More Impressive 14 Majors

[jonnythan]

Let's put it this way.

If Tiger laid an egg on a tennis court in the second round of the French Open the way he laid an egg in the second round of the Memorial, he wouldn't have been able to come back the next two days because he would have been watching on TV from home.

[DavidFehertysBike]

Let's put it this way.

Or he could have missed the cut. But i get what youre saying. You have a really bad day in a tennis match, youre probably done.

[goblue107501]

One thing that hasn't been brought up is that you can play defense against your opponent in tennis if you are having a bad day. If an opponent is killing you with a forehand return, you can defend that by hitting to the backhand. If I guy is beating you with points at the net, you can defend that by getting to the net first. In golf, if Phil is two groups ahead of Tiger and having a monster day, there is nothing he can do to defend that, other than trying to equal or better it.

[jonnythan]

I think we can all agree that match play is fundamentally different from open play ;)

[shankapotamus]

One thing that hasn't been brought up is that you can play defense against your opponent in tennis if you are having a bad day. If an opponent is killing you with a forehand return, you can defend that by hitting to the backhand. If I guy is beating you with points at the net, you can defend that by getting to the net first. In golf, if Phil is two groups ahead of Tiger and having a monster day, there is nothing he can do to defend that, other than trying to equal or better it.

That is a great point.

[geezer]

I'm going to go with Federer's 14 majors as the more impressive. Federer equals the all time record in his sport and Tiger hasn't yet.
As for the "Federer only has one opponent at a time, while Tiger has 100+". No, he doesn't. Tiger may have others playing at the same time, but they aren't playing against each other (unless it was matchplay); they are all playing the course and seeing who does the best job of it.

[iacas]

As for the "Federer only has one opponent at a time, while Tiger has 100+". No, he doesn't. Tiger may have others playing at the same time, but they aren't playing against each other (unless it was matchplay); they are all playing the course and seeing who does the best job of it.

If Tiger doesn't beat 100+ people, he doesn't win. Federer only has to beat seven people.

Tiger's not playing "against" them directly, but he still has to beat them. All of them.

[Fore Right!]

How many former #1 in the world does a golfer face for 4 days in a row at a major? More. How many different variables do golfers have to overcome in golf aside from other players? More. Which athlete could possibly be battling it out with more than one great player at the end of their respective major? Tiger.

Maybe I'm just cripplingly biased.

[AmenCorner]

I like the argument the tennis guys are making that you can always come back the next day in golf if you play poorly the day before. Have you guys ever heard of a cut?

[pshizz]

Roger federer's streak is far more inpressive. First off, he did in in a quicker ammount of time as opposed to tiger. Also, tennis tournaments are pretty much 2 weeks of hell. Not only do they require an insane ammount of focus, mental strength, and skills(just like golf), but they also require you to be in top shape...unlike golf. Federer has completed the career slam, and has one 14 majors...the current record. Tiger doesn't have the record. You have to take all thins into consideration, and to me the clear winner is my boy Roger.

[pshizz]

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.

Almost all of Nadal vs. Federer's matches have come on clay, with the exception of maybe 3 or 4. So, to me this isn't a fair comparison considering that Nadal is the king of clay.

[pshizz]

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.

Federer has won 3 straight australian open's, 5 straight wimbledon's, 5 straight U.S. open's, and just recently won his first french open...so yes, federer does have a couple decent streaks.

[wedge player]

Almost all of Nadal vs. Federer's matches have come on clay, with the exception of maybe 3 or 4. So, to me this isn't a fair comparison considering that Nadal is the king of clay.

so you saying he cant beat that one person??and tiger beats everyone wat 63 times now?14 majors?im gonna say tiger more impressive tiger has no-one that can do that best him that often,i realize that its match play-open play but you still have to adapt to differant conditions you have 3 courts but in golf its not just here comes ball hit it back,its out of rough under tree,over next tree with a cut you dont pull it off double bogey comes into play,you dont hit tennis ball in a box you messed up,which ones harder?thats how you decide which is more impressive

[mcfc_nick]

so you saying he cant beat that one person??and tiger beats everyone wat 63 times now?14 majors?im gonna say tiger more impressive tiger has no-one that can do that best him that often,i realize that its match play-open play but you still have to adapt to differant conditions you have 3 courts but in golf its not just here comes ball hit it back,its out of rough under tree,over next tree with a cut you dont pull it off double bogey comes into play,you dont hit tennis ball in a box you messed up,which ones harder?thats how you decide which is more impressive

not to be pedantic but 67 wins!

[RichF]

I don't buy into the 'Woods has to beat 150 other guys' argument: if Woods has a bad day/round and his score is 'beaten' by 30 people, he can (and often does) come back the next day still probably favourite to win it.
If Federer is beaten one a day, he is done for the tournament, theres no second chances.
Thats why saying 1 vs. 150 is misleading.

This is the thing with golf and tennis, you can beat someone in a golf tournament without ever having to see that person. - that's different from having to stare across the court at a player and know you have to be better than that person in the same exact circumstances...and win 3 sets.

No staggered tee times, no different pairings, no different playing conditions. No chance to make up strokes on an early Saturday morning start time before the conditions get worse and the course dries out (or whatever else).

There's a precise reason why you don't have as many first time winners in tennis...because over the course of 7 matches it's hard for anyone to consistently compete at a high enough level to advance.

Furthermore, it's harder for limited players to be able to beat top players over the course of two weeks...players with different games and varities (something your comments neglect to mention...tennis isn't just about different playing surfaces, it's having to adapt head to head, to different styles and games).

It's different when you have to actually face beat a Federer or Nadal, or Woods, Mickelson, Singh, et al, in a head to head match-up rather than playing in a twosome with a posted leaderboard you can choose to ignore as you walk around a golf course.

Yet, Federer has finished first or second in ten straight grand slam events...which includes the French...already a record in tennis, and proves he can play on every surface.


Also, I think it's questionable whether 'Tiger-Proofing' (lengthening the course, with smaller fairways, etc.) actually hurts Tiger or just limits the number of people that can compete on certain courses.

[jonnythan]

I don't buy into the 'Woods has to beat 150 other guys' argument: if Woods has a bad day/round and his score is 'beaten' by 30 people, he can (and often does) come back the next day still probably favourite to win it.

That's exactly right. Tiger needs to "beat" 150 people by doing better, overall, than all 150 of those people.

He can lose, badly, on any given day and still be OK. He can lose, badly, on one hole over the course of the entire weekend and still be OK. If tennis were played like golf, Federer would just have to do better, on average, against his opponents over the course of an entire tournament to win. No single match would matter all that much.

[Eeryck]

Could you imagine the advantage that Tiger would have on the golf course if every golfer had to hit each and every shot of they play in his presence and with his media circus.

He would definitely intimidate them quite a bit more and most likely take them out of contention.

You get a top level player that thrives on competition, being able to go head to head with your opponent is a definite advantage for a "world's best."

Regards,
-E

[Grndslmhttr3]

If Tiger doesn't beat 100+ people, he doesn't win. Federer only has to beat seven people.

Exactly how many of these 100+ people have a legitimate chance of winning? After day 2, that is basically cut in half. At the end of the third day, only a handful of people are actually in contention.

I also agree that this should be posted on a tennis forum. There is obviously some inevitable bias considering the fact that people on a golf forum are going to think Tiger winning a major is more impressive than Federer.