More Impressive 14 Majors

[iacas]

Exactly how many of these 100+ people have a legitimate chance of winning?

A heck of a lot more than the number of guys Roger faces that have a shot at winning.

Duh?

[b_lcky]

Here's my 2 cents. Tiger wins.

In tennis you have a much shorter window to compete against at your highest level, while a golfer can remain elite for 20+ years. While Federer has compiled the same number of majors in a shorter time, he is at the tail end of his career. If Tiger's career were 85% over, and he had only 14 majors, then Federer would win. But Tiger is right in the middle of his career with many years left to play.

Counterpoint #1: Tiger has no Nadal...
- When Nadal first came to prominence, Federer owned him because he was still in his prime. Tennis is a young man's game though. While Nadal is a better player now, Federer would continue to wipe the floor with him if they were both 23. Tiger is still at his peak, and we don't know if some of the younger players (i.e. Mcilroy, Kim, Casey) on tour will turn out to be the next big thing because Tiger is still kickin ass.

Counterpoint #2: Agassi played until he was 35.
- Agassi continued to be competitive into his thirties but was never again the player he was. No one doubts that Federer or Tiger could be competitive after their peaks, but winning majors is another story.

[jonnythan]

- When Nadal first came to prominence, Federer owned him because he was still in his prime.

Where did you come up with this "Federer owned Nadal" business? Did you just make it up to justify your "young man's game" argument?

Nadal won their first match, when Nadal was 17 and Federer was 22. In straight sets. Federer won the second match, Nadal won the first two sets and was up in the third before Federer came back and won the match. Nadal won their third match in four. Nadal then went on to win the next four matches they played. So, Nadal destroys Federer in their first match and proceeds to go 5-1 over the next six.

Counterpoint #2: Agassi played until he was 35.

Agassi won

three majors after he turned 30, and he made it to the final of the US Open when he was 35.

[timwalsh300]

I would like to focus on the depth of the talent pool. Statistics are hard to come by, so I only have them for the United States...

The number of "frequent" tennis players, as defined by those who play 21 or more times per year, is an estimated 3 or 4 million people.

The number of "core" golfers, as defined by those who play 8 or more times per year, is an estimated 16 million people.

Granted, 21 times is more than 8, but you can play tennis just by going to the local park. You don't have to shell out money for greens fees. In any case, I would bet that most of those "core" golfers play much more than 8 times per year. People I know either play twice a year or twice a week. There isn't much in between.

This is purely anecdotal, but I personally know only one person who plays tennis regularly. I know many more people who play golf regularly (ignoring the people who I met through playing golf).

Golf, at least in the United States, seems to be much more popular. A lot of kids want to be Tiger Woods. By contrast, a lot of kids don't even know who Roger Federer is. Do you hear stories of people living in their cars and grinding their way through the mini-tours in hopes of becoming a professional tennis player? I don't know.

The bottom line: It's a lot easier to win if you pick a more obscure sport to master. I'm not saying that tennis is obscure - not like curling or lawn darts - but it doesn't seem to be as big as golf.



Tim

[jonnythan]

How many of those 16 million golfers are over 35? How many of those tennis players are over 35?

How many people are on high school tennis teams in the US versus high school golf teams? How many tennis players under 20 are there versus golf players?

Yes, more people golf than play tennis - but I'd be willing to bet that, among young people, there are far more people playing on tennis teams and getting serious tennis instructiont han golf.

My high school had a tennis team, but no golf team. My university had a large tennis team and a small golf team. 90+% of the people I see at the local golf courses are over 30, but the majority of people I see at our local tennis courts are under 30.

You have to look at the "talent pool" for people who have the potential to go pro - that is, people who are seriously into playing high level tennis versus golf by the age of, say, 16. Those numbers are going to be very different.

[DogbertBH]

Tiger's accomplishments are GREAT.

Roger's are too.

I voted TIE.

For those more toward the golf side. Roger Federer had to come back from 2 sets and a break down to Tommy Haas in the French open (Former World #2) and win that match in 5 grueling sets.

Has Tiger ever come from behind to win a major?

[jonnythan]

Has Tiger ever come from behind to win a major?

Yes he has. Last year's US Open, in fact.

[Grndslmhttr3]

I should also mention that Federer has to play against other tennis players, whereas Tiger plays "against the course." Over the course of a tournament, let alone a match, the two contenders wear down on each other, both mentally and physically, to the point where both are usually exhausted, especially in the finals of a tournament.

Furthermore, if you're playing in a golf tournament, the outcome depends on how well you play each day. For example, if you have a commanding lead going into the last day, you have a much better shot at winning. In tennis, you can smoke someone at love in a match, then barely edge your opponent in an epic five-setter the next day. Your performance the previous matches do not affect the outcome of the next match. As I said in a previous post (I think), this thread is going to be outdated as of early July.

A heck of a lot more than the number of guys Roger faces that have a shot at winning.

That's because Roger faces seven people, assuming he makes the finals of a tournament. Not to mention that once he gets to the fourth round or so, he can't afford to have a bad match, because he starts playing top 15-20 seeded players.

Here's my 2 cents. Tiger wins.

Your second "counterpoint" doesn't exactly help your argument at all.

As for your first, even with Nadal, Federer has won as many majors as Tiger in about four fewer years than Tiger. Without Nadal, Federer would have upwards of 16 by now, as Nadal is the ONLY person ever to defeat Federer in a Grand Slam tournament. Although Federer isn't exactly getting younger, he's still in phenomenal shape, and still continues to show the other guys how the best plays tennis.

[DogbertBH]

I must have been mistaken. I though Tiger was leading when the 3rd round concluded.

I don't think I've ever seen him win a major when he wasn't in the final group with at least a share of the lead.

Not saying he sucks or anything - I'm a fan.

Just saying he's a definite front-runner in the major tournaments. Roger has faced adversity and come back to win numerous times and I think that deserves more merit than he's being awarded here by being immediately dismissed as having an equal accomplishment.

I keep seeing the argument that Tiger plays 130 guys - but those guys aren't right there, stopping him from doing well. They're ALL playing that course that day. Some might have a better eye for that particular track.

Federer has a guy on the other side of the net trying to stop him. And in some cases, it happens.

Again. I voted tie. Tiger could (and will probably) potentially win majors well into his 40's. It's MUCH harder to win tournaments as you get older in tennis than in golf.

Below is a list of the times he HAS won a tournament without the 54 hole lead.

Year Tournament 54-hole Leader Margin Runner-up
==== ========== ============== ======= =========
2007 WGC-Bridgestone Inv. 1/Rory Sabbatini 8 strokes Justin Rose, Rory Sabatini
2007 Wachovia Championship 1/Rory Sabbatini 2 strokes Steve Stricker
2007 Buick Invitational 2/Two Players 2 strokes Charles Howell III
2006 Deutsche Bank 3/Vijay Singh 2 strokes Vijay Singh
2006 Buick Invitational 1/Two Players Playoff Jose Maria Olazabal
2005 WGC-American Express 2/John Daly Playoff John Daly
2005 Ford Championship 2/P. Mickelson 1 stroke Phil Mickelson
2005 Buick Invitational 2/Two Players 3 strokes Three Players
2001 WGC-NEC Invitational 2/Jim Furyk Playoff Jim Furyk
2001 Memorial 1/Paul Azinger 7 strokes Paul Azinger, Sergio Garcia
2001 Players Championship 2/Jerry Kelly 1 stroke Vijay Singh
2000 AT&T; Pebble Beach 5/Two players 2 strokes Matt Gogel, Vijay Singh
1999 WGC-American Express 1/Two players Playoff Miguel Angel Jimenez
1997 Mercedes Championships 4/Tom Lehman Playoff Tom Lehman
1996 Oldsmobile Classic 1/Four players 1 stroke Payne Stewart
1996 x-Las Vegas Invitational 4/Ronnie Black Playoff Davis Love III

[jonnythan]

A heck of a lot more than the number of guys Roger faces that have a shot at winning.

Tiger doesn't actually face anyone. He faces the course.

Roger has to look the other guy in the eye. Roger has to directly read and respond and react to the other guy's game. Roger has to alter his game to defeat his current opponent, who is also trying to directly read and react to Roger. It's just different. One isn't necessarily harder than the other.

[shankapotamus]

Tiger doesn't actually face anyone. He faces the course.

I am pretty confused by that. Tiger still has to shoot a better score than everyone else?

[iacas]

Tiger doesn't actually face anyone. He faces the course.

Again I'll ask: so if Tiger breaks par, he wins the event? That's "beating" the course, isn't it? So again, -1 total or better and he wins?

No. Just because someone can't play defense against him doesn't mean he isn't playing "against" 150 or so other people. They can "beat" him, and he has to put up a better score than they do. I get that it's different. But different doesn't change the fact that Federer can basically snooze through his first three matches (i.e. kind of the equivalent of Tiger making the cut in majors) and then just has to beat a few people - the equivalent of Tiger having to beat 70+ guys that made the cut. Lemme put it another way: if every major were match play, I think Tiger might have 25 or more of them by now, and match play is about as similar to a tennis tournament as this discussion's going to get.

[ApocG10]

I think its tough to compare. They are very different sports, and to say one downplays the other is hard to do. no different than comparing stanley cup wins to superbowl rings. I definately dont think one is more significant than the other. Both are the best in the respectve sports they play. Both of those sports are horribly difficult. I dont think its fair to compare or downplay one to the other. I hate tennis, but that doesnt mean I think its easier than golf. In both cases, the athletes have been playing since childhood and dedicated their whole life to the game.

But of course golfers for the most part are going to think golf is more significant. Ask ths question on a tennis forum and youll get very different answers.

[shankapotamus]

Again I'll ask: so if Tiger breaks par, he wins the event? That's "beating" the course, isn't it? So again, -1 total or better and he wins?

I one hundred percent agree!

[brendanh]

IMO, Tiger is THE standout athlete, sportsman, whatever you want to call him, in the world. Probably ever. Not just compared to tennis players, but compared to just about any sport you can name.

A few comments, not necessarily in any order but just based upon stuff I have read in this thread....
* He has no serious competition from his peers? That's because he's so bloody good. There are plenty of great golfers going around, but Tiger just crushes them.
* Federer, whilst in his twilight years, just can't beat Rafa on clay - in fact if you look at last year's French Open, he pretty much laid down and gave it to Rafa. Ever see Tiger lay down on Sunday afternoon and give away a Major?
* When the going got tough at Wimbledon last year and in Melbourne this year, Rafa beat Roger. I can't imagine Tiger losing 3 in a row to Mickelson, head to head.
* Usual stuff - to win a tennis Grand Slam, you need to win 8 matches and probably only 2 against top 10 players. You can play average in the first 4 rounds and still scrape through, as Roger has done plenty of times in recent years. To win a Golf Major, you have to play 72 holes against everyone in the top 150 or so players. Almost zero margin of error compared to Tennis.
* Winning a tennis match is a bit like playing Stableford, or even a Par event. If you have a shocker game, lose your serve to love, so what? You just break back next game. If you make a triple or quadruple bogey in a stroke event, it could take a full round to make that up again, and then it might be too late. Look at Bethpage last week, Tiger got a dud draw with regards to the weather, had a poor final four holes in the first round and that was the difference between winning and losing the US Open. To me, this is the equivalent of losing a service game in the first set of a tennis match.

Yes, I am biased towards Golf and Tiger, but anyway you want to measure it, I think Tiger's record will stack up against any sportsman.

[ApocG10]

IMO, Tiger is THE standout athlete, sportsman, whatever you want to call him, in the world. Probably ever. Not just compared to tennis players, but compared to just about any sport you can name.

Thats a ridiculous thing to say. Their are many athletes who dominated their sport the way tiger has. Your saying tiger is a better athlete than Jordan? Gretzky? Brady? Crosby? Federer? OJ? Thats makes no sense at all. He's the best golfer in the world, not the best athlete. You cant compare cross sport athletes, because in other sports, he would be average at best.

[jonnythan]

I am pretty confused by that. Tiger still has to shoot a better score than everyone else?

Yes, he does. But he plays against the course, he doesn't play

against another person directly . Tiger doesn't have to hit back the ball Phil hits off the tee at him. Tiger plays his own ball and only his own ball. His opponents' performance may indirectly affect his strategy, but he doesn't directly play against an opponent hitting balls at him the way a tennis player does.

[brendanh]

What is so ridiculous? Expressing my opinion? That was my first post to The Sand Trap - thanks for the warm welcome and acceptance of someone else's opinion.