Jump to content

Welcome, Guest. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfOpinions such as viewing all the images, interacting with existing members and access to certain forums. Join our community today and enter into a chance to win a free regular giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfOpinions account here.


Tiger or Federer?


  • You cannot reply to this topic
135 replies to this topic

#121 brannyxx

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,588 posts

Posted 26 January 2007 - 01:13 AM

Quote

Originally posted by ytones I have seen the Pyramids of Egypt, the Great Wall of China, I have seen a grown man satisfy a donkey*..... but I have never seen anyone in any sport play to the level of Roger Federer in his match against Andy Roddick in the Aussie Open semis. * anyway know the movie this quote is from?
i beg to differ.... i still get goosebumps watching st andrews 2000 that was the most perfect display of golf ever..... if you want to throw in pebble 2000 as well,   as well, look at fed's record vs arod....  what is it? 9 straight... forgone conclusion...a rods a punk anyway, how is he different from the scud? or Safin? well, at least Safin has a major right?  just another punk with a big gun..... anyway... i'll beg to differ, As well,   we will never see anything like the destructive force of mike tyson in his prime..... again......    Cus D'amato created the ultimate killing machine...

HKGA H'cap: 7.4

Driver - **Just Arrived : Nike SQ TOUR 9.5* Mitsubishi Rayon Blue Board 83grams X Flex D4sw, 44.75inches.  GP Dual Durometer Cord 53grams.
3W - *NEW* Titleist 906H2 15* - X100 42.5in
3I-PW - Callaway X-18 Pro Series DGSS X-100 (minus 1 inch)
Wedges: 52* NIKE SV
56* **N

#122 teffe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 26 January 2007 - 03:41 AM

have to agree with ytones. I have never seen anything comparable. What Federer showed against Roddick was unbelievable. And it was not Roddick playing badly, he played very good tennis in this tournament, it was Federer just crashing him. If you would compare it with Golf this would be a 59 on a very windy day in St. Andrews teffe

#123 skinkman

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,336 posts

Posted 26 January 2007 - 09:01 AM

Roddick tried to play a finesse game against Federer. He had a better chance just blasting away. You can't out finesse the grand wizard. Federer thought he played really well. ACtually thought he played as he always does. Roddick is the one who had no mental fortitude to change his game plan when it did not work. Federer is the best tennis player ever...I am a huge Sampras/Aggassi fan..but he would just be too good for these two even at their prime. Amazingly Federer used to be a terrible choker...well, he got over that. I also watched Gonzalez, another guy with a new game destroy Haas last night. I thought that was more impressive, since he did not have winning record against Haas. He made Haas look like a 3rd tier player...should be a good final if Gonzo does not choke in his first ever final...
"If you step on a pile of poop, wash your feet and keep on walking. You don’t cut them off."

#124 ytones

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts
  • LocationCambridge, MA

Posted 26 January 2007 - 09:17 AM

Quote

Originally posted by brannyxx i beg to differ.... i still get goosebumps watching st andrews 2000 that was the most perfect display of golf ever..... if you want to throw in pebble 2000 as well,   as well, look at fed's record vs arod....  what is it? 9 straight... forgone conclusion...a rods a punk anyway, how is he different from the scud? or Safin? well, at least Safin has a major right?  just another punk with a big gun..... anyway... i'll beg to differ, As well,   we will never see anything like the destructive force of mike tyson in his prime..... again......    Cus D'amato created the ultimate killing machine...
I think PB was the more dominant display BTW. 15 strokes in a US Open... unlikely we'll see that again. Tyson was fun for about a two years... until a much taller heavyweight solved the problem. He was simply as you stated, a creation of Cus D'Amato who started to crumble as soon as the old man died. Federer and Woods on the other move from Coach to Coach and still retain their extraordinary abilities. I think Rochey may have even kicked up Roger's game a notch if that is possible.   To imagine what someone like Ali would have done to Tyson... run the Tape of Zaire in 1974, and take about 5 inches off George Foreman and about 2 rounds off the fight....
R7 425 TP Tour 8.5* w/Reax Rombax
15* R7 TP w/Vista Pro 80
19* SuperPro CVB w/NV 75
585H 21* w/NV 85
4-PW X-300 FCI DGS 300
SW-Vokey 456.12
LW-Vokey 460.6
Ping G2i C67
[si

#125 brannyxx

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,588 posts

Posted 26 January 2007 - 05:17 PM

Quote

Originally posted by ytones I think PB was the more dominant display BTW. 15 strokes in a US Open... unlikely we'll see that again. Tyson was fun for about a two years... until a much taller heavyweight solved the problem. He was simply as you stated, a creation of Cus D'Amato who started to crumble as soon as the old man died. Federer and Woods on the other move from Coach to Coach and still retain their extraordinary abilities. I think Rochey may have even kicked up Roger's game a notch if that is possible.   To imagine what someone like Ali would have done to Tyson... run the Tape of Zaire in 1974, and take about 5 inches off George Foreman and about 2 rounds off the fight....
regarding zaire i have taped the fight from espn classic i have When we were kings i have ALI (will smith does honor to his character, but with those toothpick teeth it was hard to picture the king) ALI was a technician, a different era.  Tyson, a machine meant for one thing: destruction, faught in a period much like tiger, some impressive names, but no one considered to be future 'legends' of the game.  Unfortunately Holyfield came much later in his much disturbed life.  As soon as JJ lost control over Tyson to DK, it was over.  The Tokyo fight where his downfall began was just sad... but back to your stating about the best display in any SINGLE event....in all sports... i still beg to differ... Roddick is a punk.... and this 'domination' of him...eh, so what? Federer has his number 9 straight.... i think that any of punks that tyson faught was equally impressive... don't know if you saw the fight against Michael Sphinx's son....  that lasted all of 4 punches.....

HKGA H'cap: 7.4

Driver - **Just Arrived : Nike SQ TOUR 9.5* Mitsubishi Rayon Blue Board 83grams X Flex D4sw, 44.75inches.  GP Dual Durometer Cord 53grams.
3W - *NEW* Titleist 906H2 15* - X100 42.5in
3I-PW - Callaway X-18 Pro Series DGSS X-100 (minus 1 inch)
Wedges: 52* NIKE SV
56* **N

#126 JonnyGolf

    Members

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted 27 January 2007 - 01:04 AM

Team sport, not the same.

Quote

Originally posted by GeorgeM Either will be second to Armstrong who has already set the career record in cycling.

    

#127 joo

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,330 posts

Posted 27 January 2007 - 01:24 AM

Quote

Originally posted by brannyxx regarding zaire i have taped the fight from espn classic i have When we were kings i have ALI (will smith does honor to his character, but with those toothpick teeth it was hard to picture the king) ALI was a technician, a different era.  Tyson, a machine meant for one thing: destruction, faught in a period much like tiger, some impressive names, but no one considered to be future 'legends' of the game.  Unfortunately Holyfield came much later in his much disturbed life.  As soon as JJ lost control over Tyson to DK, it was over.  The Tokyo fight where his downfall began was just sad... but back to your stating about the best display in any SINGLE event....in all sports... i still beg to differ... Roddick is a punk.... and this 'domination' of him...eh, so what? Federer has his number 9 straight.... i think that any of punks that tyson faught was equally impressive... don't know if you saw the fight against Michael Sphinx's son....  that lasted all of 4 punches.....
Despite the possible start of  Tysons decline,  Buster Doughlas's knockout of Tyson is almost unanimously considered one of (Top 5) greatest upsets in boxing history. A truly inspired performance. Not uncommon for atheletes to have great performances after losing a loved one or someone intimately involved in their carrers. Douglas lost his mother weeks before the Tyson fight. I remember Crenshaws Masters win after Penick died. Many many other instances.

#128 ytones

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts
  • LocationCambridge, MA

Posted 28 January 2007 - 03:59 PM

Quote

Originally posted by brannyxx ALI was a technician, a different era.  Tyson, a machine meant for one thing: destruction, faught in a period much like tiger, some impressive names, but no one considered to be future 'legends' of the game.   But back to your stating about the best display in any SINGLE event....in all sports... i still beg to differ... Roddick is a punk.... and this 'domination' of him...eh, so what? Federer has his number 9 straight....
Thanks for making my point... Tyson was one dimensional. He only fought one person who would be a hall of fame caliber boxer near their peak... i.e. Holyfield and lost twice. Ali fought, Liston, Chavullo (sp?), Frazier, Norton, Cooper, Foreman etc.... and only lost to Frazier-one out of three. Tyson would have quit on his stool during any of these fights if he wasn't taken out beforehand. The fact that Federer beat Roddick is hardly the point, it's the method of beating him and the shots played.*  Roddick and Gonzalez were two of the hottest players on tour in the last couple of months and Federer cooled them off-quick. As I type this, the mere thought of Tiger is causing the leaders of the Buick to make course management decisions that make Roddick look like a Mensa member and hand him another tournament. If Federer had won 20 of his tournaments by simply waiting for his opponents to seize up in the finals rendering them incapable of hitting a backhand into the court I'd say that you be looking at about 20 of Tiger's PGA Tour wins. Tiger can only play his game, but the lack of legitimate final round competitors devalues some of his victories in my eyes. * Roddick may appear to be a 'punk' to you but he is major winner, a former world Number 1 and has reached the final of at least four majors. If we were talking about a player like Paradorn Schrichipan I think you'd be using the term "gallant competitor outplayed by Swiss performance enhancing drug taker". :rolleyes:
R7 425 TP Tour 8.5* w/Reax Rombax
15* R7 TP w/Vista Pro 80
19* SuperPro CVB w/NV 75
585H 21* w/NV 85
4-PW X-300 FCI DGS 300
SW-Vokey 456.12
LW-Vokey 460.6
Ping G2i C67
[si

#129 brannyxx

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,588 posts

Posted 28 January 2007 - 05:19 PM

Quote

Originally posted by ytones Thanks for making my point... Tyson was one dimensional. He only fought one person who would be a hall of fame caliber boxer near their peak... i.e. Holyfield and lost twice. Ali fought, Liston, Chavullo (sp?), Frazier, Norton, Cooper, Foreman etc.... and only lost to Frazier-one out of three. Tyson would have quit on his stool during any of these fights if he wasn't taken out beforehand. The fact that Federer beat Roddick is hardly the point, it's the method of beating him and the shots played.*  Roddick and Gonzalez were two of the hottest players on tour in the last couple of months and Federer cooled them off-quick. As I type this, the mere thought of Tiger is causing the leaders of the Buick to make course management decisions that make Roddick look like a Mensa member and hand him another tournament. If Federer had won 20 of his tournaments by simply waiting for his opponents to seize up in the finals rendering them incapable of hitting a backhand into the court I'd say that you be looking at about 20 of Tiger's PGA Tour wins. Tiger can only play his game, but the lack of legitimate final round competitors devalues some of his victories in my eyes. * Roddick may appear to be a 'punk' to you but he is major winner, a former world Number 1 and has reached the final of at least four majors. If we were talking about a player like Paradorn Schrichipan I think you'd be using the term "gallant competitor outplayed by Swiss performance enhancing drug taker". :rolleyes:
lets get back to YOUR point... which was fed vs arod semi being the most dominant display in ALL Sports history.... I think Serena's demolishing of the world #1  pretty much put that SF match to shame. Serena made Maria , well , cry like a little girl. This was the world #1 this was the Final... As far as tyson, again, you are talking about different eras... and to say that Arod is comparable to any of ali's foes... well that is just laughable.  Arod is a punk, and should be compared as such which i was comparing to any of tyson's many 1st round knockouts.  Arod beat fed in an EXHIBITION.... don't mean jack....One dimensional? please, take the serve away from arod, and what do you have?  yes, the omar uresti of the ATP....
HKGA H'cap: 7.4

Driver - **Just Arrived : Nike SQ TOUR 9.5* Mitsubishi Rayon Blue Board 83grams X Flex D4sw, 44.75inches.  GP Dual Durometer Cord 53grams.
3W - *NEW* Titleist 906H2 15* - X100 42.5in
3I-PW - Callaway X-18 Pro Series DGSS X-100 (minus 1 inch)
Wedges: 52* NIKE SV
56* **N

#130 skinkman

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,336 posts

Posted 28 January 2007 - 06:17 PM

Quote

One dimensional? please, take the serve away from arod, and what do you have? yes, the omar uresti of the ATP....
There seemed to be a lot of press for while about Tiger not having good competition on tour and will waltz through to Jack's record as a result. That's died down a bit over the past few years, thanks to VJ and Phil's run. My question is, I have not heard the same questions raised around Federer. He is either way too good, which is what it seems like, or the guys aren't providing enough competition and will also waltz through to break Sampras' record. I think we should just enjoy and be grateful for being witnesses to possibly the greatest two stars ever...I still think dominating golf is tougher..:p  much tougher...

"If you step on a pile of poop, wash your feet and keep on walking. You don’t cut them off."

#131 ytones

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts
  • LocationCambridge, MA

Posted 28 January 2007 - 10:03 PM

Quote

Originally posted by brannyxx lets get back to YOUR point... which was fed vs arod semi being the most dominant display in ALL Sports history.... I think Serena's demolishing of the world #1  pretty much put that SF match to shame. Serena made Maria , well , cry like a little girl. This was the world #1 this was the Final... As far as tyson, again, you are talking about different eras... and to say that Arod is comparable to any of ali's foes... well that is just laughable.  Arod is a punk, and should be compared as such which i was comparing to any of tyson's many 1st round knockouts.  Arod beat fed in an EXHIBITION.... don't mean jack....One dimensional? please, take the serve away from arod, and what do you have?  yes, the omar uresti of the ATP....
I'm sorry... but in the US, when you write Arod I'm thinking about the Yankee 3rd baseman who disappears at playoff time... That Arod needs to win a World Series to be compared to Andy Roddick, who SHOULD win another major IF he sticks with Jimmy Connors... If you saw Roddick's post match press conference after the semis you would know exactly what happened out on the court. Roddick played well in that match and still got killed and he was mad, not because he lost, but because he just realized how wide the gap was between him and Federer is when it counts. I'm not going into the Serena v Maria thing except to say that, having attended the Australian Open on many occasions, Serena and Venus have walked by me several times on the way to an outside court. She is one of the few women in the world I wouldn't fancy myself against in an arm wrestle-or any other kind of wrestle for that matter. Once her fitness and timing comes together she is still the best in the world. No argument from me on that one. Getting back to the ACTUAL Subject: Tiger v Federer. They are both transcendent athletes, and even though it is hard to gauge the relative strength of the opposition they face, I would say that if Greg Norman faced the level of "competition" Tiger got today when he was World Number 1 the Shark would have won about 35 PGA tour events and 6 majors during his career. Can we just get someone ripping Tiger's heart out in major a couple of times and see how he comes back? What Rick Beem did to him at the 2002 PGA barely counts, but we at least saw that he can be the first guy to blink. Co-incidence that Tiger didn't win another major for 2 years after that? I think not. I believe Tiger would eventually come back as good as ever even after a couple of these events, but it would at least add something to my viewing pleasure. Watching guys throw up on their shoes if Tiger is within 3 shots on the last nine is getting... old. If Tiger faces anything like the opposition that Jack faced during his career he should have at least 12 seconds on the way to 19 majors... I think he'll get to 19 well  before he reaches double figures on the seconds. Tiger should make it to 19 around sometime in 2010. I think Federer will make it to 15 at next year's US Open and go very close to 20 by the time he is finished. To skink's point, when Jack and Sampras were setting their records, there were many guys still playing who had multiple majors. Courier, Agassi, Becker... although Sampras did have a couple of soft years in the mid 90s when these guys retired and Agassi was busy dating Barbara Streisand. Jack had Arnie, Player, Floyd, Irwin, Stockton, Casper, Trevino, Miller, Watson, Jacklin, Ballesteros all winning two and in many cases 5-6 majors during his career. That's competition from your peers. Tiger has Vijay, Ernie and Phil all on 3 majors apiece and Retief on two. At this stage, I'm prepared to give these guys another 2-3 between them in the next 5 years. Hopefully, people like Geoff Ogilvy can continue on with his form, because he looks like he might sack up when the pressure is on, given the fact he had about 9 putts on the last nine at Winged Foot.
R7 425 TP Tour 8.5* w/Reax Rombax
15* R7 TP w/Vista Pro 80
19* SuperPro CVB w/NV 75
585H 21* w/NV 85
4-PW X-300 FCI DGS 300
SW-Vokey 456.12
LW-Vokey 460.6
Ping G2i C67
[si

#132 skinkman

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,336 posts

Posted 29 January 2007 - 07:19 AM

Quote

To skink's point, when Jack and Sampras were setting their records, there were many guys still playing who had multiple majors. Courier, Agassi, Becker... although Sampras did have a couple of soft years in the mid 90s when these guys retired and Agassi was busy dating Barbara Streisand. Jack had Arnie, Player, Floyd, Irwin, Stockton, Casper, Trevino, Miller, Watson, Jacklin, Ballesteros all winning two and in many cases 5-6 majors during his career. That's competition from your peers.
you don't seem to have a problem with Federer's lack of competition. You make it seem it is well deserved because he is that much better than his peers...yet..you insinuate that Tiger's achievements are being done without adequate competition from his peers. I don't get it..makes no sense..they are both either that much better than the competition or not..and just have terrible opposition. I can say that about tennis..not about golf..Federer's opposition is non-existent. Can't say the same for Tiger..not golf..it's totally different a sport from tennis. Tiger can't rely on poor performances from one man, he has to beat a multitude of men to win...
"If you step on a pile of poop, wash your feet and keep on walking. You don’t cut them off."

#133 ytones

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts
  • LocationCambridge, MA

Posted 29 January 2007 - 07:55 AM

Quote

Originally posted by skinkman you don't seem to have a problem with Federer's lack of competition. You make it seem it is well deserved because he is that much better than his peers...yet..you insinuate that Tiger's achievements are being done without adequate competition from his peers. I don't get it..makes no sense..they are both either that much better than the competition or not..and just have terrible opposition. I can say that about tennis..not about golf..Federer's opposition is non-existent. Can't say the same for Tiger..not golf..it's totally different a sport from tennis. Tiger can't rely on poor performances from one man, he has to beat a multitude of men to win...
On the contrary, I think Federer might be getting to the same point as Tiger. He's definitely in the head of his competitors... I have noticed a pattern in Federer matches in the later rounds of the last 4-5 majors. Guys like Roddick etc... come in playing their best tennis and figure if they throw everything at Roger in the first set and win it things might get interesting... inevitably they lose the set and suffer a let down when they realise their best stuff is not going to get it done. The next two sets then go by fairly quickly. I give Gonzales some credit for hanging in there on Sunday. The only time Federer has lost it in the finals of a major was the French last year when his backhand was all over the place and he couldn't fix it during the match. He's obviously worked on that with Tony Roche because that shot looked flawless in the last couple of weeks. Nadal + 1 or 2 others at the French Open represent the only major obstacle to Federer winning the Grand Slam this year. We'll have to see how his clay court game has come along when the season starts in April. BTW-Worth noting that in the only event similarly constructed, Tiger is 2/7 at the MatchPlay with several early round exits. Weird that he would dominate stroke play events more than matchplay but there you have it.
R7 425 TP Tour 8.5* w/Reax Rombax
15* R7 TP w/Vista Pro 80
19* SuperPro CVB w/NV 75
585H 21* w/NV 85
4-PW X-300 FCI DGS 300
SW-Vokey 456.12
LW-Vokey 460.6
Ping G2i C67
[si

#134 skinkman

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,336 posts

Posted 29 January 2007 - 08:37 AM

Quote

BTW-Worth noting that in the only event similarly constructed, Tiger is 2/7 at the MatchPlay with several early round exits. Weird that he would dominate stroke play events more than matchplay but there you have it.
I think he's won that event 3 times. You can't really compare a matchplay 18 hole (36 in the final) to anything in tennis. If they played one set only that would come close. The 36 hole final more often than not favours the better player..if he can get there
"If you step on a pile of poop, wash your feet and keep on walking. You don’t cut them off."

#135 ytones

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 823 posts
  • LocationCambridge, MA

Posted 29 January 2007 - 09:55 AM

Quote

Originally posted by skinkman I think he's won that event 3 times. You can't really compare a matchplay 18 hole (36 in the final) to anything in tennis. If they played one set only that would come close. The 36 hole final more often than not favours the better player..if he can get there
He's one it twice in the eight years it has been held... but I think he's skippped it at least once. Personally, 18 holes is enough to indicate who the better player is ON THE DAY. Which is usually what Tiger says when he takes it on the chin from Peter O'Malley etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WGC-Accenture_Match_Play_Championship BTW- What's your theory on why Tiger lost in the first round of the Matchplay event at Wentworth before the Ryder Cup? Every round there is 36 holes... For a guy who won a USGA Matchplay event 6 years running his record in that format has not been as good as you might think... esp. when he has been the dominant number one for almost 7 out of the 10 years he has been a pro–you can add his Ryder Cup record in here too. I think the fact are both competitors are "playing the course" rather than playing each other as Federer does in tennis is part of the explanation. Whatever Tiger does, it doesn' make your next shot any more physically difficult, not exactly the case w/Federer.

R7 425 TP Tour 8.5* w/Reax Rombax
15* R7 TP w/Vista Pro 80
19* SuperPro CVB w/NV 75
585H 21* w/NV 85
4-PW X-300 FCI DGS 300
SW-Vokey 456.12
LW-Vokey 460.6
Ping G2i C67
[si

#136 skinkman

    GO Advanced Members

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,336 posts

Posted 29 January 2007 - 10:27 AM

Quote

BTW- What's your theory on why Tiger lost in the first round of the Matchplay event at Wentworth before the Ryder Cup? Every round there is 36 holes... For a guy who won a USGA Matchplay event 6 years running his record in that format has not been as good as you might think... esp. when he has been the dominant number one for almost 7 out of the 10 years he has been a pro–you can add his Ryder Cup record in here too.
don't know really. Poor putting is what I saw that day and some incredible play from Micheel. Combo. As for the Ryder Cup, too many theories..maybe he just sucks at team sports:) .. Look..tennis is tough. The athletic ability these top guys need are increbile..especially with the new racquets and fitness. A lot of tennis is reactionary too. A moving ball. the only bad bounce is the net or a skid off a sideline... Golf is too mental..too slowly suffocating for human instinct. That's why I place it tougher to to dominate than tennis. Federer cruises to these majors..Only Nadal stops him at the French. This year I think he will actually win the French...you can't say the same about Tiger in the majors...golf's not tennis..
"If you step on a pile of poop, wash your feet and keep on walking. You don’t cut them off."



0 user(s) are reading this topic

members, guests, anonymous users