So there's no tennis fans out there? Roger wins his fourth consecutive US Open after winning five straight Wimbledons earlier this year. He is now second with 12 grand slames. Only two behind Pistol Pete's record of 14. There is no doubt that Roger will inevitably hold the record.
Him and Tiger have a friendly competition as to who would win more majors. Tiger is now only up by one, 13 to 12.
No player has appeared in all four grand slams in the same calender year, and now Roger has done it in back to back years, appearing in ten straight grand slam finals, winning eight of them. Of course the only two he lost were to Nadal, and both at the French Open.
Although, Roger will be considered the best tennis player of all time, I'd really like to see him capture the career grand slam. He's beaten Nadal on clay before, so I'd love to see him do it at the French
Anyone else impressed at how this guy has quietly dominated this sport? I sure am
Yeah about the only thing he's got against him is that he can't seem to beat Nadal on clay where Nadal is crazy good. Federer is just a model of consistancy though. In Tennis you need to beat another person in every match so if you have one off day you don't win. In golf you have 4 rounds so if you have a couple of days where you're not 100% on you can still make it up. But Federer just doesn't seem to have those days. Also the fact that every week he seems to play more matches than everytone and can come back and stay healthy and win the next week is pretty remarkable.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
I went out saying Federer, my buddy says Tiger. He brings up the point that tennis is historically dominated by a few individuals, where as in golf, it is much tougher in a larger field.
I went out saying Federer, my buddy says Tiger. He brings up the point that tennis is historically dominated by a few individuals, where as in golf, it is much tougher in a larger field.
Thoughts?
Athlete? Federer, no question.
Now as to who is more dominate in their sport (which seems to be the real question you are asking), I'd say Tiger simply because of the length of time he has been dominate.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
My vote is for Tiger - has to play against the field and because I think golf is so mentally taxing. There is so much time to think about the shots and so many variables to consider. Also, I think the fact that Tiger battles the gallery (size, cameras clicking, pressure) gives him the tougher challenge. We live in a very fortunate time for sports - witnessing the best golfer (Tiger), male Tennis player (Federer) and best baseball player (A-Rod) ever in their respective sports.
It's only an interesting debate because Tiger is in such good shape that he looks like an athlete when he's playing. The same comparison couldnt be made for Fudge, er, Phil Mickelson.
Now as to who is more dominate in their sport (which seems to be the real question you are asking), I'd say Tiger simply because of the length of time he has been dominate.
But lets also face it...Tennis being a more physically demanding game should technically have a shorter period of dominance for any one individual. Afterall the human body does have a window of peak performance, and in a game like tennis where that physical abililty is tested quite severely I'd say it's a game where it's hard to dominate your peers for more than about 4 years. Tiger will dominate the tour for the next 10 years easily. If Federer can dominate the mens tennis field for another 3 that will be one hell of a feat.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
I, being a very big Tennis fan, will say Federer is the better athlete than Tiger. Although i will say for now that Tiger has more competition.
Federer is just so good right now. He needs someone to legitimatly challenge him on a consistant basis (Nadal?) to create more of a rivalry. If this happens, Tennis should take off once again.
If a Federer/ Nadal rivalry could take off like Agassi/Sampras or McEnroe/Conners, I'm sure Federer will get even more credit for his greatness.
Unfortunetly, Federer has been very dominant, but there has been no consistent number two seed for quite awhile (Roddick, Nadal and a few others). This leads the casual tennis fan to believe that the competition is possibly just not as strong as when Sampras dominated.
Tiger, OTOH, has had Mickelson, Furyk, Vijay Singh, Duval (a few years ago), Davis Love III etc.. who are all considered to be some of the best to ever play Golf. I don't think you can say that about Federers competition.
Just as an aside, Federer has got to be one of the most classy players in sports, period. His gentle nature is actually part of the reason he doesn't get as much fanfare as a Conners or McEnroe did in their time, because they were such strong personalities. This is why Roddick has a large fanbase IMO.
Back to Federer, how many competitive athletes can you name that would invite a guy who just beat you (Nadal) on your corporate jet to fly to the next tourstop, after he found out that Nadal's flight was cancelled? Federer is just all class. When James Blake was out of tennis for a year with an injury, Federer was the ONLY player on the tour who called him in the hospital and wished him well.
There are no athletes that are dominating a sport like those two. Not to mention the fact they are playnig an individual sport, so if they screw up they don't have someone to bail them out or help them along.
I have had this debate many times about the hardest sport to play and I believe it is golf, so that would be the only reason I would rank Tiger over Roger if I had to actually choose.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Federer Express is a machine! He does things so easy. Rafael Nadal seems to be the only one who can pose a challenge for Federer and that's primarily on clay. He's 10-0 vs Davydenko, something like 13-1 vs Roddick and only has one loss to Djokovic. That's 3 out of 5 of the top players in the world and to be like 26-1 against them? Shows how much better he is then the competition. Federer will eventually win the French. Nadal is the only one who can stop him from doing that and eventually Federer will get it done. He'll win atleast 20 grand slam titles smashing Sampras' record. Agassi was my favorite player but once his retirement occurred, Federer moved into that category.
Federer vs Woods? Federer is the better athlete imo but it's harder to dominate Golf then it is Tennis imo. However, in tennis to dominate you need to be in better physical condition/stamina, hence Federer imo is a better athlete.
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
i actually feel sorry for nadal because he could be dominating this sport if it weren't for federer. federer is the greatest tennis player ever IMO. Nadal just happens to have to go up against him all the time.
as for the vs tiger thing. it is harder to dominate golf especially with the funny seeding in tennis where they don't reseed after every round so its not always the best 2 players in the final. but this is clearly federer. tiger dominates but no where close to the way federer does.
i actually feel sorry for nadal because he could be dominating this sport if it weren't for federer. federer is the greatest tennis player ever IMO. Nadal just happens to have to go up against him all the time.
Well Nadal is only 21. Once Feder has hanged it up, Nadal will take over, and he has plenty of career left.
One method that may offer a slightly 'fairer' comparison would be to look at Tigers record in match play, specifically the Accenture Match Play Championship, as it mirrors the single elimination tournament style that the PTA uses.
Other than the majors, most PTA events feature 64 players, same as the Accenture MP Championship.
I can't actually make the comparison as I don't have the all figures, I do know Tiger has won the event 2 times and I believe he enters every year, which would make it 2/9, although he probably sat out the year he was dealing with his personal issues.
I would imagine Federer boasts a higher winning percentage than that, but the sample sizes are so askew, it probably isn't that fair a comparison.
Bah, it really is comparing apples and oranges. But it's Federer.
The next 3 majors will be a challenge for him though. Age is slowly creeping up and the competition, getting used to using Federer as the training bar, is going to get stiffer. If Nadal can prove to stay healthy he will be a great adversary, Djokovic will gain more confidence and continue to improve (and has already proved he can run with Roger) and we’ll see the emergence of another young superstar next year…
I actually really like watching Federer play tennis. The guy moves with a certain grace and fluidity that is a sight to behold. Don't get me wrong, I also like watching other players as I enjoy watching tennis in general. I actually enjoy watching Nadal too, but unlike Federer, sometimes its painful watching Nadal, as the guy seems to puts his body through quite a lot stress when he plays. Different styles I guess.
Here's hoping Federer breaks Sampras's record next year, and finally wins at Roland Garros.
Yeah, this commercial is sweet. I can't wait till Roger has more majors than Tiger, so Nike can re-do this commercial with their roles reversed
Ya I just had a link...I didn't know how to put a youtube video in a post. Figured it out
That would be interesting to see that commerical and from what I have heard they are great friends so I could see them doing it...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Well Nadal is only 21. Once Feder has hanged it up, Nadal will take over, and he has plenty of career left.
For a couple years now Nadal hasn't been able to compete at a high level for a full season. In my opinion, injuries will catch up to him unless he is able to adapt his game for the hardcourts.
Federer will win at Roland Garros, and it will probably be because Nadal is only playing at 50% effectiveness.
Djokovic has the biggest joke of a draw at the US Open. Ferrer in the semi's? 5 setter against Stepanek? Moya in the quarters...basically he didn't play a seed higher than 15. I don't see him consistently making the finals of slams.
Roger Federer
