Is Federer the Tyson of tennis?

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
There are interesting similarities in the careers of Mike Tyson and Roger Federer -obviously not in their temperament or approach to their respective sports, but in terms of their career trajectories.

Both emerged at the tale end of a period dominated by an all time great of the sport (Holmes/Sampras), both defeated the former great when they had passed their peak (Tyson v Holmes, Federer v Sampras); both completely dominated the competition for a relatively brief period (Tyson 87-90, Federer 2004-2007) against good but historically weak opposition (Berbick, Spinks/ Hewitt, Roddick). Both of them were -prematurely-praised as the greatest of all time early in their careers. Both lost their air of complete dominance after key defeats (Douglas/Nadal at Wimbledon). Both managed to regain major titles but never regained their former dominance. Both failed to dominate the stronger competition that came along as they had once dominated the field (Holyfield, Lewis/Nadal, Djokovic). Both managed to stay as title contenders till their mid-30s (though Federer has outlasted Tyson in that respect).

Even rabid fans of both agree that they underwent a serious decline in ability after only 3/4 years at the top, leaving them incapable of dominating as they once did.

Roger Federer -the Mike Tyson of tennis?

Thoughts?
 

40L0VE

Semi-Pro
Tyson bit Holyfield's ear because the fight wasn't going his way so he lost control.

Djokovic thought the match with PCB wasn't going the way he'd hoped so he too lost control and incurred a DQ as per the rules.

Hulk a fictitous comic book super hero with poor rage management.

I say we rename Ultron the Hulk.
 

RS

Legend
With Fed you saw more signs of being replaced with him getting mono then before the Wim 07 final etc etc. With Tyson in boxing his loss it came out of nowhere. Douglas was like a 37-1 underdog and his mother had just passed.

I see what you mean with the domination though a bit.
 
Last edited:

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
a rather superficial similarity, sure

Both had very dominant runs and didn't reach the same sustained dominance afterwards. OK. Not really that interesting.

Tyson had more than 4 years out of the ring during his prime athletic years, during which he was serving a prison sentence. He ended his days with almost zero truly impressive performances in his 30s, getting stopped by Danny Williams and Kevin McBride (who?).

Meanwhile, Federer reached the #1 ranking in his sport as early as 2004, was back again in 2012 and reached it again as late as 2018. He's been consistently reaching the latter stages of slams throughout most of his career, seeing a lot of success in his 30s, and generally being a model of consistency and longevity, even if his most concentrated dominance was roughly between he was 22 and 28.

So no, not a very interesting comparison beyond the rather superficial.
 

Ocean Drive

Hall of Fame
You have to be joking. Sampras was a reigning champion at that point in time, Holmes was completely and utterly past it.

Tyson's next best wins in his resume are Michael Spinks who was a cruiserweight and scared stiff, Frank Bruno who was as stiff as they come and had no engine, Berbick who had already been KO'd and defeated several other times etc... An incredibly weak resume. He got beat up every single time he stepped up thereafter. Tommy Morrison seen to Razor Ruddock, up there with Tyson's best wins.

Federer's resume is a who's who in tennis from 2000 onward.

Mike Tyson had one style and no plan B. Once boxers started to figure him out, he wasn't so formidable as seen in the Tony Tucker and Bonecrusher bouts...

Federer has an A, B, C, D and E game.

Ludicrous comparison, really.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Lol. Tyson had been partying for two weeks straight when he lost to Buster Douglas, maybe Fed did the same back in 08?? "Monococaineosis"
 

daphne

Rookie
There are interesting similarities in the careers of Mike Tyson and Roger Federer -obviously not in their temperament or approach to their respective sports, but in terms of their career trajectories.

Both emerged at the tale end of a period dominated by an all time great of the sport (Holmes/Sampras), both defeated the former great when they had passed their peak (Tyson v Holmes, Federer v Sampras); both completely dominated the competition for a relatively brief period (Tyson 87-90, Federer 2004-2007) against good but historically weak opposition (Berbick, Spinks/ Hewitt, Roddick). Both of them were -prematurely-praised as the greatest of all time early in their careers. Both lost their air of complete dominance after key defeats (Douglas/Nadal at Wimbledon). Both managed to regain major titles but never regained their former dominance. Both failed to dominate the stronger competition that came along as they had once dominated the field (Holyfield, Lewis/Nadal, Djokovic). Both managed to stay as title contenders till their mid-30s (though Federer has outlasted Tyson in that respect).

Even rabid fans of both agree that they underwent a serious decline in ability after only 3/4 years at the top, leaving them incapable of dominating as they once did.

Roger Federer -the Mike Tyson of tennis?

Thoughts?
Mike got imprisoned, Fedr got married. Yeah, the same.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Is Djokovic the Mayweather of tennis? :D
There are some similarities. Both are despised, and both considered among the greatest in their sport's history.

Mayweather was undefeated though. Novak Djokovic has had many defeats in big matches (obviously not fair to say he had defeats in general, since no tennis player will ever have an undefeated career).
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Wow.. Now that you have said it, they seem inseparable
Glad you can see the key similarity. Two great talents who were prematurely christened as greatest of all time due to their early dominance. Two sportsmen who seemed to be creating a new peak in their respective sports until we realised, in retrospect, that was an illusion created by the standard of the opposition.
 

BGod

Legend
If you're making boxing comparisons to Federer, he more aptly fits Evander Holyfield. Kind of a late bloomer, clear period of dominance, a few nice comeback runs, competitive into old age for the sport.

If we're comparing Tyson to a tennis legend it's clearly Borg.

But the reality is these are two sports extremely hard to compare. Despite being 1 on 1 it's a completely different metric. For one, in boxing you typically have a flurry of fights to gain credibility and then get your title shots which in modern times comes from 4 different bodies. That in itself is a farcry from how tennis works. Secondly boxing has a much longer shelf life relatively speaking but most fighters only ever have a short window of elite title cards.

The best sport to compare tennis to remains golf for better or worse because of the structure and individuality aspect. But tennis is a very unique sport overall. In terms of celebrity it's closest comparison would be NBA stars.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
just look at them bro

Tyson is a mean badass from Brooklyn, he learned to fight to defend himself from bullies. Federer grew up in a rich Swiss suburb drinking moet and chandon
"There are interesting similarities in the careers of Mike Tyson and Roger Federer -obviously not in their temperament or approach to their respective sports, but in terms of their career trajectories."
 

mikej

Hall of Fame
There are interesting similarities in the careers of Mike Tyson and Roger Federer -obviously not in their temperament or approach to their respective sports, but in terms of their career trajectories.

Both emerged at the tale end of a period dominated by an all time great of the sport (Holmes/Sampras), both defeated the former great when they had passed their peak (Tyson v Holmes, Federer v Sampras); both completely dominated the competition for a relatively brief period (Tyson 87-90, Federer 2004-2007) against good but historically weak opposition (Berbick, Spinks/ Hewitt, Roddick). Both of them were -prematurely-praised as the greatest of all time early in their careers. Both lost their air of complete dominance after key defeats (Douglas/Nadal at Wimbledon). Both managed to regain major titles but never regained their former dominance. Both failed to dominate the stronger competition that came along as they had once dominated the field (Holyfield, Lewis/Nadal, Djokovic). Both managed to stay as title contenders till their mid-30s (though Federer has outlasted Tyson in that respect).

Even rabid fans of both agree that they underwent a serious decline in ability after only 3/4 years at the top, leaving them incapable of dominating as they once did.

Roger Federer -the Mike Tyson of tennis?

Thoughts?
Federer has less face tattoos
 
Top