More Impressive 14 Majors

[RichF]

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.

Agreed - that's the one factor that 'blemishes' Federer's achievements: he can't beat Nadal on a regular basis in Major finals: 5-2 Nadal, to date.

I'm pretty sure he'll get his 15th Major next weekend (against Murray, probably), but again, Nadal isn't playing Wimbledon this year which gives Federer more breathing space as it did at Roland Garros last month.

[Grndslmhttr3]

I think it's fairly evident here that arguing about whether it is more impressive that Tiger or Federer won 14 majors is like arguing politics. No matter what you say, you aren't going to change the other person's opinion.

[Range King]

I voted 'Tie'

I think it is easier to win a tennis major than a golf major. In tennis you can play underaverage two or three times, as long as you are a bit better as your opponent. Next round you have a fresh start. Also I *having* a direct opponent makes it easier. Players like Lendl, Becker, Federer and Nadal have such an intimidating presence on the court that they can beat their opponents also with mental strength.
In golf on the other side: If you have two underaverage rounds, you either have a free weekend, or are maybe struggling for a Top 20 rank. Also, you cannot directly defeat your opponent, if he shot the round of his life and is in the clubhouse. You definitely have to outperform him on the golf course.

so up to here: +1 for Tiger

The other side is, that Tennis is played on the highest level between 20 and say 28 (speed, strength, injuries). If somebody outside this range wins majors nowadays it is a BIG surprise. So there is not so much time.

So here +1 for Roger, for having accomplished this already and playing in the semis of the next major on friday.

[mcfc_nick]

obviously id like andy murray to win wimbledon but it looks like it will be tigers 14 to rogers 15 very soon (i.e. this weekend)

[bobsuruncle]

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.

+1

also, equipment is not an equalizer in tennis like it is in golf. So, in tennis you are really playing man-to-man. But golf is a little bit like Formula One, it's the driver + his equipment. If everyone played 'similar' equipment (like in Jack's time), TW would have won his 18 majors already. For example, if everyone had to play a 2-iron instead of a hybrid, probably 70-80% of the 120+man field wouldn't be competitive.

[bentur123]

both are genuises in there respected sport, i dont think one is neccesarily better than the other as achiving these feat in any sport is amazing

[Grndslmhttr3]

Well, looks like they're no longer "tied" for the same amount of majors (though I did want Roddick to win Wimbledon). One hell of a match that was.

[Acropo]

Well, Fed now has 15 after a 5-set marathon. Roddick played better than i have ever seen him play before.

I would still go for Tiger, though; beating the whole field is harder than winning the knock-outs, imho. Someone can have a bad first day (knocked out, in tennis) and then come roaring back (see: Jack NIcklaus history)

[Awsi Dooger]

Federer probably needs to get to 20 minimum to match Tiger's ultimate number. Still very doubtful. Every major for Federer from this point forward will be a struggle. Now that he's past Sampras' mark it's natural for the desire to wane slightly, even if he doesn't realize it. I think he'll suffer an unexpected fairly early loss in a major sometime soon.

Same thing will happen with Tiger, once he surpasses Jack. It's not like he'll roar past, maintaining the same pace. I'm sure the press won't realize that. When major records like that are threatened with high profile attention, the pace doesn't hold. I remember winning a sizable bet a few years ago with that understanding. Peyton Manning was on schedule to shatter Dan Marino's 48 TD passes in a single season and the sportsbooks started using adjusted over/unders in the mid 50s. It was a joke. The public kept forcing the over. I bet under and never had to sweat. I think it ended up 49.

[Range King]

Someone can have a bad first day (knocked out, in tennis) and then come roaring back (see: Jack NIcklaus history)

Isn't this a reason that it is harder to win a major in tennis?

After watching this 5 set match again, my opinion tipped from 'tie' towards Federer. It is so much more physical but mental at the same time. So I officially vote for Roger Federer now.

[mcfc_nick]

Isn't this a reason that it is harder to win a major in tennis?

ye but did you notice something else about wimbledon this year, namely the thing above their heads, the roof! ok it wasnt needed a lot this year but tennis players dont need to brave conditions! i just watched a program on the 2002 open at muirfield where ernie won and the conditions they played in were horrendous with rain lashing down, yet if the course is still playable they have to carry on which is another reason why i think tigers majors are more impressive!

[Range King]

....yet if the course is still playable they have to carry on

That is an easy one to counter

When there is rain, a tennis court is not playable any more. The guys would get horrible injuries. The roof is not for the players' convenience, but a measure to keep the tourney going in case of rain. Speaking of extreme conditions: Just watch the Australian open - it is quite common for tennis players to play for 4+ hours when it is over 40° Celsius. And thats measured in the shade, which you dont have on a tennis court.

[jonnythan]

I play both tennis and golf several times a week. The outright physical strain and ability it takes to play a few hours of tennis is far, far, far in excess of what it takes to play a round of golf. There's no comparison. Who do you think will struggle more: John Daly on a tennis court or Rafael Nadal on a golf course?

[shankapotamus]

I play both tennis and golf several times a week. The outright physical strain and ability it takes to play a few hours of tennis is far, far, far in excess of what it takes to play a round of golf. There's no comparison. Who do you think will struggle more: John Daly on a tennis court or Rafael Nadal on a golf course?

But who do you think will do better? Plus, why would you pick one of the most out of shape guys on tour. How about, who would do better, Camilo playing tennis, or Nadal playing Golf.

[jonnythan]

But who do you think will do better? Plus, why would you pick one of the most out of shape guys on tour. How about, who would do better, Camilo playing tennis, or Nadal playing Golf.

I picked one of the most out of shape guys on the tour because someone that out of shape can be a pro golf player.

How about Tom Watson? The point is that guys like Tom Watson and John Daly are capable of winning golf tournaments - but a person in their condition wouldn't be able to score a single point against Federer.

[enis750]

Tiger = b/c i dont find tennis all that entertaining

[Jesh]

I picked one of the most out of shape guys on the tour because someone that out of shape can be a pro golf player.

So, why does that even matter? We're talking about which is more astounding, Federer's majors or Tigers, and you're saying Fed's are because (some) of the competition Tiger has is out of shape. I'm saying Tiger's are more amazing, just because I think golf takes a lot more skill then tennis, whether it truly does, that's not for me to decide, because I don't like tennis all that much. Nor do I like Federer that much.

[jonnythan]

Someone seemed to be trying to make the point that golf is more physically demanding, and I was countering it. Nothing less, nothing more.