of golf? No.
Can he make a better quarterback than a retired Terry Bradshaw? No.
Can he play a non-tennis sport better than an average retired professional of that sport? No.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that Federer is definitely not number 1 in all sports...
Fed is "greater" than Woods both in terms of accomplishments and consistency. I'm not sure how that can even be disputed.
Phelps is great, but aside from the flaws in his resume mentioned above, the main problem with swimming is that there are very few international competitions. Pan Pacific and Olympic games every 4 years and World Championship every year. That's more than a little thin in terms of events with a high level of competition and there's no worries about surviving the grind of a "season". At least track and field has the Golden League.
Let me put it like this. If Federer can win a 2nd French Open I'll put him above Tiger.
Mario Lemieux , if it wasnt for all the back injuries he would have pasted Gretzky's numbers.
That's not true. Tiger turned pro before Federer and yet he's trailing Fed in number of majors(17 to 14).
Except you're forgetting it's much harder statistically win a golf major compared to a tennis slam. In the post WW2 era, only 2 men have won 10+ majors(Nicklaus and Tiger). In Open Era, 4 men have won 10+.
its also easier to win a golf major if you are one among the field - your probability is much higher.
If you are not djokovic, federer or nadal, you get basically no looks.
Its all about perspective. If you are federer, djok or nad - its easy to win a slam, LOL. But if you are not, you are screwed.
The field in tennis have it much harder than the field in golf to win a slam.
Injuries is part of the sport. And what "numbers" are you talking about? Gretzky has 3,238 total points(goals and assists). The second player behind him is Messier is 2,180, that's 1,058 points behind Gretzky! As great as Lemieux was, he's not going to catch Gretzky.
Tiger fails in the consistency department. He was dominant for years and then dropped off considerably. That never happened to Federer.
Yeah, Lemieux was arguably more skilled than Gretzky but that's besides the point here.
:lol: with Nadal the greatest Clay Courter of all times. You know that is not going to happen.
He is already above Tiger in achievements and greatness.
What do you mean besides the point? acura9927 said healthy Mario would surpassed Gretzky's numbers which is a far, far fetched. I disagree with Mario being a more skillful player. In fact, Gretzky is regarded as the greatest hockey player, and many have Howe and Orr right behind him.
Nadal's knees are basically kaput, Federer's only obstacle next year is Djokovic.
Separate names with a comma.