Who is the more dominant performer?

espn.com ^ | 1/28/07 | unknown

[beyond the sea]

ping............

[Alberta's Child]

That's not a valid comparison, since the four tennis Grand Slam events are played on different court surfaces.

If Tiger Woods had won all of the major golf tournaments in one year, and they were played on surfaces as widely varied as these . . .

1. Short Grass
2. Tall Grass
3. Sand
4. Concrete

. . . then you might have a point.

It's almost impossible for a male tennis player to win all four Grand Slam events anymore (even the legendary Bjorn Borg couldn't do it) -- because the skills required to win on each surface can vary widely.

[Hot Tabasco]

Given the number of PGA tour professionals who on any given weekend could win by virtue of a hot putter, I would have to say Tiger Woods is the dominate athlete. 5 years from now Federer will be gasping for breath as he battles an up and coming 24 year old while Tiger Woods will still be playing strong.

[Hot Tabasco]

Who Is the More Dominant Performer? (Woods, Federer Dazzle)

Who is Mr. Dazzle?

[Alberta's Child]

5 years from now Federer will be gasping for breath as he battles an up and coming 24 year old while Tiger Woods will still be playing strong.

That's what tells me that Federer is the better athlete.

I'm not a big tennis fan at all, but I'm inherently biased on this one because golf is only marginally "athletic" in any sense of the word.

[Hatteras]

Boy this is tough.... what do their wives look like?

[jeltz25]

True, but Federer has won 6 of the last 7 slams in dominating fashion. I don't think Tiger has ever won 6 out of 7 slams and by the end of this year Federer will have won at least 8 out of the last 10, 9 of 10 if he wins the French. He's won Wimbledon, which the equivalent of the Masters 4 straight years. Has Tiger ever won 4 striaght Masters? 3 straight US Opens? 36 straight Matches?

It's somewhat different with Tennis becuase of the different surfaces. Nadal is a clay court speacialist, Federer owns him on every other surface. Golf has different courses but it doesn't really have the clay/grass/hardcourt breakdown like tennis.

We can go back and forth but I'd just leave it that both of them are among the best ever in their sport and both of them dominate and are head and shoulders above the current competition. It should be a joy to watch them in their primes instead of arguing over who's better.

[beyond the sea]

Sorry to be a pain (really), but I'm wondering if you can add a little to the title so that it reads:

Who Is the More Dominant Performer? - (Woods, Federer Dazzle)

Thank you .......

****

[beyond the sea]

I guess so.

[ShawTaylor]

"That's not a valid comparison, since the four tennis Grand Slam events are played on different court surfaces."

Wxcuses, excuses. The 4 slams for golf are every bit as different as the 4 slams of tennis, especially the British Open.
Gold doesn't have to be played on concrete to to decide that.
n fact, it could be argued that the US and Australian Opens in tennis are about the same in terms of surface for playing tennis.
About the really different slam is the clay for the French Open, and federer regularly gets clobbered at the French.
That is not the sign of a great champion.
Not to mention Serena has already won ALL 4 slams in 12 months, playing on the same surfaces that Federer has.
You don't have a point.

[Lurker]

According to Mrs. L my performance is usually beyond reproach. Unless of course I've been drinking.

Now if she's been drinking my performance level improves beyond my ordinarily extraordinary capabilities.

Oh...you're not talking about that.

Never mind.

L

[ShawTaylor]

"True, but Federer has won 6 of the last 7 slams in dominating fashion"

Federer has won on the same old surfaces, and failed at the French every time.
Lemme know when he wins the French.
Before that, he is not in the same class as Tiger.
Let Federer do what even Serena did, and win all 4 slams in 12 months, then we can talk.

[beyond the sea]

5 years from now Federer will be gasping for breath as he battles an up and coming 24 year old while Tiger Woods will still be playing strong.

Interesting take.

But may I say, that just because tennis is a much more physically tough sport, and a player's career is much shorter because of that, there is no reason to base your decision on that.

I say if Roger plays the way he's playing now for the next four or five years, he and Tiger are right there on the same level.

And I think Roger will continue at this level

****

Rod Laver on Roger:

"He's a great champion and has proved it all along that he plays his best tennis in finals. I think he's certainly on his way.

"When I look at Pete Sampras, we all thought, 'could you get any better than Pete Sampras and his mark as being a great, great champion'?

"I think Roger is really in the middle of his career ... and the way he's compiling the grand slam titles, I think he's got a great chance of being the best ever.

"I have to believe it because he's got every shot in the book, and his experience of late seems to be (that) he's stepping it up even further.

"Just the shots that he uses in a match is quite incredible. He knows the safe zone and he knows when to hit out and go for winners.

"You don't see him being passed very often when he comes to the net and that's because he comes in at the right time. Sometimes (there is) the surprise attack and other times it's just (after) dipping the ball at a person's foot.

"I think the art of Roger is probably the best player I've ever seen."

****

[beyond the sea]

Who Is the More Dominant Performer? (Woods, Federer Dazzle) .......... Who is Mr. Dazzle?

LOL

I guess I should have put a comma between Federer and Mr. Dazzle.

;-)

[beyond the sea]

Boy this is tough.... what do their wives look like?

Well, here is one. I don't think Roger is married.

****

****

[beyond the sea]

"We can go back and forth but I'd just leave it that both of them are among the best ever in their sport and both of them dominate and are head and shoulders above the current competition. It should be a joy to watch them in their primes instead of arguing over who's better."

No one could have said it better. (jmo)

[ShawTaylor]

"I say if Roger plays the way he's playing now for the next four or five years, he and Tiger are right there on the same level.

And I think Roger will continue at this level"

Nicklaus won the Masters at 41.
Tiger is every bit as strong, fit and good as Nicklaus was.
I don't know anyone who has won a men's singles tennis slam when they were 41 in the recent past.
Tiger will be wining slams for longer than Federer will.

[Alberta's Child]

The 4 slams for golf are every bit as different as the 4 slams of tennis, especially the British Open.

No, they aren't. When you realize that the difference between a fairway that is cut "long" and one that is cut "short" is about 3/16ths of an inch in grass length, then you'd have a hard time making the case that there is much of a difference from one course to the next.

In addition to the clay court surface at the French Open, Wimbledon is played on grass.

Not to mention Serena has already won ALL 4 slams in 12 months, playing on the same surfaces that Federer has.

Women's tennis isn't subject to the same variations between surfaces as men's tennis -- mainly because women can't dominate the game on some surfaces with 135+ MPH serves like men can.

I'd also make the case that Serena Williams has been so hopped-up on steroids over the years that she's basically a man playing in the womens' bracket anyway.

[beyond the sea]

ping

[Hatteras]

Well then... it looks as though the answer is clear. Tiger wins. Game, set and match. Thank you for playing, Roger.