Attn Media...can we stop with the Tiger v Federer comparison?

[DemolitionMan]

Every time I see this comparison I think the media looks like a bunch of idiots. Come on producers, I know you are smarter than that.

 

Take Mercer Baggs comparison piece on TGC's website for example. First off, poor Mercer looks like he would be clueless on a tennis court and worse than a weekend hack on the golf course. But we'll let appearance slide. Winning against a field of 156 on tour is less difficult than winning a tennis tournament which is 7 matches? What?

 

Although you cannot compare Tiger vs Federer, how is that it is more difficult for a tennis player to blow off the court another competitor when your serve is 30 mph faster, your return much harder, etc...... Tiger is great, but he's not going to win 36 matches in a row because if he's off just a little, just a few putts missed, a few fairways missed or a couple of bad bounces and that's it, you don't win. But in tennis, you can hold your serve, you can conserve energy on your return while waiting for your opponent to make a mistake and give you a break opening, and getaway with a lot of errors if you are otherwise serving well. Or in Federer's case you just blow everyone away because you are so much more talented.

 

I am not trying to take anything away from Federer or tennis. Obviously Federer is Tigeresque on the tennis court, but the two sports and the two top athletes in their sport are not comparable.

[samm980]

It does get old but the media loves reaching for things like this. The one thing we should all agree on is that we are blessed to watch both Tiger and Roger in their primes. (If they have reached them)

[nikemike]

I personally could care less about Tennis, but I recognize the guy is dominant in his sport. With that said, there is no correlation between tennis and golf other than both are offered at most "Country Clubs"........

[seasuks]

Winning against a field of 156 on tour is less difficult than winning a tennis tournament which is 7 matches? What?

 

Although you cannot compare Tiger vs Federer, how is that it is more difficult for a tennis player to blow off the court another competitor when your serve is 30 mph faster, your return much harder, etc...... Tiger is great, but he's not going to win 36 matches in a row because if he's off just a little, just a few putts missed, a few fairways missed or a couple of bad bounces and that's it, you don't win. But in tennis, you can hold your serve, you can conserve energy on your return while waiting for your opponent to make a mistake and give you a break opening, and getaway with a lot of errors if you are otherwise serving well. Or in Federer's case you just blow everyone away because you are so much more talented.

 

I am not trying to take anything away from Federer or tennis. Obviously Federer is Tigeresque on the tennis court, but the two sports and the two top athletes in their sport are not comparable.

 

 

 

 

Last I checked, nobody was hitting a golf ball at Tiger at 130mph which he then had to hit back.

 

Tiger doesn't have to run or jump to hit any of his shots.

 

The lines on a tennis court are narrower than the hole in golf.

 

Tiger plays four rounds and walks all of them. Federer plays seven matches that can last from an hour and a half to four and a half hours and is running in all of them. Tennis is so much more physically demanding it's not even funny.

 

Federer's serve is not 30mph harder than everyone else's.

 

If you think that Tiger didn't sit back and wait for his opponents to make mistakes on Sunday while he was playing somewhat conservative, you were watching a different tournament than I was.

 

 

When Tiger himself says "I had a good year, but what Federer has done in tennis is just simply amazing" I think that the comparisons are more than relevant.

[Asleep]

Agree.....and while we're at it Mr. television sports director:

 

We all like Tiger, but we're not too interested in monitoring his every facial expression/replay instead of watching other professional golfers hit golf balls. It's the game of golf being played at a high level that we appreciate, not just Tiger.

[samm980]

Winning against a field of 156 on tour is less difficult than winning a tennis tournament which is 7 matches? What?

 

Although you cannot compare Tiger vs Federer, how is that it is more difficult for a tennis player to blow off the court another competitor when your serve is 30 mph faster, your return much harder, etc...... Tiger is great, but he's not going to win 36 matches in a row because if he's off just a little, just a few putts missed, a few fairways missed or a couple of bad bounces and that's it, you don't win. But in tennis, you can hold your serve, you can conserve energy on your return while waiting for your opponent to make a mistake and give you a break opening, and getaway with a lot of errors if you are otherwise serving well. Or in Federer's case you just blow everyone away because you are so much more talented.

 

I am not trying to take anything away from Federer or tennis. Obviously Federer is Tigeresque on the tennis court, but the two sports and the two top athletes in their sport are not comparable.

 

 

 

 

Last I checked, nobody was hitting a golf ball at Tiger at 130mph which he then had to hit back.

 

Tiger doesn't have to run or jump to hit any of his shots.

 

The lines on a tennis court are narrower than the hole in golf.

 

Tiger plays four rounds and walks all of them. Federer plays seven matches that can last from an hour and a half to four and a half hours and is running in all of them. Tennis is so much more physically demanding it's not even funny.

 

Federer's serve is not 30mph harder than everyone else's.

 

If you think that Tiger didn't sit back and wait for his opponents to make mistakes on Sunday while he was playing somewhat conservative, you were watching a different tournament than I was.

 

 

When Tiger himself says "I had a good year, but what Federer has done in tennis is just simply amazing" I think that the comparisons are more than relevant.

 

 

 

Wow Marc I had no idea you felt so strongly about anything besides China invading America and blondes.

[AcesAZ]

I don't see how you can really try and compare the two. Whos more dominant- Tiger or Jordan? Tiger or Gretzky? There is no right answer when comparing two sports. Both are Tiger and Federer are great and we are lucky just to be able to watch.

[mrq]

its all media hype.... I guess its working cause we're talking about it here...

 

Basically its simple Apple vs Orange comparison. For me I rather enjoy both, why just take one? When I can have both of the world, hence loving the era where I can watch two great human being performing at their best.. just simply AWESOME...

[gregflat9]

I'm a single figure handicapper and play for my local tennis club so I'm gonna consider myself somewhat of an expert on this!

 

It is not a valid comparison. Both are great to watch and both are way out in terms of world ranking points. However there are a couple of subtle differences...

 

1. Federer has not won the French Open or mastered clay. Nadal is without his undoing on that surface. Granted there is no universally accepted #1 major in Golf (may be the Open at St Andrews) but Wimbledon is and Federer totally dominates there.

 

2. Federer is better to watch from a technical point of view... he plays shots that have never been seen before and makes it all look so easy. Tiger forces it and (IMHO) his swing is not as easy on the eye after the Hank Haney changes.

 

However, and this must really hurt Federer, Tiger earns significantly more!

 

I don't know who's the best at their respective sport. Tough call... Who's the best to watch (assuming you look sports as much)... well I would have to say Federer.

[gregflat9]

Try to compare Federer's second set against Roddick or Tiger at Hoylake hitting irons all day long... impossible to make a call.

[seasuks]

Winning against a field of 156 on tour is less difficult than winning a tennis tournament which is 7 matches? What?

 

Although you cannot compare Tiger vs Federer, how is that it is more difficult for a tennis player to blow off the court another competitor when your serve is 30 mph faster, your return much harder, etc...... Tiger is great, but he's not going to win 36 matches in a row because if he's off just a little, just a few putts missed, a few fairways missed or a couple of bad bounces and that's it, you don't win. But in tennis, you can hold your serve, you can conserve energy on your return while waiting for your opponent to make a mistake and give you a break opening, and getaway with a lot of errors if you are otherwise serving well. Or in Federer's case you just blow everyone away because you are so much more talented.

 

I am not trying to take anything away from Federer or tennis. Obviously Federer is Tigeresque on the tennis court, but the two sports and the two top athletes in their sport are not comparable.

 

 

 

 

Last I checked, nobody was hitting a golf ball at Tiger at 130mph which he then had to hit back.

 

Tiger doesn't have to run or jump to hit any of his shots.

 

The lines on a tennis court are narrower than the hole in golf.

 

Tiger plays four rounds and walks all of them. Federer plays seven matches that can last from an hour and a half to four and a half hours and is running in all of them. Tennis is so much more physically demanding it's not even funny.

 

Federer's serve is not 30mph harder than everyone else's.

 

If you think that Tiger didn't sit back and wait for his opponents to make mistakes on Sunday while he was playing somewhat conservative, you were watching a different tournament than I was.

 

 

When Tiger himself says "I had a good year, but what Federer has done in tennis is just simply amazing" I think that the comparisons are more than relevant.

 

 

 

Wow Marc I had no idea you felt so strongly about anything besides China invading America and blondes.

 

Sammy,

 

I really care about blondes playing tennis against China!

 

I'm about a 15 hdcp when it comes to tennis, but I think it's a much harder sport than golf. If you hit one off line on a golf course, as long as it's inbounds, you get to play it. Or, you can hit a tree and end up in the middle of the fairway. But when you miss that serve that just came at you at 130mph, you lose every single time.

 

The more I read the initial post, the more I see that can be disputed.

 

Tiger is great, but he's not going to win 36 matches in a row because if he's off just a little, just a few putts missed, a few fairways missed or a couple of bad bounces and that's it, you don't win.

 

How many times has Tiger said he won with "less than his A game"? How many times has he led the events he's won in fairways hit?

 

I think Tiger and Federer are both absolutely incredible. If tennis was still as popular as it was in the late 80s and early 90s, he'd be just as popular as Tiger is now.

 

Personally, I think tennis is a harder sport to reach the top levels than tennis. It requires more athleticism and stamina. If there is a dispute, I present Craig and Kevin Stadler as examples.

[Metalhead]

Fereder is simply amazing(I started watching the Aus. Open this last week case TGC Coverage was putting me to sleep)... but you got give him credit.. the shots he pulls off are incredible...it reminds me of Tiger in 2000 honestly... but to compare them together would be very hard to do. Simply the fact that they are compared is a credit to both Tiger and Federer. But not being a tennis player myself..I find that same AWE I see in Tiger when he play his best....

But I do say this, golf may not be as athletic, but the surfaces are constantly changing for all 18 holes and round to round...and when was the last time you saw Tennis being played in the rain and wind? JAT

[golfalot333]

i dont really think it gets old...i think its kinda stupid if you ask me.

[jdhallissey]

Take Tiger and put him head to head with Jack Nicklus both in there prime and Nicklus owns him hands down 3 outta 4 times they play. Tiger will never get to what Jack did no matter of the records. The courses were harder then too.

[nikemike]

Take Tiger and put him head to head with Jack Nicklus both in there prime and Nicklus owns him hands down 3 outta 4 times they play. Tiger will never get to what Jack did no matter of the records. The courses were harder then too.

 

If you're going to have your bias, and it's evident as hell, at least spell the man's name correct: NICKLAUS.

Also, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[thorsness]

Take Tiger and put him head to head with Jack Nicklus both in there prime and Nicklus owns him hands down 3 outta 4 times they play. Tiger will never get to what Jack did no matter of the records. The courses were harder then too.

 

I think your in the wrong thread. :rolleyes:

[Petch1973]

I get tired of hearing about it. Tiger is clearly dominating golf right now. Roger is clearly dominating Tennis right now. Is Tennis more physical? Sure. Is it physical to walk 72 holes week in and week out in addition to practice rounds, travel and banging balls at the range? Sure. The two are different. Could Roger smack a 4 iron from 245? Unlikely. Could Tiger return Federer's serve? Probably not. The same people pose arguments like: Who is a more dominant athlete: Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Lance Armstrong or Jenna Jameson? All at the top of their fields....all gifted. All the best. Not interchangeable. IMO, they can be grouped as dominate figures in their expertise...but to single one from the rest as "the greatest" doesn't fly. Appreciate them individually. As far as Jack going head-to-head with Tiger.....I guess we'll never know....because he's too damn old.

[cg460]

I get tired of hearing about it. Tiger is clearly dominating golf right now. Roger is clearly dominating Tennis right now. Is Tennis more physical? Sure. Is it physical to walk 72 holes week in and week out in addition to practice rounds, travel and banging balls at the range? Sure. The two are different. Could Roger smack a 4 iron from 245? Unlikely. Could Tiger return Federer's serve? Probably not. The same people pose arguments like: Who is a more dominant athlete: Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Lance Armstrong or Jenna Jameson? All at the top of their fields....all gifted. All the best. Not interchangeable. IMO, they can be grouped as dominate figures in their expertise...but to single one from the rest as "the greatest" doesn't fly. Appreciate them individually. As far as Jack going head-to-head with Tiger.....I guess we'll never know....because he's too damn old.

 

Hahaha, just trying to sneak that one in there? But I agree with you 100 percent, you simply can't compare different sports. It's unfair to the athletes, and I don't think that niether Tiger nor Federer care. Just look at the difficulty we're having with comparing Nicklaus to Tiger. Both played golf, but after that it's impossible.

[DemolitionMan]

Another thought. If in some strange cosmic ways we could see the top golfers in history compete in their prime, I think most would have no problem putting Tiger above Watson, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Snead, Hogan, etc....and only when it comes to Nicklaus does the argument get very tough.

 

But take Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors, etc...at their prime on hard court or grass court and could we say Federer beats them all with certainty? I don't think so.

[drew123]

I play tennis and am decent but not great. I used to play alot and be quite good before becoming HOOKED on golf when I was ten. Since then I haven't played that much.

 

I like the comparsion and I think it is fair. We are watching the two best players of their respective sports and they will both eventually be considered the best ever at their sports.

 

I think the main facts that nobody has presented yet are these:

 

The fields are MUCH MUCH DEEPER in golf than tennis. outside the top 10 in tennis nobody has a chance to beat Federer. Golf is much different. Anyone that has a great week can get up there on the leaderboard.

 

There is only hard court tennis, clay court tennis, and grass tennis. Tiger wins on every type of golf course.

 

Federer DOES NOT serve 30mph faster than his competition. In fact Andy Roddick who Federer owns serves much faster than Federer.

 

Also tennis players are basically judged by how they play four times a year at the US Open, Wimbledon, French Open, and Austrailan Open. Now in golf the 4 majors are tantamount but the other tournaments certainly matter.

[drew123]

Another thought. If in some strange cosmic ways we could see the top golfers in history compete in their prime, I think most would have no problem putting Tiger above Watson, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Snead, Hogan, etc....and only when it comes to Nicklaus does the argument get very tough.

 

But take Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors, etc...at their prime on hard court or grass court and could we say Federer beats them all with certainty? I don't think so.

 

Good point. Federer is only 26 and as he becomes a little older and his Grand Slam streak continues (he WILL win the French Open this year) we will be able to say that with certainty.

 

 

Also right now in the tennis world Sampras is considered the best ever. Did he ever ein the French Open? (hint: no)

[seasuks]

If Federer keeps this up, he'll bypass Sampras as the "best ever" in a couple of years...he's phenomenal!

[J-J]

, they can be grouped as dominate figures in their expertise...but to single one from the rest as "the greatest" doesn't fly. Appreciate them individually.

 

 

 

 

Exactly my point of view!

 

 

 

Another thought. If in some strange cosmic ways we could see the top golfers in history compete in their prime, I think most would have no problem putting Tiger above Watson, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Snead, Hogan, etc....and only when it comes to Nicklaus does the argument get very tough.

 

But take Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors, etc...at their prime on hard court or grass court and could we say Federer beats them all with certainty? I don't think so.

 

 

 

 

I think we could say so with all certainty, except Sampras.

[soberguy16]

Another thought. If in some strange cosmic ways we could see the top golfers in history compete in their prime, I think most would have no problem putting Tiger above Watson, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Snead, Hogan, etc....and only when it comes to Nicklaus does the argument get very tough.

 

But take Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors, etc...at their prime on hard court or grass court and could we say Federer beats them all with certainty? I don't think so.

 

We can certainly say Federer would beat all those players...in the same respect you would say Tiger beats all the great golf legends. Both games have evolved so much that its difficult to compare the athletes given they would all have the same equipment and grown up in the same time. Tigers been playing golf everyday since he could hold a golf club and had the best coaches in the world help him develop todays perfect modern swing. Had Jack or Hogan or Jones been given the same opportunities as Tiger growing up in todays world, well its impossible to know whod win. Same goes for Federer. They are both the best ever because athletes in each sport are better today. Tige would obviously beat Jack in his prime using persimmon woods to get around the course and his swing was developed not by cameras and technical jargon but by feel and watching his heros...Hogan, Jones, etc. In their respective sports they are surely the best ever...as for the Federer comment on not beating Sampras...well he did, on Sampras's best surface-grass before he retired and when Federer was still developing his talents. And he was still playing ball considering he won the US Open the next year. Considering myself maybe the best suited to make this judgement on this site (single digit handicap and highly ranked junior/college tennis player) you must accept that one cannot determine who the more dominant player is because they are both doing things in their sport that nobody has ever done.

[pilsnerboll]

, they can be grouped as dominate figures in their expertise...but to single one from the rest as "the greatest" doesn't fly. Appreciate them individually.

 

 

 

 

Exactly my point of view!

 

 

 

Another thought. If in some strange cosmic ways we could see the top golfers in history compete in their prime, I think most would have no problem putting Tiger above Watson, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Snead, Hogan, etc....and only when it comes to Nicklaus does the argument get very tough.

 

But take Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors, etc...at their prime on hard court or grass court and could we say Federer beats them all with certainty? I don't think so.

 

 

 

 

I think we could say so with all certainty, except Sampras.

 

 

I think most tennis experts would agree with me when i say Federer would beat all those players including Sampras. The guy is playing a game that has never been seen before.