30 Jan 2007 20:44:54
Kermit The Frog
Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

Cool article drawing parallels between Tiger and Roger.

Although what both guys are trying to do is amazingly hard and they're
both dominating their respective sports, I don't think comparing golf
to tennis really works.

In golf, you're really playing against yourself, sure there's a huge
psychological side to the game, especially if the guy on top is 10
strokes ahead of you or only 1 stroke behind you, but your opponents
don't directly affect your game. In tennis, there are two players in
each match, so not only do you have to control your game, but you have
to react to the other guy who's trying to impose his game on you.
Tiger could play a course against the # 2 in the world or against a
one legged, half blind pirate and theoretically, his final score could
be exactly the same... not so with tennis.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878



31 Jan 2007 20:57:51
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

Kermit The Frog wrote:
> Cool article drawing parallels between Tiger and Roger.
>
> Although what both guys are trying to do is amazingly hard and they're
> both dominating their respective sports, I don't think comparing golf
> to tennis really works.
>
> In golf, you're really playing against yourself, sure there's a huge
> psychological side to the game, especially if the guy on top is 10
> strokes ahead of you or only 1 stroke behind you, but your opponents
> don't directly affect your game. In tennis, there are two players in
> each match, so not only do you have to control your game, but you have
> to react to the other guy who's trying to impose his game on you.
> Tiger could play a course against the # 2 in the world or against a
> one legged, half blind pirate and theoretically, his final score could
> be exactly the same... not so with tennis.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
>


Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
to beat 1 guy at a time. In golf you're playing the field & many
intangibles simultaneously.

Tiger is far greater than any golfer or tennis player ever - & he's far
from done.



31 Jan 2007 05:06:51
robin
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On 31 Jan, 09:57, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
> to beat 1 guy at a time. In golf you're playing the field & many
> intangibles simultaneously.
>
> Tiger is far greater than any golfer or tennis player ever - & he's far
> from done.

Golf is a game, not a sport. You can be a top player as an old man
with a beer gut in golf.




31 Jan 2007 06:31:48
Joe Ramirez
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On Jan 31, 4:57 am, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> Kermit The Frog wrote:
> > Cool article drawing parallels between Tiger and Roger.
>
> > Although what both guys are trying to do is amazingly hard and they're
> > both dominating their respective sports, I don't think comparing golf
> > to tennis really works.
>
> > In golf, you're really playing against yourself, sure there's a huge
> > psychological side to the game, especially if the guy on top is 10
> > strokes ahead of you or only 1 stroke behind you, but your opponents
> > don't directly affect your game. In tennis, there are two players in
> > each match, so not only do you have to control your game, but you have
> > to react to the other guy who's trying to impose his game on you.
> > Tiger could play a course against the # 2 in the world or against a
> > one legged, half blind pirate and theoretically, his final score could
> > be exactly the same... not so with tennis.
>
> >http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
>
> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
> to beat 1 guy at a time.

This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
him.

Joe Ramirez



31 Jan 2007 14:38:14
Dave Hazelwood
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On 31 Jan 2007 06:31:48 -0800, "Joe Ramirez"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Jan 31, 4:57 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Kermit The Frog wrote:
>> > Cool article drawing parallels between Tiger and Roger.
>>
>> > Although what both guys are trying to do is amazingly hard and they're
>> > both dominating their respective sports, I don't think comparing golf
>> > to tennis really works.
>>
>> > In golf, you're really playing against yourself, sure there's a huge
>> > psychological side to the game, especially if the guy on top is 10
>> > strokes ahead of you or only 1 stroke behind you, but your opponents
>> > don't directly affect your game. In tennis, there are two players in
>> > each match, so not only do you have to control your game, but you have
>> > to react to the other guy who's trying to impose his game on you.
>> > Tiger could play a course against the # 2 in the world or against a
>> > one legged, half blind pirate and theoretically, his final score could
>> > be exactly the same... not so with tennis.
>>
>> >http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
>>
>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
>> to beat 1 guy at a time.
>
>This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
>that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
>with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
>time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
>him.
>
>Joe Ramirez

Yup. Let's see even the great Tiger take on 7 top pro's one on one in
7 consecutive matches and if he loses one he is OUT ! Then, lets see
him win 8 out of such 12 over 3 years and then we can talk about it.


31 Jan 2007 06:42:17
Adam Thirnis
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On 31 Jan, 14:31, "Joe Ramirez" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:57 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Kermit The Frog wrote:
> > > Cool article drawing parallels between Tiger and Roger.
>
> > > Although what both guys are trying to do is amazingly hard and they're
> > > both dominating their respective sports, I don't think comparing golf
> > > to tennis really works.
>
> > > In golf, you're really playing against yourself, sure there's a huge
> > > psychological side to the game, especially if the guy on top is 10
> > > strokes ahead of you or only 1 stroke behind you, but your opponents
> > > don't directly affect your game. In tennis, there are two players in
> > > each match, so not only do you have to control your game, but you have
> > > to react to the other guy who's trying to impose his game on you.
> > > Tiger could play a course against the # 2 in the world or against a
> > > one legged, half blind pirate and theoretically, his final score could
> > > be exactly the same... not so with tennis.
>
> > >http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
>
> > Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
> > to beat 1 guy at a time.
>
> This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
> that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
> with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
> time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
> him.

have to wonder if it's golf's clown era - nicklaus had player, watson,
trevino etc whereas tiger has mickelson/goosen types. or is tiger like
federer - just an exceptional talent who is way better than the rest?



31 Jan 2007 16:50:27
Sakari Lund
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On 31 Jan 2007 06:31:48 -0800, "Joe Ramirez"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Jan 31, 4:57 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Kermit The Frog wrote:
>> > Cool article drawing parallels between Tiger and Roger.
>>
>> > Although what both guys are trying to do is amazingly hard and they're
>> > both dominating their respective sports, I don't think comparing golf
>> > to tennis really works.
>>
>> > In golf, you're really playing against yourself, sure there's a huge
>> > psychological side to the game, especially if the guy on top is 10
>> > strokes ahead of you or only 1 stroke behind you, but your opponents
>> > don't directly affect your game. In tennis, there are two players in
>> > each match, so not only do you have to control your game, but you have
>> > to react to the other guy who's trying to impose his game on you.
>> > Tiger could play a course against the # 2 in the world or against a
>> > one legged, half blind pirate and theoretically, his final score could
>> > be exactly the same... not so with tennis.
>>
>> >http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
>>
>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
>> to beat 1 guy at a time.
>
>This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
>that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
>with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
>time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
>him.

That is a good idea that could make golf more interesting.





01 Feb 2007 06:17:39
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

robin wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 09:57, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
>> to beat 1 guy at a time. In golf you're playing the field & many
>> intangibles simultaneously.
>>
>> Tiger is far greater than any golfer or tennis player ever - & he's far
>> from done.
>
> Golf is a game, not a sport. You can be a top player as an old man
> with a beer gut in golf.
>
>


Wrong. Tiger is athlete & goat - old men with guts can play tennis too.



31 Jan 2007 11:26:18
robin
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

Moron. I'd said top players not goats.
The fact that Tiger is an athlete does not alter the fact that there
are top players who are not.
Old men with guts cannot play tennis at the highest level.

On 31 Jan, 19:17, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> Wrong. Tiger is athlete & goat - old men with guts can play tennis too.




01 Feb 2007 06:27:27
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
>> to beat 1 guy at a time.
>
> This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
> that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
> with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
> time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
> him.
>
> Joe Ramirez
>



In tennis you can intimidate & influence what your opponent does by
applying strategy - in golf you're playing blind & hoping to do better
than the field - far more difficult.


31 Jan 2007 11:33:42
Adam Thirnis
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On 31 Jan, 19:17, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> > On 31 Jan, 09:57, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
> >> to beat 1 guy at a time. In golf you're playing the field & many
> >> intangibles simultaneously.
>
> >> Tiger is far greater than any golfer or tennis player ever - & he's far
> >> from done.
>
> > Golf is a game, not a sport. You can be a top player as an old man
> > with a beer gut in golf.
>
> Wrong. Tiger is athlete & goat - old men with guts can play tennis too.

no tiger is a great golfer and sportsman - but he's no athlete



31 Jan 2007 11:48:41
Joe Ramirez
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On Jan 31, 2:27 pm, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >>>http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
> >> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
> >> to beat 1 guy at a time.
>
> > This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
> > that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
> > with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
> > time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
> > him.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> In tennis you can intimidate & influence what your opponent does by
> applying strategy - in golf you're playing blind & hoping to do better
> than the field - far more difficult.

Yes, but in tennis your opponents can also apply strategy to *you*,
whereas in golf your opponents are "playing blind." You keep looking
at only half the equation.

Joe Ramirez



31 Jan 2007 13:23:48
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On Jan 31, 2:27 pm, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >>>http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
> >> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
> >> to beat 1 guy at a time.
>
> > This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
> > that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
> > with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
> > time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
> > him.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> In tennis you can intimidate & influence what your opponent does by
> applying strategy - in golf you're playing blind & hoping to do better
> than the field - far more difficult.

I agree. I hate when people like Mary Carillo say what Roger is doing
is better than Tiger.
It's normal for there to be dominant tennis players - look at Lendl's
win/loss in the 80s or Mac in '84, Sampras six straight
years No. 1, Agassi 99, etc.

After Fed's done, there will probably be other players in the near
future that at least approach his dominance. In
golf, I'm not sure there'll be another Tiger in our lifetime.

I like tennis as a sport better because you can affect your opponent's
play, but it's clearly much, much more
difficult to dominate in golf precisely because you can do nothing if
your competitor is in the *zone*, except of
course be *more in the zone*



31 Jan 2007 14:00:18
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

I agree, golf is not a sport. The number #2 player in golf has man
tits, for God's sake. No top tennis player (male) has ever had tits
out there. Mickelson wins majors and is a fat sow, that should tell
you something about gold being a "sport."



31 Jan 2007 22:04:23
Dave Hazelwood
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On 31 Jan 2007 14:00:18 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>I agree, golf is not a sport. The number #2 player in golf has man
>tits, for God's sake. No top tennis player (male) has ever had tits
>out there. Mickelson wins majors and is a fat sow, that should tell
>you something about gold being a "sport."


You're bordering on insulting my Homer here so be careful.


01 Feb 2007 17:21:30
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

Adam Thirnis wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 14:31, "Joe Ramirez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 4:57 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Kermit The Frog wrote:
>>>> Cool article drawing parallels between Tiger and Roger.
>>>> Although what both guys are trying to do is amazingly hard and they're
>>>> both dominating their respective sports, I don't think comparing golf
>>>> to tennis really works.
>>>> In golf, you're really playing against yourself, sure there's a huge
>>>> psychological side to the game, especially if the guy on top is 10
>>>> strokes ahead of you or only 1 stroke behind you, but your opponents
>>>> don't directly affect your game. In tennis, there are two players in
>>>> each match, so not only do you have to control your game, but you have
>>>> to react to the other guy who's trying to impose his game on you.
>>>> Tiger could play a course against the # 2 in the world or against a
>>>> one legged, half blind pirate and theoretically, his final score could
>>>> be exactly the same... not so with tennis.
>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
>>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
>>> to beat 1 guy at a time.
>> This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
>> that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
>> with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
>> time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
>> him.
>
> have to wonder if it's golf's clown era - nicklaus had player, watson,
> trevino etc whereas tiger has mickelson/goosen types. or is tiger like
> federer - just an exceptional talent who is way better than the rest?
>



Tiger actually set alltime lowest score in all majors & many tune-ups -
easier to compare across eras...

Tiger also has no weaknesses, Fed often looks incredibly inept at the
net, & clearly is not the most powerful player ever.


01 Feb 2007 18:42:42
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

robin wrote:
> Moron. I'd said top players not goats.
> The fact that Tiger is an athlete does not alter the fact that there
> are top players who are not.
> Old men with guts cannot play tennis at the highest level.
>
> On 31 Jan, 19:17, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> robin wrote:
>> Wrong. Tiger is athlete & goat - old men with guts can play tennis too.
>
>



They can play doubles for sure.


01 Feb 2007 18:43:55
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

Adam Thirnis wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 19:17, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> robin wrote:
>>> On 31 Jan, 09:57, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
>>>> to beat 1 guy at a time. In golf you're playing the field & many
>>>> intangibles simultaneously.
>>>> Tiger is far greater than any golfer or tennis player ever - & he's far
>>>> from done.
>>> Golf is a game, not a sport. You can be a top player as an old man
>>> with a beer gut in golf.
>> Wrong. Tiger is athlete & goat - old men with guts can play tennis too.
>
> no tiger is a great golfer and sportsman - but he's no athlete
>


Semantics. He's far greater than Federer by any measure.



01 Feb 2007 19:05:56
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2:27 pm, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
>>>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
>>>> to beat 1 guy at a time.
>>> This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
>>> that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
>>> with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
>>> time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
>>> him.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> In tennis you can intimidate & influence what your opponent does by
>> applying strategy - in golf you're playing blind & hoping to do better
>> than the field - far more difficult.
>
> I agree. I hate when people like Mary Carillo say what Roger is doing
> is better than Tiger.
> It's normal for there to be dominant tennis players - look at Lendl's
> win/loss in the 80s or Mac in '84, Sampras six straight
> years No. 1, Agassi 99, etc.
>
> After Fed's done, there will probably be other players in the near
> future that at least approach his dominance. In
> golf, I'm not sure there'll be another Tiger in our lifetime.
>
> I like tennis as a sport better because you can affect your opponent's
> play, but it's clearly much, much more
> difficult to dominate in golf precisely because you can do nothing if
> your competitor is in the *zone*, except of
> course be *more in the zone*
>


Yes, & Tiger can't even intimidate his opponents if they're playing in
another group or finished their round. Fed/Sampras used to win half a
set before even taking the court.



01 Feb 2007 19:10:47
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

[email protected] wrote:
> I agree, golf is not a sport. The number #2 player in golf has man
> tits, for God's sake. No top tennis player (male) has ever had tits
> out there. Mickelson wins majors and is a fat sow, that should tell
> you something about gold being a "sport."
>


Semantics. We don't watch tennis for athleticism, rather the 'wow' play.

If we got off on athleticism we'd all be on rec.sport.triathlon type
groups....


01 Feb 2007 01:03:30
Adam Thirnis
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On 1 Feb, 07:43, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> Adam Thirnis wrote:
> > On 31 Jan, 19:17, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> robin wrote:
> >>> On 31 Jan, 09:57, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
> >>>> to beat 1 guy at a time. In golf you're playing the field & many
> >>>> intangibles simultaneously.
> >>>> Tiger is far greater than any golfer or tennis player ever - & he's far
> >>>> from done.
> >>> Golf is a game, not a sport. You can be a top player as an old man
> >>> with a beer gut in golf.
> >> Wrong. Tiger is athlete & goat - old men with guts can play tennis too.
>
> > no tiger is a great golfer and sportsman - but he's no athlete
>
> Semantics. He's far greater than Federer by any measure.

in terms of dominance they're very similar - and have exercised a
level of control over the field that sampras could never reach



01 Feb 2007 01:05:28
Adam Thirnis
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On 1 Feb, 06:21, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> Adam Thirnis wrote:
> > On 31 Jan, 14:31, "Joe Ramirez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jan 31, 4:57 am, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Kermit The Frog wrote:
> >>>> Cool article drawing parallels between Tiger and Roger.
> >>>> Although what both guys are trying to do is amazingly hard and they're
> >>>> both dominating their respective sports, I don't think comparing golf
> >>>> to tennis really works.
> >>>> In golf, you're really playing against yourself, sure there's a huge
> >>>> psychological side to the game, especially if the guy on top is 10

> >>>> strokes ahead of you or only 1 stroke behind you, but your opponents
> >>>> don't directly affect your game. In tennis, there are two players in
> >>>> each match, so not only do you have to control your game, but you have
> >>>> to react to the other guy who's trying to impose his game on you.
> >>>> Tiger could play a course against the # 2 in the world or against a
> >>>> one legged, half blind pirate and theoretically, his final score could
> >>>> be exactly the same... not so with tennis.
> >>>>http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2830878
> >>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
> >>> to beat 1 guy at a time.
> >> This is silly -- it makes just as much sense to argue that it's golf
> >> that gives you "complete control," because no opponent is interfering
> >> with your play. It's just you vs. the course. Let me know the next
> >> time Phil Mickelson takes one of Tiger's drives and blasts it back at
> >> him.
>
> > have to wonder if it's golf's clown era - nicklaus had player, watson,
> > trevino etc whereas tiger has mickelson/goosen types. or is tiger like
> > federer - just an exceptional talent who is way better than the rest?
>
> Tiger actually set alltime lowest score in all majors & many tune-ups -
> easier to compare across eras...
>
> Tiger also has no weaknesses, Fed often looks incredibly inept at the
> net, & clearly is not the most powerful player ever.

nope. fed's volleying in slam finals is amongst the best ever. but he
also has option to rally from the baseline - an option that was not in
sampras' arsenal



01 Feb 2007 20:45:49
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

Adam Thirnis wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 07:43, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Adam Thirnis wrote:
>>> On 31 Jan, 19:17, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> robin wrote:
>>>>> On 31 Jan, 09:57, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
>>>>>> to beat 1 guy at a time. In golf you're playing the field & many
>>>>>> intangibles simultaneously.
>>>>>> Tiger is far greater than any golfer or tennis player ever - & he's far
>>>>>> from done.
>>>>> Golf is a game, not a sport. You can be a top player as an old man
>>>>> with a beer gut in golf.
>>>> Wrong. Tiger is athlete & goat - old men with guts can play tennis too.
>>> no tiger is a great golfer and sportsman - but he's no athlete
>> Semantics. He's far greater than Federer by any measure.
>
> in terms of dominance they're very similar - and have exercised a
> level of control over the field that sampras could never reach
>


Far harder to dominate golf. Look at Greg Norman - brilliant player for
5 yrs yet won 2 slams.



01 Feb 2007 20:46:39
Whisper
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

Adam Thirnis wrote:
>> Tiger also has no weaknesses, Fed often looks incredibly inept at the
>> net, & clearly is not the most powerful player ever.
>
> nope. fed's volleying in slam finals is amongst the best ever.


Absolute rubbish. Why even bother psoting such crap...?


01 Feb 2007 02:00:56
Adam Thirnis
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

On 1 Feb, 09:45, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> Adam Thirnis wrote:
> > On 1 Feb, 07:43, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Adam Thirnis wrote:
> >>> On 31 Jan, 19:17, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> robin wrote:
> >>>>> On 31 Jan, 09:57, Whisper <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Far easier to dominate tennis as you have complete control - just have
> >>>>>> to beat 1 guy at a time. In golf you're playing the field & many
> >>>>>> intangibles simultaneously.
> >>>>>> Tiger is far greater than any golfer or tennis player ever - & he's far
> >>>>>> from done.
> >>>>> Golf is a game, not a sport. You can be a top player as an old man
> >>>>> with a beer gut in golf.
> >>>> Wrong. Tiger is athlete & goat - old men with guts can play tennis too.
> >>> no tiger is a great golfer and sportsman - but he's no athlete
> >> Semantics. He's far greater than Federer by any measure.
>
> > in terms of dominance they're very similar - and have exercised a
> > level of control over the field that sampras could never reach
>
> Far harder to dominate golf. Look at Greg Norman - brilliant player for
> 5 yrs yet won 2 slams.

norman was mentally fragile so should have won more majors - but even
if he'd fulfilled his potential he wasn't at fed/tiger level



01 Feb 2007 02:07:46
robin
Re: Tiger Woods & Roger Federer

Right, so in this discussion about Woods and Federers domination this
is relevant how exactly?

I'll give you a clue, it isn't, just you trying to weasel out of yet
another argument where you are getting to ass kicked.

On 1 Feb, 07:42, Whisper <[email protected] > wrote:
> They can play doubles for sure.