I was going to write a post comparing Tiger Woods and Roger Federer. This was a big weekend for both of them. Tiger extended his PGA Tour win streak to seven consecutive tournaments, while Federer won his third consecutive Grand Slam and his sixth out of the past seven. They are both on remarkable runs and deserve all of the attention that they are each getting.
Comparing the two is a lot of fun, but it leads to nowhere. There is no way that anyone can convince me that one is more dominant at his respective sport than the other. The reason that it is a fun topic to debate is because they each have such amazing statistics to back up their case. The negatives for each player are so few and are so tough to magnify enough to compare them to the strengths.
I enjoy watching and playing both tennis and golf. I would have to say though that my loyalty resides with tennis. I played a lot when I was younger and I started watching it at a much younger age than golf. Again, I will make it clear that I think Woods and Federer are on the same level, but I am more sensitive to Federers' case. I feel like he does not get the full respect and attention he deserves. There are two reasons for this. One is that he plays a sports that is not tremendously popular in the U.S. Golf is much more popular that tennis, in participation, TV ratings and gate attendance. As a result the media puts more attention to the sports, and as a result Tiger. The other reason is that Tiger is from the US, while Federer is from Switzerland. It is natural for the US born player to get more attention from the US media. In any event, slowly but surely Federer is beginning to get the attention that he deserves to the the remarkable things that he is doing on the court.
ESPN.com decided to have two of their writers each compose a short blurb about why Tiger is better and why Federer is better. The reason I bring this up is because I think that Jason Sobel (case for Tiger) wrote one of the more horrendous pieces that I have ever seen. He showed a lack of a basic concept of comparison across sports. Here is the link for reference...
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2746501
When comparing different sports, you have to acknowledge the difference in sports from the beginning and debate under those constraints. For instance, in baseball a good batting average is .300 or better. That means a batter is getting a hit 30% of his at-bats. In basketball, a good field goal percentage is 50%, meaning a player makes 50% of his shots taken. From the beginning of the argument, it has to be recognized that this type of disparity of stats makes these sports different. Whether one is harder than the other means nothing. You have to compare the individuals' level of dominance within the sport to the other athletes' level of dominance within their sport.
Sobel basically just makes the case that Federer faces one player per match, while Tiger goes up against 155. This argument is so ridiculous. If he wants to twist the circumstances like this, then I will say that Federer has to win every single match he plays. He does not have the ability to be down six strokes after one round (like Tiger was in the Buick Invitational). If that was the case, Federer would be eliminated in the first round. The argument I am making is just as crazy as Sobels' though. The bottom line is that Tiger is in his own world when it comes to golf. He has 12 Majors (18 is the all time record) and he is only 31. He has potentially about 15 more years of performance at or close to his prime. Federer has 10 Grand Slams (14 is the all time record) and he is only 25. He has potentially about six more years at or close to his prime. Both players should destroy these records.
Crazy Stats for each...
Tiger
Won each major twice
Won the "Tiger Slam" (held each Major at the same time, but not in same year)
Won seven consecutive PGA Tour tournaments (and counting...)
77 career tournament wins
Federer
First player to three-peat at the US Open and Wimbledon in the same three year span
Made the Finals of seven consecutive Grand Slams (and counting...)
Won 46 career titles
A record of 254-15 since the beginning of 2004
Federer has not won the French Open yet, which is the only blemish on his record. When comparing him to the other all-time tennis greats though, this is common (John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Pete Sampras never won the French, Bjorn Borg never won the US Open). I could get into more depth about this, but again, I think an argument is on this is dumb. Both are great athletes and these might be the two best we see in our lifetime.
Other notes
- Some people hate on Rafael Nadal (only won on clay) and Phil Mickleson (man boobs), but you have to respect the fact that each have won multiple Majors within these great runs of both Tiger and Federer. Nadal and Mickelson have had the unfortunate luck of their primes coinciding with possibly the greatest players of all time in their sports. What these guys are doing will always be underrated. Mickelson might have more prime left than Nadal considering that golfers have a longer shelf-life and small tennis playes peak early in their careers (Michael Chang, Leyton Hewitt, etc).
- Great performance by Jamal Crawford on Friday night in the Garden. It was fun to be there and watch, but it still bothered me. Its not like he was taking better shots than usual. He was still taking the same idiotic shots, but they just happened to be going in. Last night he started the game 1-9 from the field.
- Everyone is doubting the Spurs, but they are still playing .650 ball...
- One good thing for the Bears...the Super Bowl will be outdoors and on grass..
- Happy belated birfday Relaxo..
- Helton to the Red Sox would leave them a little heavy on lefties right? Manny is the best right handed hitter in the AL, but what about when his "knee" acts up midway through the season...Still worth it for the Sox though..
STKAFI
6 comments:
Until Federer wins at Roland Garros, he's not in the same echelon as Woods. I realize that playing on clay as compared to grass in tennis is so much different than playing on an American course as compared to a British course in golf. However, until he wins all 4 majors, you have to give Woods the edge.
Made a bet with my buddy before the finals that Federer wouldnt drop a set...felt so confident in it that I put a bottle on it. he made me pause when he told me that Federer had yet to lose a set and that history was against him...but it just made my sapphire taste that much sweeter
I was having an interesting discussion the other day... is the depth of golf and tennis worse/better today then in the past? I mean in tennis, when you had Connors, Lendle, J-Mac, etc... was there more depth or is Woods and Federer just dwarfing the competition to the point that it makes it looks worse then it is.
I have to believe there is more depth today, golfers and tennis players 50-100 have to be better today then they were a generation ago.
But i don't know the answer about who's better 2-20. Federer and Woods make arguments like this difficult because they don't allow others to accumulate titles. People instead are basically beating each other up in the earlier rounds and taking turns in the finals and final parings.
I think its an impossible comparison for one reason. Strength training and physical conditioning is such an important part of sports today. Guys back in the 60's and 70's, even early to mid 80's, relied mostly just on talent and practice. I think some of the harder working guys on the tennis tour would have done whatever it takes to stay at the top, however maybe McEnroe is more diligent in the weight room then Connors, or Lendl than Bjorg? I think a better example would be in golf. Arnie Palmer is known as a big time boozer, even when he was in his prime. He could get away on talent alone, but could you imagine that in todays game. He'd be just another golfer, despite his enormous talent.
I mean I would say at least in golf you can judge it on scores, and the counter would obviously be courses are longer now.
I mean it's the technology also. Tennis rackets, golf clubs, golf balls have all changed the way these sports are played.
In tennis everyone smashes from the baseline, gone is even a player like Sampras who would routinely serve and volley.
In golf, everyone can drive the ball 300 yards. Yes i agree it's an impossible comparison, but we can try.
The comparison of the athletes today and in the past is as interesting as it is pointless. Specially in our generation, we don't have a great sample and in most cases stats don't tell the whole story. Sometimes i think people don't even appreciate HOW SO different a game is from say one decade to the next. When you watch footage of the babe hitting dingers you can actually see him take two steps forward as he's swinging, like he was playing in a softball game. all the sports have changed so drastically and will continue to do so. football players have pretty much ceased to be human and in twenty years nfl teams will probably start growing their players in test tubes in labs.
Oh, and about Federer/Woods, cant compare them either. I wanna say Federer is the man, but when you look at the other guy, there is NO FLAW... Tiger is so incredible.. and vice versa. Just for the record, i think its easier to win a tennis major than a golf major... you're playing against opponents and course changes every year and every round... Those USOpens where guys win it over par!? In the end, who knows, but i will finish by declaring that Federer winning the French is a foregone conclusion...
Post a Comment