Roger Federer vs. Tiger Woods, a Re-Evaluation

T

TennisBatman

Semi-Pro
Roger Federer of tennis has often been compared to Tiger Woods of golf.

In many ways, they are similar. Both have a huge lead in majors over their contemporaries. Both are young, and have many good years in their careers ahead of them. Both are highly sought after by the media, and are very popular with their fans.

Ultimately, it is hard to resist comparing these two great athletes, despite being representatives of two entirely different sports. A few years ago, even these two greats could not overlook the comparison, and they attended each others events, with the eager expectation to see each other win.

How thankful these two sports must be for having these great athletes!
 
But it has already been a few years since these two athletes were first compared with each other. How has the comparison changed since then? Discuss.
 
Federer is much greater than Tiger. Tiger has lucked out being in the weakest era in golf history. We see how pathetic it is this year, he is ranked 80-something on the money list and he is still ranked #1. And fat erratic Phil Mickelson who is by some miracle the 2nd most accomplished of this feeble era in golf choking badly every time he has a mathematical chance to take #1 from a horribly off form Tiger who is essentialy a sitting duck now.
 
Nadalfan89 said:
They're very similar. Their careers have both crashed.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

Fed has fulfill his goal...breaking Sampras GS record and got the career slam. Tiger is still chasing Nicklaus's 18 majors. Off court, Fed is a good family man while Tiger got caught cheating. Big difference !
 
Yeah, I have to laugh when people claim Woods' career has been more dominant than Federer's.

For a start if you look at the major event draws/results. The longest string of top 4 finished Woods has had in majors is 5. Federer's equivalent run was 24 top 4 (i.e. semis) finishes.

And, as much as some people like to claim Federer had an easy era, Woods definitely did. Moreso, in golf you can have up to 3 pretty average days at a major and still win it with one great day. In tennis that luxury is rare. You either win each day's match or it's hometime.

That aside, the day to day stresses, skills, talent and training required in tennis and golf are too different to compare evenly. They each have their nuances.

Federere > Woods. imo.
 
I doubt Tiger will ever catch Jack now. He looks toast. His game and mind will never be close to where it is used to be I dont think. A factor as well I think is he had knee surgery a couple years ago and I think his body is starting to break down a bit too. He might get lucky and win another major or two but that is it. And while the field isnt strong yet atleast there are some fearless young players starting to emerge who should make it stronger, and replacing the choking old fatties or overhyped pretenders that Tiger has taken advantage of for years- Els, Mickelson, Garcia, Duval, Love, Goosen, Scott, the list could go on forever. Talk about a clown era, some talk about it in tennis (IMO falsely) but nothing like what it has been the last 10 years in golf. One year Tiger was in a slump the major winners for the year were Weir, Furyk, Curtis, and McKeel, LOL! The only guys to beat him directly out for major titles for the longest while were Rich Beem and Michael Campbell. Singh are Harrington are the only top golfers besides Tiger who are mentally strong and fit but unfortuantely both are only moderate talents at the very top level. Yet both still have won 3 majors and been the only ones to take the #1 ranking or Player of the Year away from Tiger during his reign, which already is telling.
 
Last edited:
Nadalfan89 said:
They're very similar. Their careers have both crashed.
Click to expand...

Agreed; Federer is aging and failed to win the Grand Slam, thus the chance to become one of the GOAT vanished with his fading career. Woods--like Federer--is not the feared, dominant player of years ago, so they share this as well.
 
Golf is not a sport, Tiger Woods is not a pro athlete, enough with this stupidity. Tiger Woods should be compared with snooker champions, not with the god of tennis.
 
Last edited:
I doubt Tiger Woods will get to the 18 majors record held by Jack Nicklaus. And to think Nicklaus had legends as his golfing rivals like Arnold Palmer (7 majors), Gary Player (9 majors), Lee Trevino (6 majors) and Tom Watson (8 majors). But Tiger Woods is the only golfer in history to hold all 4 majors at the same time after he won the 2001 US Masters. Jack Nicklaus had his chance to do that at the 1972 British Open, but finished second to Lee Trevino.

Roger Federer has achieved his goal of overtaking Pete Sampras' record of 14 majors by winning 16 to date.
 
Last edited:
JediMindTrick said:
Golf is not sport, Tiger Woods is not a pro athlete, enough with this stupidity. Tiger Woods should be compared with snooker champions, not with the god of tennis.
Click to expand...

the most sensible voice in this thread,I alwyas laugh at how to draw parallels between Federer and Tiger, tnnis is so intense and athhletic, while Tiger has someone carrying his equipments and is driving cabby around during a competition.
 
Federer has people losing to him and than praising him as the GOAT...with a smile
That sounds easier than having someone carry your bags for you

Golf is a sport ..... look up the definition of 'sport' and then think about what your warped perception of the definition of 'sport' is
 
IMO, Federer at least managed to win AO this year (played brilliant tennis) and also a masters event. Not bad at all. I am confident Federer will have more sucess in the sport. His golden days are over but he is still a great player who is making later stages of slams. I think Rog can win like 1-2 more slams.
 
Difference is Tiger will be playing and making money even when Fed becomes a grandfather.

Then at age 80, Tiger will still be "designing" courses in the most affluent parts of the world and playing charity tournaments where people will suck it up to just see him.
 
IMHO, what Tiger has done was more improbably and more difficult than what Federer has done. Nicklaus won 18 majors over a 24 year stretch. Tiger won 14 majors over an 11 year stretch. The next closest is Walter Hagen who played in the 20's. The fact is that it's harder to be a consistent champion in golf than it is in tennis. And, Tiger has had the greatest amount of success in the shortest period of time than anyone before him. Golf is just a harder game to be consistent at than tennis.

Further, the contention that this is a weak era in golf because Tiger's closest competitors are a bunch of chokers has some credibility, but, it's no different than the contention that this is a weak era in Tennis because, except for Ralph, Fed's closest competitors were a bunch of chokers as well. I do think there's some truth to both of these contentions. So, this contention doesn't weight in favor of either.
 
Last edited:
Limpinhitter said:
IMHO, what Tiger has done was more improbably and more difficult than what Federer has done. Nicklaus won 18 majors over a 24 year stretch. Tiger won 14 majors over an 11 year stretch. The next closest is Walter Hagen who played in the 20's.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I dont find the way you word it a fair comparision at all. Jack won his last major 6 years after his 2nd last. That is the point he was in his 40s and slowing down, the way even the majority of golfers will and do. Jack won 17 of his majors over a 18 year stretch. And he won won 14 of his majors over a 13 year stretch. Tiger would still be on a better pace even at that, but it becomes much closer and far more accurate than just a comparision stretching to Jack's final major many years past his prime.

After all regardless if you are one who thinks Tiger is going to break the record there is no doubt his pace will continue to slow and fall further behind his overall career pace as he gets older, just as Jack did. That is already plainly apparent.


Further, the contention that this is a weak era in golf because Tiger's closest competitors are a bunch of chokers has some credibility, but, it's no different than the contention that this is a weak era in Tennis because, except for Ralph, Fed's closest competitors were a bunch of chokers as well. I do think there's some truth to both of these contentions. So, this contention doesn't weight in favor of either.
Click to expand...

The mens tennis field today isnt as weak as the golf field. Tiger doesnt even have close to the equivalent of Nadal as a rival. The fact that there is Federer and Nadal already makes the field light years better than the Tiger era where whoever you think the 2nd best player of the Tiger era is (say Mickeslon or Singh) is a joke as the golfing equivalent of Federer or Nadal. So even if you think the rest of the field is a joke, those two alone already make it head and shoulders above the Woods era in golf where everyone except Woods is pretty much a joke. If there was a Nadal equivalent that existed in golf Tiger would have already won alot less than he has. And I dont consider Roddick, Hewitt, Del Potro, Djokovic, all top players of the last 7 years as chokers or mental weaklings at all. Although there are a number of others who are.
 
Last edited:
Limpinhitter said:
IMHO, what Tiger has done was more improbably and more difficult than what Federer has done. Nicklaus won 18 majors over a 24 year stretch. Tiger won 14 majors over an 11 year stretch. The next closest is Walter Hagen who played in the 20's. The fact is that it's harder to be a consistent champion in golf than it is in tennis. And, Tiger has had the greatest amount of success in the shortest period of time than anyone before him. Golf is just a harder game to be consistent at than tennis.
Click to expand...

Nicklaus won his 14th major at the 1975 US PGA, though. His 1st major having been at the 1962 US Open. So Nicklaus won his first 14 majors in a period of just over 13 years with all-time legends like Arnold Palmer, Gary Player and Lee Trevino in his way. Nicklaus' last 4 majors were spaced out more, the 1978 British Open, the 1980 US Open, the 1980 US PGA and the 1986 US Masters.
 
Last edited:
The comparo of their competition is ridiculous. Rafa is on track to beat Roger. So the current tennis era has the GOAT, in an era when he is likely to be unseated by an even better GOAT. Not too shabbly competition.
 
What Federer has done in tennis accomplishments, Woods hasn't. Like people already stated, Nicklaus is still ahead in the majors count, and it really is one hell of a weak gold tour (if fed was american and not white, and had a name like Leo he would have been given all those "media" accolades that Tiger received for his career
 
i hate how sportscenter and others compare golf and tennis, i dont agree that golf isnt a sport - under the definition it is... but its just not even in the same league as tennis when it come to pure athleticism. apples to oranges folks apples to oranges.
 
Trillus said:
The mens tennis field today isnt as weak as the golf field. Tiger doesnt even have close to the equivalent of Nadal as a rival. The fact that there is Federer and Nadal already makes the field light years better than the Tiger era where whoever you think the 2nd best player of the Tiger era is (say Mickeslon or Singh) is a joke as the golfing equivalent of Federer or Nadal. So even if you think the rest of the field is a joke, those two alone already make it head and shoulders above the Woods era in golf where everyone except Woods is pretty much a joke.
Click to expand...

Trillus, while I agree with your rejection of a sport competition comparison thanks to no Nadal level of golfer behind Woods, the men's field in tennis is still quite weak when any assessment of the Federer era leaves you with two players to be serious contenders or really dominate the majors. Take them away, and you have two--just two one-hit wonders, and sea of players who work hard to prove they are not slam-winning material. Seen in that way, the tennis field is only a few rungs above golf in terms of generational competion.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Trillus, while I agree with your rejection of a sport competition comparison thanks to no Nadal level of golfer behind Woods, the men's field in tennis is still quite weak when any assessment of the Federer era leaves you with two players to be serious contenders or really dominate the majors. Take them away, and you have two--just two one-hit wonders, and sea of players who work hard to prove they are not slam-winning material. Seen in that way, the tennis field is only a few rungs above golf in terms of generational competion.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there. I miss the 90s when you had Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Agassi, Rafter, Chang, and surface specialists who in many cases could play on other surfaces like Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Muster, Bruguera. Such diversity of styles, some great rivalries, a somewhat understood pecking order with still some unpredictability and suspense. There were finesse serve and volleyers, power oriented serve and volleyers, all courters, grinding counterpunchers from the baseline, agressive baseliners, overall shotmakers. And the surfaces specialists are especialy key for grass and clay for example to add to the depth. Today everyone plays the same game, no style contrasts which make for compelling matchups, almost everyone is a hard courter first which leads to crummy clay and grass fields, and there are no compelling rivalries or storylines other than the almost redundant Federer-Nadal one. So not quite as weak as the current Phil Mickelson as the decades #2 in golf, but far from a stellar era in mens tennis historically speaking as well.
 
Last edited:
Federer is the GOAT of his sport, and Woods only the 2nd greatest of his.

Therefore Federer stands higher in the pantheon of sporting history.

(Not to mention Woods's depraved character)
 
sureshs said:
Difference is Tiger will be playing and making money even when Fed becomes a grandfather.

Then at age 80, Tiger will still be "designing" courses in the most affluent parts of the world and playing charity tournaments where people will suck it up to just see him.
Click to expand...

Very good poast.

8-)
 
Mixing metaphors (golf/tennis). If the question is impact on the sport I think Woods ‘wins’ (and I’m no fan of how he comports himself). Get in the hole, the fist pump, blast away then go find it, etc. Fans still scream wildly because Tiger (who grew up in the golf-tech boom) learned to harness the galactic changes that equipment (ball and club) introduced to the game. Throw in course management where each week the team tries to out-manicure the last tournament. I wonder how Jones, Sarazen, Snead, Nelson, Hogan - or even Jack, Arnold, Lee, Gary, etc. - would have liked to play on a perfect course with equipment that went 50%+ farther, with 50%++ more control?

Apple, meet orange.
 
After coming close to winning The British Open (not The Open) and the PGA, it looks like Tiger may have a couple more slams in his. If he could tie or beat Jack Nicklaus slam record, which I don't think he will, then he would surpass Fed as the greatest.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Federer is the GOAT of his sport, and Woods only the 2nd greatest of his.

Therefore Federer stands higher in the pantheon of sporting history.

(Not to mention Woods's depraved character)
Click to expand...
I detest Tiger, but his moral character has nothing to do with his golf greatness. Using the “moral terpitude” lens, then Michael Jordan needs then also be pushed to the wayside. He was and is a complete sybarite.
 
Mr.Lob said:
After coming close to winning The British Open (not The Open) and the PGA, it looks like Tiger may have a couple more slams in his. If he could tie or beat Jack Nicklaus slam record, which I don't think he will, then he would surpass Fed as the greatest.
Click to expand...
Tiger surpassed Fed as being the better golfer when he was about 3 years old. Why in the world are we comparing golfers to athletes like tennis players? And using your criterion, if Tiger ties Jack, that’s 18 majors. How is that greater than Roger’s 20?
 
Roger Federer vs Tiger Woods

Rafael Nadal vs Michael Jordan

Usain Bolt vs Michael Phelps

And don’t get me started on soccer. Lol

Very interesting debates. They are all spectacular.

The only athlete that perhaps would always win is Muhammad Ali, not necessarly because of his accomplishments but also because of his cultural impact and kind of bigger than life persona.

In other words there will be much more documentaries and movies about someone like Ali then any of the athletes mentioned above. A GOAT athlete and a huge legend.
 
BeatlesFan said:
Tiger surpassed Fed as being the better golfer when he was about 3 years old. Why in the world are we comparing golfers to athletes like tennis players? And using your criterion, if Tiger ties Jack, that’s 18 majors. How is that greater than Roger’s 20?
Click to expand...

If Tiger ties Jack's slam record, with all of his injuries, a decade between winning a slam, winning against this supposedly "next generation" of superior players...then he wins the tiebreaker as goat golfer. The total number of slams is irrelevant. As big as Feds name is, Tiger's is bigger. Tiger goat is greater than Fed goat. Just like Jordan goat tops both.

Edit: And Ali goat tops all. :-)
 
I like how this thread was created as a "re-evaluation" yet OP never evaluated them whatsoever nor gave a sensible reason for even creating this thread.
 
Mr.Lob said:
If Tiger ties Jack's slam record, with all of his injuries, a decade between winning a slam, winning against this supposedly "next generation" of superior players...then he wins the tiebreaker as goat golfer. The total number of slams is irrelevant. As big as Feds name is, Tiger's is bigger. Tiger goat is greater than Fed goat. Just like Jordan goat tops both.

Edit: And Ali goat tops all. :)
Click to expand...
Tiger could win 20 majors and for most golf fans, he will never be as great as Jack. Jack is such a luminously wonderful guy and Tiger treats fans like absolute garbage. That resonates, never doubt it.

And I refuse to compare athletes like tennis players to golfers. It tells us all we need to know that someone like Michelson was #1 in golf weighing 225 pounds.
 
BeatlesFan said:
Tiger could win 20 majors and for most golf fans, he will never be as great as Jack. Jack is such a luminously wonderful guy and Tiger treats fans like absolute garbage. That resonates, never doubt it.

And I refuse to compare athletes like tennis players to golfers. It tells us all we need to know that someone like Michelson was #1 in golf weighing 225 pounds.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a Tiger fan. I love to root against him. Grew up watching Jack, Tom, Seve and other greats. But, Tiger is the man of the time. You know how that is, the latest is usually the greatest. But coming back and winning 4 slams...at his age, would be unparalleled. Don't think he'll do it. May win 1 of 2...maybe.

Tiger treats fans like garbage? How so? He treated his wife like garbage. But he gives a lot of his time and money to charity. Signs autographs.

And I'm not comparing these guys as athletes, but in their level of greatness.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Federer is the GOAT of his sport, and Woods only the 2nd greatest of his.

Therefore Federer stands higher in the pantheon of sporting history.

(Not to mention Woods's depraved character)
Click to expand...
Tbh Federer ran away with this one the moment he broke Pete's record for 15, and when Tiger got busted for his infinitely. There's an argument that Rafa is now a greater athlete than Tiger too at this point. He did what Woods hasn't been able to do, which is breaking out of his slump once reaching 14 slams. In fact, he's now one away from 18 (Woods' ultimate goal) and was very close to doing so a month ago at Wimbledon.
 
Mr.Lob said:
If Tiger ties Jack's slam record, with all of his injuries, a decade between winning a slam, winning against this supposedly "next generation" of superior players...then he wins the tiebreaker as goat golfer. The total number of slams is irrelevant. As big as Feds name is, Tiger's is bigger. Tiger goat is greater than Fed goat. Just like Jordan goat tops both.

Edit: And Ali goat tops all. :)
Click to expand...
LOL
Only an American biased would say such thing.
 
TennisBatman said:
Roger Federer of tennis has often been compared to Tiger Woods of golf.

In many ways, they are similar. Both have a huge lead in majors over their contemporaries. Both are young, and have many good years in their careers ahead of them. Both are highly sought after by the media, and are very popular with their fans.

Ultimately, it is hard to resist comparing these two great athletes, despite being representatives of two entirely different sports. A few years ago, even these two greats could not overlook the comparison, and they attended each others events, with the eager expectation to see each other win.

How thankful these two sports must be for having these great athletes!
Click to expand...

Roger is the person with better character
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Conquistador
Roger Federer vs Tiger Woods-A Major Situation
Replies
14
Views
2K
LanceStern
L
N
Roger Federer dumped Tiger Woods after his divorce
2
Replies
78
Views
12K
Magassi
M
R
Roger Federer Surpasses Tiger Woods, Pete Sampras, and Rafael Nadal
Replies
1
Views
1K
thetheorist
T
jasonbourne
Tiger on Federer
Replies
31
Views
3K
edmondsm
edmondsm
B
Andy Roddick To New Friend Phil Mickelson: 'We're Just Like Federer And Woods'
Replies
26
Views
2K
Stchamps
S
Back
Top