More Impressive 14 Majors

[whip_it_out]

Asking if 14 tennis majors is better than 14 golf majors... on a golf forum? I sense some inevitable bias.

I vote Tiger simply because he is playing against 100+ top individuals. Not just a series of one on one.

[bogeyhitter25]

I have to say Roger's. A lot of us here don't know how hard it must be to return some of those serves, all under the watchfull eyes of millions of viewers.

Not saying Tiger's isn't spectacular. Because it is.

[iacas]

My opinion will be made obvious here...

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

And in tennis, you only have to win 3 out of 5 sets, and in that, only 6 out of a possible 10 or so games. And someone like Roger Federer can have a bad day early in the tournament and still advance... but if Tiger has a bad day he's going to have a heck of a time coming back.

Plus, the odds in tennis that your opponent might also be having a bad day are much greater than the odds in golf that 100+ other players are ALL having a bad day.

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, you have to beat 100+ people, including all of the ten best players in the world and virtually all of the top 50.

In golf, you can have a body of Angel Cabrera and win majors.

We didn't ask which sport required more athleticism or the ability to do more aerobic activity. This is beside the point.

And FWIW, I'd put Tiger's athleticism against Federer's any day. Tiger may not win (or Federer might not), but it'd be close. Those are the guys we're talking about - not guys that win one or two majors. When Angel Cabrera gets to 14 majors, we'll talk.

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.

I'd call this a push. The Masters and the British Open are two vastly different tests of golf, and each requires a vastly different skill set, is played in different weather conditions, with different turf, etc. And Federer has only one career grand slam - Tiger has three now.

[mcfc_nick]

When Angel Cabrera gets to 14 majors, we'll talk.

so we'll talk in 2012 then ;)

[87vert]

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.

Also you are playing against the course. For the most part a Tennis Court is a tennis court.

[Awsi Dooger]

Plenty of variables here. An obvious one is tennis majors are theoretically easier to win than golf majors. The dominant tennis pro is routinely an odds-on (less than even money) favorite before the tournament begins. It can be 2/5 or less. You'll never see Tiger Woods anything approaching 2/5. At his peak he's even money or slightly higher, and generally in the 2/1 range.

So that's advantage Tiger. However, Federer has an extremely limited window to win majors, a dozen years tops. Male tennis pros occasionally surface very early, like Wilander and Becker prevailing at 17. But it's bizarre. Generally you need to be 19 or 20 minimum to be strong enough and with a well developed game, and by age 30 it's already been downhill for a few years. Even when Federer arrived as a top player and whispered legend when he edged Sampras in a famous Wimbledon match in 2001, Federer's game was not close to what it became once he reached his early 20s.

You certainly don't have time for major alterations to your game, like Tiger has managed a few times, and still win 14 majors or anything close to that. Federer did an outstanding job of maximizing his absolute prime, from 22 to 26, winning basically 12 majors at those ages or a month or so removed. Tiger right now is in his prime and needs to put the majors record out of reach.

I'll disagree that tennis early rounds are a snap. It may appear that way right now because Federer and Nadal have been avoiding early upsets. But the depth is excellent. Here's a recent quote from Butch Buchholz, a well known player in the '60s: http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/story/1088221.html

``Laver was as dominant as Federer. But, on the other hand, three of the majors were played on grass back then. And it's a lot harder to win a Slam today. We were concerned about who we'd play in the semis and finals. Guys today are concerned about who they'll play in the first round."

I would give the slight edge to Tiger. But the most interesting variable of all is Rafael Nadal. Tiger has plenty of apologists who try to pretend this era is equal to Nicklaus' in terms of quality at the absolute top. Rafael Nadal is the ultimate dagger to that preposterous claim. Nadal is indeed an all timer, a guy who can take on Federer at his best and prevail. Frequently. In fact, a career winning record vs. Roger and swiping a major last year at Wimbledon in a classic match. Perhaps the best clay court player ever. Tiger has faced no one remotely comparable to Nadal. Nadal is equivalent to the Players and Palmers and Watsons, guys Nicklaus had to overcome throughout his career. Mickelson and Singh, etc., are nice players but don't threaten the level of foe that Nicklaus had to overcome. And Federer is fortunate he surfaced when he did, a decade younger than Sampras but many years older than Nadal.

[Elsfan]

Tiger has dominated at all the majors. Federer had to sneak in a win in Paris without Nadal around. I know you can't control who you play but tennis fields are lacking even more than golf.

[mcfc_nick]

another thing which has to be taken into consideration is the manner in which tiger has won his majors! i mean here is his list:

97 masters - 12 strokes
99 pga - 1 stroke
00 us open - 15 strokes
00 open - 8 strokes
00 pga - playoff
01 masters - 2 strokes
02 masters - 3 strokes
02 us open - 3 strokes
05 masters - playoff
05 open - 5 strokes
06 open - 2 strokes
06 pga - 5 strokes
07 pga - 2 strokes
08 us open - playoff

thats 10 out of 14 wins that he has won by 2 or more strokes, and more unbelievably 5 out of 14 wins by 5 or more strokes, plus the win on one leg last year! just phenominal!

[iWALK18]

Also you are playing against the course. For the most part a Tennis Court is a tennis court.

Have you ever played tennis? The surfaces make a HUGE difference.

[AOC]

This comparison is very difficult because of such difference between two sports.

In tennis, a dominant player have much, much higher winning percentage, which is ~75%, whereas, in golf, anyone not named Tiger, a dominant player is winning ~12% of events entered. And because of this winning rate disparity, it's very hard to make the comparison without having both players winning percentage and their contemporary's winning percentage to see who has been more dominant in their respective sport.

The greatest golfer of all time, Jack Nicklaus, has only winning percentage of 15% (I'm being bit generous) and in majors, he has a winning percentage of ~11%. Tiger's winning percentage is nearly twice that of Jack's at 29%, and in majors, it's at 30%. The winning percentage difference between golf's GOAT player and Tiger is simply astonishing. I venture to say Federer's winning percentage isn't nearly twice as tennis' GOAT.

Federer is a great tennis player and I have no desire to diminish his achievement but he hasn't even dominated all of tennis players, Nadal has a winning record against him, not by few but by a big margin. No one in golf has head to head winning record against Tiger.

Again, it is hard to make comparison, the only similarity of two sports is, it is an individual sport, but that's where similarity ends.

[Three Putt]

Tiger, but I don't follow tennis.
I don't know how you can compare them, tennis is match play.

[goblue107501]

Have you ever played tennis? The surfaces make a HUGE difference.

Yes, and the surface does make a difference. But the court is always the same size, the net is the same height. If you're playing the U.S. Open for tennis, you don't have to adjust your game to the court every round. The court is the same every day. There is not one bit of difference in getting a serve in the box at Wimbledon or at Hilton Head, regardless of the surface. Golf course dimensions can change daily. Yes, you have to play differently with each surface, and some are better than others on different courts. It doesn't change the fact that all courts are the same size.

[Prairie Golfer]

If Tiger's majors were at match play I'd have a better idea. I'll call it a push.

The big difference between the two is that Tiger's sport brings in a bit more cash. His career earnings are $85,000,000 compared to Roger's $45,000,000.

[shankapotamus]

I'd go with Tiger, even though both are damn impressive.

[Grndslmhttr3]

Gonna have to go with Rog on this one.

Yes, and the surface does make a difference. But the court is always the same size, the net is the same height. If you're playing the U.S. Open for tennis, you don't have to adjust your game to the court every round. The court is the same every day. There is not one bit of difference in getting a serve in the box at Wimbledon or at Hilton Head, regardless of the surface. Golf course dimensions can change daily. Yes, you have to play differently with each surface, and some are better than others on different courts. It doesn't change the fact that all courts are the same size.

Well think of this: If you have a bad round in golf, you can always come out swinging the next day. Bad round in tennis? Well, we'll see you next year.

As aforementioned, Tiger has to "beat" a field of over 100 golfers. In retrospect, however, how many of these golfers really have a big chance of winning? Half of them get cut after day 2 anyway. When it comes down to the final stretch, there are only a handful of people in contention. Another edit: On July 5, the thread title will have to be changed. With Nadal's knee, there's no way Federer won't win Wimbledon.

another thing which has to be taken into consideration is the manner in which tiger has won his majors! i mean here is his list:

If you want to talk about margin of victory, Federer has only gone into ONE five-set match in a major final in which he has won. Over half of his victories have been 3-set matches.

2003 Wimbledon: 7-6(5), 6-2, 7-6(3) - 3 sets 2004 Australian Open: 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-2 - 3 sets 2004 Wimbledon: 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4 - 4 sets 2004 US Open: 6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0 - 3-set ass-whooping 2005 Wimbledon: 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4 - 3 sets 2005 US Open: 6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1 - 4 sets 2006 Australian Open: 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2 - 4 sets 2006 Wimbledon: 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3 - 4 sets 2006 US Open: 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 - 4 sets 2007 Australian Open: 7–6(2), 6–4, 6–4 - 3 sets 2007 Wimbledon: 7-6 (7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2 - 5 sets 2007 US Open: 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4 - 3 sets 2008 US Open: 6–2, 7–5, 6–2 - 3 sets 2009 French Open: 6–1, 7–6(1), 6–4 - 3 sets

[RichF]

Have you ever played tennis? The surfaces make a HUGE difference.

Not nearly as different as they were 10-20 years ago.

Today, the Australian and US Open both use a similar speed/bounce of Plexicusion and DecoTurf hardcourts, the French Open is clay as always and Wimbledon's grass has been drastically slowed down and gives higher bounce to make it's characteristics very similar to clay.

[goblue107501]

Someone needs to get on a tennis forum, post the same question, and see what they say.

[shankapotamus]

Gonna have to go with Rog on this one.

But Federer's competition in the first round is so below him he could play crappy and still beat them. Also, it isn't so simple that if you have a bad round you just come out swinging the next day. It puts a lot of pressure, you have to change course management, among many other things.