Did Seeing Tiger Win Masters last weekend make you appreciate the greatness of Federer even more?

#1
Did Seeing Tiger Win Masters last weekend make you appreciate the greatness of Federer even more?

In 2006-2007, Woods and Federer were sort of rivals of each other and the history of their respective sports.

Woods was chasing Nicklaus' 18 majors and Federer was chasing Sampras' 14 majors.

Incredible that at end of 2007, Woods would have 13 majors and Federer would have 12 majors.

In the next 11 years, Woods would win just one major and also be a massive disappointment as a man. Federer would win 8 majors and earn the title by many of most admired/respected athlete in the world.
 
#4
Did Seeing Tiger Win Masters last weekend make you appreciate the greatness of Federer even more?

In 2006-2007, Woods and Federer were sort of rivals of each other and the history of their respective sports.

Woods was chasing Nicklaus' 18 majors and Federer was chasing Sampras' 14 majors.

Incredible that at end of 2007, Woods would have 13 majors and Federer would have 12 majors.

In the next 11 years, Woods would win just one major and also be a massive disappointment as a man. Federer would win 8 majors and earn the title by many of most admired/respected athlete in the world.
I thought exactly the same thing. Mainly because i was re-watching some old Federer 2017 US open matches a few months ago and the commentators could not stop comparing the similarities between the two and their new found "friendship". Wonder how long that lasted after all the Tigers scandals.
 
#11
As a huge Fed fan, I also disagree. Firstly I don't think one has anything to do with the other, and also I think golf is a harder sport to rack up majors in, so I don't think Tiger is in any way deficient here.

I do think Federer is greater than Woods within their respective sports, I mean Fed is by a healthy consensus the greatest tennis player, while for at least many people in golf it's still Jack Nicklaus. But I don't think Fed is greater than Woods because he has more "majors". I see no way each of those wins can be directly compared between the two sports.
 
#14
I do think Woods is closer to Jack than Nadal is to Federer.

That's going to get me in trouble here I'm sure.
Look at the major distribution:

Nicklaus. 6-4-3-5
Woods. 5-3-3-4

This shows that Nicklaus and Woods were strong across all major venues, with Nicklaus holding a slight advantage at present.

Federer. 6-1-8-5
Nadal. 1-11-2-3

Clearly Nadal’s record, while truly great, is biased towards a particular major. The distance between he and Federer is thus surely greater than that between Tiger and Jack.

Agreed upon by all objective sports observers.
 
#16
Look at the major distribution:

Nicklaus. 6-4-3-5
Woods. 5-3-3-4

This shows that Nicklaus and Woods were strong across all major venues, with Nicklaus holding a slight advantage at present.

Federer. 6-1-8-5
Nadal. 1-11-2-3

Clearly Nadal’s record, while truly great, is biased towards a particular major. The distance between he and Federer is thus surely greater than that between Tiger and Jack.

Agreed upon by all objective sports observers.
I'm not huge on the distribution argument myself but yes, that certainly adds weight to this idea. How much depends on your opinion I guess, but it doesn't detract from the argument.
 
#18
Both three behind their goal.
Indeed, so it comes down to their other achievements I guess. In my view Fed is well ahead of Nadal outside of the slams, largely due to his Tour Finals record number of wins, vs. 0. That's the main weakness in Nadal's career at this point.
Their comparative Masters record, which Nadal leads on paper, is a wash at best given Nadal's immense advantage there with the three clay Masters vs. no grass ones. If you weight it, which at 9:30pm in my Paris hotel room watching a football game on TV, I can't be bothered to do, I'm certain Fed would be well ahead.
 
#22
Both three behind their goal.
Tiger though is better than Jack in most statistics, just about the only thing he is behind is major wins and major runner ups. Major wins is one of the only areas (along with being ahead in Masters) that Nadal is even close to Federer in. Dont care about golf, but the comparision is nothing alike.

Golf is a meaningless nothing sport, but one could make a strong argument for Tiger being ahead of Jack overall even behind 3 majors behind. Nobody could make that argument for Nadal vs Federer.
 
#31
It is a very skilled game, I agree. Very difficult and takes impressive skills. It is not a real sport though. The athletic demands are minimal, about on par with Formula 1 at best.
Eh, it makes up for it in the mental department. So does F1. The mental strength you'd need to close out a major golf tournament would be off the charts. And with F1 if you make one mistake you don't lose the race, you die.
 
#32
I do think the "golf's not a real sport" line is kind of a cop out. What even is a sport? Golf would meet most fair definitions of a sport. Anyone saying there isn't a reasonable physical element to it probably doesn't follow it.

A lot of the time I think it's just people who think it's boring so in their minds it mustn't be a valid sport.
 
#34
Federer came to mind, yeah. I guess I compared them for a moment. Both old and winning majors. I wouldn't say it made me appreciate Fed more because I already appreciated what he has done. It did remind of Federer though.
 
#35
Golf is a weenie sport that super fat 60 year old 300 pound men can win the biggest events and be the best in the world at. Even Tiger and Jack, who for golf standards were incredible athletes, probably couldnt make top 1000 at any other sport except golf.
I wouldn't go that far, it takes a ton of coordination, and core strength (which is why injuries like Tiger's back can happen)..... it's still really physical just in a different way.....
 
#36
What do people have against golf? Is it the elitist feel of it? I can understand that but it's not like Federer and Messi are exactly working class lmao
It's an interesting game if you really take the time to sit down and watch and learn it a little. It's easier to do if you have someone to root for like Tiger this past weekend. Adapting to conditions and a lot of the decision making is intriguing to me. I can't say that I'm a huge fan, but I like to watch the best golfers at majors when I get a chance or I'm in the mood.
 

JMR

Professional
#37
Two observations:

1. The high-skill, low-athleticism nature of golf again enables an oldster to triumph in a way that would be impossible even for today's many 30-something tennis titans. Tiger has surprisingly won a major at 43; Nicklaus did the same thing decades ago, winning the Masters at 46. Does anyone believe that even the remarkably age-resistant Federer will be winning a slam 5+ years from now?

2. Woods now has 15 majors; no one else in the last 30 years has more than six (Faldo). No other active player has more than five (Mickelson). No active player arguably still in his prime has more than four (McIlroy). Tiger's Rafa and Djoker don't exist.
 
#38
Their comparative Masters record, which Nadal leads on paper, is a wash at best given Nadal's immense advantage there with the three clay Masters vs. no grass ones..
How about the almost universally accepted belief system that Masters 1000's matter very little to any player's resume? I'd say it even if there were grass Masters and Roger had 60 Masters titles. If Masters 1000's are so relevant, off the top of your head, how many did Lendl win? Pete? Andre? Becker, Edberg, etc. etc.... Whereas any cogent tennis fan knows instantly the # of majors any major player ever won. Nobody cares about Masters 1000's when you're an ATG (aside from momentum and ranking points-- but neither are relevant legacy-wise). It's slams, weeks at #1 and YEC's. Masters 1000's and DCGS's are relevant only on Tennis Forums.
 
#39
Did Seeing Tiger Win Masters last weekend make you appreciate the greatness of Federer even more?

In 2006-2007, Woods and Federer were sort of rivals of each other and the history of their respective sports.

Woods was chasing Nicklaus' 18 majors and Federer was chasing Sampras' 14 majors.

Incredible that at end of 2007, Woods would have 13 majors and Federer would have 12 majors.

In the next 11 years, Woods would win just one major and also be a massive disappointment as a man. Federer would win 8 majors and earn the title by many of most admired/respected athlete in the world.
In June of 2009 they were both tied at 14. It took Roger a month to reach 15. Tiger needed 10 years.


"For Federer, the end might just be 2 or 3 years off. Woods meanwhile is just reaching the age at which most golfers peak."
 
#40
I do think the "golf's not a real sport" line is kind of a cop out. What even is a sport? Golf would meet most fair definitions of a sport. Anyone saying there isn't a reasonable physical element to it probably doesn't follow it.

A lot of the time I think it's just people who think it's boring so in their minds it mustn't be a valid sport.
A major winner in golf:

Doesn't look like burned many calories playing his sport!
 
#41
I do think the "golf's not a real sport" line is kind of a cop out. What even is a sport? Golf would meet most fair definitions of a sport. Anyone saying there isn't a reasonable physical element to it probably doesn't follow it.

A lot of the time I think it's just people who think it's boring so in their minds it mustn't be a valid sport.
It's comical to hear tennis fans talking about golf like it's not a sport. How do you think football/hockey/rugby/etc. feel about tennis?
 
#43
It's comical to hear tennis fans talking about golf like it's not a sport. How do you think football/hockey/rugby/etc. feel about tennis?
Those sports are much more of a sport than tennis, just like tennis is much more of a sport than golf. Gives you a pretty clear idea how far down the list golf is, since as you correctly imply tennis which is way over golf is even far removed from some others.
 
#44
Eh, it makes up for it in the mental department. So does F1. The mental strength you'd need to close out a major golf tournament would be off the charts. And with F1 if you make one mistake you don't lose the race, you die.
Fair enough. I can see that perspective of looking at it, particularly with how prevelant the mental aspect is in all sports. Then again the biggest counter to that is the biggest counter to the physical argument. Someone like John Daly who is not only a gigantic badly out of shape man, but a known drug addict and alcoholic is a multiple major winner.
 
#47
Tiger though is better than Jack in most statistics, just about the only thing he is behind is major wins and major runner ups. Major wins is one of the only areas (along with being ahead in Masters) that Nadal is even close to Federer in. Dont care about golf, but the comparision is nothing alike.

Golf is a meaningless nothing sport, but one could make a strong argument for Tiger being ahead of Jack overall even behind 3 majors behind. Nobody could make that argument for Nadal vs Federer.
“Meaningless nothing sport” !!!

Only problem with that is the fact that golf is not a sport. It’s a hobby.

Wearing pants with a belt, no running, overweight, professionals playing at the highest levels in their lates 40’s.
 
#49
I do think the "golf's not a real sport" line is kind of a cop out. What even is a sport? Golf would meet most fair definitions of a sport. Anyone saying there isn't a reasonable physical element to it probably doesn't follow it.

A lot of the time I think it's just people who think it's boring so in their minds it mustn't be a valid sport.
I'll probably get some flak for this, but it's fine. To me, a competition can only be considered a 'sport' ONLY IF your opponent(s) can DIRECTLY affect your results. Thus, tennis passes but not golf.

For me, golf isn't a sport. It's a 'leaderboard' competition. It's highly skilled, yes, but you're really playing by yourself. I understand that the mental side can be affected by other competitors, but those competitors CAN'T physically affect your play, make you play bad, nor shut you out altogether. And those mental aspects are already in other competitions that I deem as 'sports' too. Golf is just marketed very well. I mean, what makes the world's best golfer greater when compared to the world's best carpenter/darts/archery/etc. (skill-wise on a leaderboard i.e. 'best in the world')? They all require incredible skills that most cannot hope to compare to, but none of the participants are affected by other competitors. This is not true for what I deem as 'sports' such as baskeball/baseball/football/soccer/tennis/boxing ('blood' sport)/etc. These sports not only require you to be highly skilled, but even at your best, your results are highly dependent on what your opponents 'allow' you to do.
 
Top