Quien es mas macho? Senor Woods o senor Federer?

[Foghorn]

Senor Federer.

[Ty in Tampa]

Federer. But Woods is more talented.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Woods

Woods => Month long Ranger Camp
Federer => Compulsory Swiss military service (consists of accepting a pair of lederhosen, knife, and a rusted WWI era rifle).

Plus, I like golf.  Tennis bores me to tears.

[Ty in Tampa]

Macho = beating down all comers, a la Federer.

Talent = decade-long domination of your field, a la Woods.

[Lefty]

Elin Nordgren:  The Link

Miroslava Vavrinec:  The Link

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:
Woods

Woods => Month long Ranger Camp
Federer => Compulsory Swiss military service (consists of accepting a pair of lederhosen, knife, and a rusted WWI era rifle).

Plus, I like golf.  Tennis bores me to tears.

I wonder of Federer would be a better golfer than Woods is a tennis player. Both sports are nap inducing to me. Tennis used to be better, back in the wooden racket days; Laver, Ashe, Borg, Connors, McEnroe... they used to charge the net...

JimR might be able to recall the good old days of wood shaft golf clubs..

[JimR]

ah, good old hickory! i was around for the transtion from iron shafts to hickory.

[das]

In honor of my Grandfather's passing last year, I played a round at Congressional with his bamboo shaft clubs.  Not very long off the tee but a truely fun round none-the-less.  Hit it fat and you can't feel your hands for 10 minutes...

[MusicMan]

Quote:
Senor Federer.

Woods.  Federer has to beat, what, 6 guys one at a time?  Woods has to beat every frcikin' one of them, every time.

[MRaup]

Quote:

Quote:
Senor Federer.

Woods.  Federer has to beat, what, 6 guys one at a time?  Woods has to beat every frcikin' one of them, every time.

On that thought process, nobody ever smacks Tiger's drives back at him though...

[JimR]

outstanding point

[drew corleone]

Quote:

Quote:
Senor Federer.

Woods.  Federer has to beat, what, 6 guys one at a time?  Woods has to beat every frcikin' one of them, every time.

Yep, and it's a strong field that Woods has to beat (which is to say nothing about the attempts at "Tiger-proofing" that goes on).

I don't know much about tennis, and it certainly looks like Federer is pretty damn dominant, but as a golf fan I think Tiger has put together an amazing career. He'd get my (admittedly biased) vote.

[Ty in Tampa]

I thought it was wide.

[jaklewein]

Essentially, doesn't it just come down to each player's competition?  I know absolutely zilch, zero, nada about tennis.  Golf?  I'm dangerous, but that's about it.  Either way, I'm not informed enough to comment on either sport and its participants. I'll leave that to those that feel they have at least a decent grasp on both sports.

[Foghorn]

Quote:

Quote:
Senor Federer.

Woods.  Federer has to beat, what, 6 guys one at a time?  Woods has to beat every frcikin' one of them, every time.

Well, not every time.  Tiger can have a subpar couple of days and still win a tourney.  Federer has 1 sub-par day and he's history.  

If Tiger Woods plays a round of golf against the #32 player in the world, and loses, its not really that big of a deal.  If Federer loses to #32, its headlines ("Federer loses to unranked player").

At the end, to me, Federer is just a little bit ahead of Tiger.  When he doesn't win, he places better than Tiger does.  Federer has made the semifinals in 7 straight majors.  I don't believe Tiger has ever finished in the top 4 in 7 straight majors.  He also has to "play" the opponent rather than just playing the "course".

[Ankh]

Federer.

For me, golf is tear-inducing boring, while tennis is much more my thing.

Tiger's (1) career slam and (2) overall longer career are about the only thing greater in my mind that Federer's lack of a French Open.  Otherwise, everything else lines up Federer.

The argument that it's Tiger vs. 100 others and Federer vs. only 6 others is about the greatest poppycock I've ever heard. Next thing you know, when they institute a playoff system in collge football, the #7 seed will complain that they got cheated because they never played the eventual winner in the tournament.

If Tiger wasn't American, this wouldn't even be an argument.

[Golden Sombrero]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Senor Federer.

Woods.  Federer has to beat, what, 6 guys one at a time?  Woods has to beat every frcikin' one of them, every time.

On that thought process, nobody ever smacks Tiger's drives back at him though...

Indeed.  Tiger plays the course the same time as the other guys; Federer actually plays the other guys.  Both are dominating and remarkable athletes.  And both are part of the Nike Machine.

[Golden Sombrero]

Quote:
Federer.

For me, golf is tear-inducing boring, while tennis is much more my thing.

Tiger's (1) career slam and (2) overall longer career are about the only thing greater in my mind that Federer's lack of a French Open.  Otherwise, everything else lines up Federer.

The argument that it's Tiger vs. 100 others and Federer vs. only 6 others is about the greatest poppycock I've ever heard. Next thing you know, when they institute a playoff system in collge football, the #7 seed will complain that they got cheated because they never played the eventual winner in the tournament.

If Tiger wasn't American, this wouldn't even be an argument.

Federer is practically invincible on any surface other than Clay, against guys named Nadal.  But I think he will improve in that sphere, and the French Open is the last major he has to win, I believe.  I don't know that much about tennis but he is extremely impressive.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
But I think he will improve in that sphere, and the French Open is the last major he has to win, I believe.  I don't know that much about tennis but he is extremely impressive.

The French Open is a tough nut for many to crack.  Pete Sampras never won it.  John McEnroe never won it.  Jimmy Connors never won it.  Boris Becker never won it.  Numerous great players couldn't get over the clay hump.

[Sleepy]

I recently asked six sports fans of varying levels, independently, if they could name three professional male tennis players who are currently active.  None of them could, and only one named Federer.  A couple could name Blake and Roddick.  I think all of them could name three female tennis players.

Just an aside.  Though I think it may suggest that tennis, nike, ESPN, and whoever else has a stake in it isn't doing a very good job promoting tennis these days.  Rotating courts for the American fans?

[drew corleone]

Quote:

Quote:
But I think he will improve in that sphere, and the French Open is the last major he has to win, I believe.  I don't know that much about tennis but he is extremely impressive.

The French Open is a tough nut for many to crack.  Pete Sampras never won it.  John McEnroe never won it.  Jimmy Connors never won it.  Boris Becker never won it.  Numerous great players couldn't get over the clay hump.

So, out of curiosity, as you seem to know more about tennis than I... is the fact that Federer has not won the French, and has had little success against Nadal (3-6, I read), an indictment of Federer's dominance, or tennis, or is it irrelevant to the debate (when compared to Tiger's career grand slam twice over)?

Foghorn: Tiger may not have finished in the top 4 for seven straight, but he did do for six straight (99-01) and five straight (05-06). The former was preceded by a T7 and T3. He also now has the second longest tour win streak in history, as well as being tied for the third-longest. And he's the only golfer to win the four current majors consecutively.

[Ankh]

Quote:


So, out of curiosity, as you seem to know more about tennis than I... is the fact that Federer has not won the French, and has had little success against Nadal (3-6, I read), an indictment of Federer's dominance, or tennis, or is it irrelevant to the debate (when compared to Tiger's career grand slam twice over)?

It's more of an indictment against Tennis. The slow clay court game of the French Open is polar opposite to the fast grass court game of Wimbledone, and they are played just 2 weeks apart. The recent history of tennis is littered with clay court specialists who don't dominate on the other 3 surfaces.  It's hard to prepare for both tournaments, so many players prepare harder for one surface to the detriment of the other and then hope for the best.

But Nadal isn't just a clay court specialist, he's the only kryptonite to Federer, in a way that Agassi never was to Sampras.

Federer just won the Australian Open without dropping a set, for first time in 27 years. That would be on par with Tiger having the single best score each day in a 4 day tournament (which he might have done before, I haven't a clue). That's just sheer ridiculous dominance.

[drew corleone]

Quote:

Quote:


So, out of curiosity, as you seem to know more about tennis than I... is the fact that Federer has not won the French, and has had little success against Nadal (3-6, I read), an indictment of Federer's dominance, or tennis, or is it irrelevant to the debate (when compared to Tiger's career grand slam twice over)?

It's more of an indictment against Tennis. The slow clay court game of the French Open is polar opposite to the fast grass court game of Wimbledone, and they are played just 2 weeks apart. The recent history of tennis is littered with clay court specialists who don't dominate on the other 3 surfaces.  It's hard to prepare for both tournaments, so many players prepare harder for one surface to the detriment of the other and then hope for the best.

But Nadal isn't just a clay court specialist, he's the only kryptonite to Federer, in a way that Agassi never was to Sampras.

Federer just won the Australian Open without dropping a set, for first time in 27 years. That would be on par with Tiger having the single best score each day in a 4 day tournament (which he might have done before, I haven't a clue). That's just sheer ridiculous dominance.

Not sure it's completely analagous, but I get what you're saying.

Tiger does have the record margin of victory in two of the four majors, and in both of his US Open wins he was the only golfer to break par.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's impossible to compare the two beyond saying they both dominate their respective sports in a manner that almost defies believability.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

The more I think about it, the more I think it's impossible to compare the two beyond saying they both dominate their respective sports in a manner that almost defies believability.

Yeah. It's like saying the best badminton player in the world is more macho than the best croquet player. You just can't.

[lc_db]

Quote:

Quote:

The more I think about it, the more I think it's impossible to compare the two beyond saying they both dominate their respective sports in a manner that almost defies believability.

Yeah. It's like saying the best badminton player in the world is more macho than the best croquet player. You just can't.

...but give me the guy with wooden balls over the one with a shuttlecock any day.

[Ty in Tampa]

Quote:
Yeah. It's like saying the best badminton player in the world is more macho than the best croquet player. You just can't.

I'm going with Reg.

 Reg Bamford

 Dan Lin

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

So, out of curiosity, as you seem to know more about tennis than I... is the fact that Federer has not won the French, and has had little success against Nadal (3-6, I read), an indictment of Federer's dominance, or tennis, or is it irrelevant to the debate (when compared to Tiger's career grand slam twice over)?

Well, I didn't really mean it as an indictment against anything, though I suppose you could argue either way.  You could argue that Federer really isn't dominating like Tiger if he doesn't win the French, or you could argue that if they played the PGA on sand instead of grass, Tiger might not be as dominant in that tournanment as some player who plays all the time on sand.  The French is so much different than any other tournament they play, it'd be hard to dominate everything.  I don't think it makes Federer less of a dominant player if he never wins it, which is a distinct possibility.

[Foghorn]

The French Open has been dominated (in recent years) by "clay court specialists" who can't reach the quarterfinals of other majors.  Nadal is a bit different.  He could lay claim to being "The Greatest Clay Court Player...Ever".  He's won something like 60 straight on clay.  

bascially, Federer kicks everyone's ass except Nadal on clay.

[Waldo]

Quote:
Elin Nordgren:  The Link

Miroslava Vavrinec:  The Link

Tiger wins that battle hands down, if you ask me.