More Impressive 14 Majors

[iacas]

Roger Federer has 14 majors now. He's 27, and he's won them in only seven years. Pete Sampras has 14 as well (without winning the French for the career slam).

Tiger has won 14 majors in 11 years by the age of 32 (he's 33 now). Tiger needs 4 more to tie Jack's record.

So which is more impressive? Why?

[DavidFehertysBike]

Tigers books are more impressive. Just because i think its harder to win a golf tournament than a tennis tournament. Plus the talent pool is much deeper in golf. Federer could have beaten up most of the guys he's played over the years half asleep. In tennis, you only have to beat one dude at a time, one on one. Tiger has to beat 120+ dudes all at once to win.

Tiger FTW!

[Leftygolfer]

Tigers books are more impressive. Just because i think its harder to win a golf tournament than a tennis tournament. Plus the talent pool is much deeper in golf. Federer could have beaten up most of the guys he's played over the years half asleep. In tennis, you only have to beat one dude at a time, one on one. Tiger has to beat 120+ dudes all at once to win.

Couldn't agree more.

[muggs]

I guess you'd expect a biased opinion here on a golf related site, but I think feherty nailed it too. The first rounds of tennis tourney's are pretty easy to win for the better players becaues they're facing someone who's ranked very low (by comparison) in the world rankings. Golf has way more variables and he's facing a huge field every week, so I go with Tiger as well.

[pjsnyc]

Tigers books are more impressive. Just because i think its harder to win a golf tournament than a tennis tournament. Plus the talent pool is much deeper in golf. Federer could have beaten up most of the guys he's played over the years half asleep. In tennis, you only have to beat one dude at a time, one on one. Tiger has to beat 120+ dudes all at once to win.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Not a knock on Federer (quite a feat). More of a compliment to Tiger.

[1par2win]

What impresses me most is what Tiger did as an amateur. 3 junior am's and to follow that up with 3 US am's for a 6 year streak?! Sick, just plain sick. I'm sure Federer has something along the same lines but it doesn't seem to me that there is as much parody in tennis as in golf but that is just my un-educated opinion.

[mcfc_nick]

I guess you'd expect a biased opinion here on a golf related site, but I think feherty nailed it too. The first rounds of tennis tourney's are pretty easy to win for the better players becaues they're facing someone who's ranked very low (by comparison) in the world rankings. Golf has way more variables and he's facing a huge field every week, so I go with Tiger as well.

plus, tiger has had to play the course as well, which have been very difficult (considering theyre majors)!

[jonnythan]

I lean towards Federer, but couldn't make a choice. I went for tied.

I play both tennis and golf. IMO, it takes more to win a tennis match against a quality, determined opponent. There's just more emotionally that goes into one-on-one, winner take all matches than a weekend of golf against a hundred opponents. It's just tougher IMO to play a game directly against a human being, trading hits and serves, than playing your own game against a course and simply trying to do it better than the others.

[c. lassiter]

I would rate the accomplishments as about equal, which is probably why the career record for major tournament wins in tennis and golf is roughly the same.

[iWALK18]

I'm going to vote Roger...

He's just tied the record in his sport, Tiger has not.

He's won majors on 3 different surfaces. I know there are different types of golf courses, but I don't feel the differences are as drastic as those posed by playing different types of courts.

He's done it despite living in the same era as Rafa in his prime. Without Nadal, he would probably have 2-3 more titles to his name by now. Tiger really doesn't have another great playing in his prime to compete with.

[jonnythan]

Tiger really doesn't have another great playing in his prime to compete with.

That's a great point.

[Clambake]

As impressed as I am by Federer, I give the nod to Tiger. As others have pointed out he has to beat a larger field and has to play the golf course as well. I also think that lucky or bad breaks are more of an impact in golf - a player can hit a perfect drive and then have to hit out of a divot, or they can get a funny bounce off a sprinkler, etc. This brings the ability to overcome bad luck into play more in golf - in tennis a bad shot or call is a lost point and is more recoverable, but in golf a bad break can lead to a double or worse, dropping a player fast in the tourney standing. Finally, I feel that weather variables impact golf more than tennis. Thus, I think that Tiger's sustained excellence is slightly tougher to acheive than Federer's. But they are both on another planet in their respective sports.

[atrapasuenos]

Tigers books are more impressive. Just because i think its harder to win a golf tournament than a tennis tournament. Plus the talent pool is much deeper in golf. Federer could have beaten up most of the guys he's played over the years half asleep. In tennis, you only have to beat one dude at a time, one on one. Tiger has to beat 120+ dudes all at once to win.

I agree with you. I used to play tennis a lot and it's hard to win, but what DavidFehertyBike says it's true, tennis is one on one. And those who say that there is no big competition for Tiger... well it's not Tiger's fault.

Cheers!

[CG031]

Tiger, in my opinion, is a slightly better. Golf is such a precise sport, where guys lose their games all of a sudden one day - more so mentally, but still (Duval, Ian Baker Finch, the list goes on)...Tennis isn't as much mental, although a physical strain more.

I play tennis and golf, both my sister's play division I tennis so I know the sport pretty well. I'd have to say that tennis would be the easier sport of the two to get great at. That's just my person opinion, but I find tennis to be an easier game to get good quick as oppose to golf.

I'd take Tiger's consistency and game before Federer's.

Both are crazy impressive though, no doubt.

[goblue107501]

I would go with Tiger. I agree with what has already been said. A tennis court is always the same (except for the different surfaces). All you have to do is beat the opponet across the net. You don't have to play the court. It is the same court you have been playing on every day for pretty much all your life, just hit the ball over the net and inside the lines. When you hit a serve, you only need to hit it over the net into the box. A drive in golf is something different on every hole. I'm not discounting Roger or tennis. I used to play and it is not an easy game to dominate. I have been amazed at the ease he is able to dominate.

Every week the golf guys have to play something different. You have to play a different game at Bethpage then you do at Torry Pines or Augusta or Oakmont or Southern Hills. Even though the players have played the courses many times, they are always changing and something will be different. A rainshower in the morning or winds in the afternoon can make a course play completly different than it did a day before.

On the flip side, there is a little more room for error in golf. You can have a bad stretch of holes or a bad day and make up for it the next day. In tennis, if you have a bad day or even a bad set, it could cost you the tournament.

[nevets88]

I won't say which is better, because it's so nuanced. But I'll add to the mix:

In golf, you can have one bad round out of four and still eke out a win.
In tennis, you have one bad day, you're out. Have a bad day in the 1st or second round, ouch.

In golf, there are 4 rounds. In tennis, to win a major, you have to beat 7 people, each one more likely progressively better.

In golf, your body can be competitive until, what, your 50s? Think Kenny Perry, Nicklaus in 86. In tennis, you're over the hill at 29, 30?

In golf, you can have a body of Angel Cabrera and win majors. In tennis, you have to train orders of magnitude harder physically to stay competitive. Ernie Els said his whole workout regimen was Jim Courier's warmup. Tiger Woods is in great shape, but not every golfer is.

In tennis, it is much harder to adjust to the surfaces than to a different golf course. You have an awesome short game, it will work at the BO and the PGA. You have an awesome net game, you'll do well in Wimbledon, but the FO terre battue will negate that advantage and a big serve.

For now, Federer looks to be the best all time, but lets wait and see how many majors Rafa puts up (and how long those knees hold up.) Despite all of the above, I think Woods has done more to transform his sport than anyone imagined and had periods of dominance matched by no one.

Both Woods and Federer have the complete package in terms of their game. Wood's chink is his driving accuracy and Federer, his backhand. I'm just happy to have watched and continue to watch amazing matches and majors.

[AmenCorner]

Tough call. I grew up originally playing Tennis then switching to golf at 9, in Florida no less which is the most competitive state by far.

Anyways. I somewhat challenge the notion that you can have a bad day at a major and still win. I don't know what you consider a bad day, but shoot 76 at the Masters and you can pretty much stick a fork in your chances of wearing a green jacket come Sunday. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that a bad HOLE can take you out of contention for a tournament. How many times have we seen guys make a 7 at number 12 at Augusta or a 9 at number 13. Kind of hard to recover from that. You cannot say this in tennis. If you frame a ball over the fence, it's the same as missing the line by a fraction of an inch.

Anyways, tough call but I'm going with Tiger. How long did it take Jack to get to 14??? Anyone? Comparing how long it took both guys to get where they are now compared to their predecessors would be an interesting stat.

[AmenCorner]

In golf, you can have one bad round out of four and still eke out a win.

Point #1 is not necessarily true. Federer could still play like garbage and beat a lot of people, especially in the early rounds. As I said above, you rarely see guys play truly poor one day and still win. Consistency is usually rather paramount to a victory. At least as much as it is in Tennis in my opinion.

Point #2 only makes partial sense. So you play 7 rounds in tennis against only 1 guy, but in golf you play 4 rounds against over 100 other guys. So you're not hitting the same ball, but you better hope one of them doesn't catch absolute fire, which happens from time to time, and run away from the whole field. The last point is irrelevant. The fact that Tiger can stay competitive until his 50's has no bearing on this discussion, which is that he won 14 majors in 12 years and Federer won 14 in 7 years.