Sorry Federer you are great but not Tiger yet

[jbooma]

Can the tennis apoligists please stop trying to call Roger Federer the greatest ever in Tennis!! Roger is a great player but until he wins in France he can not be called the greatest or even the Tiger Woods of his sport.

The sad thing is Nadal is so young that Roger may never win the French Open.

[Art]

Federer is the greatest to ever play the game. He may never win the French, but, that is not the sole point to judge. His style is a bad match on clay against Nadal, but, he'll certainly win at least one French Open before it's done if merely because Nadal breaks a leg or something :.

[no1fanofno21]

Federer has potential to be the best of all time. And he doesn't need to win the French to become that. He will most likely win Wimbeldon and the U.S. Open coming up soon.

Sampras never won the French and the closest he ever was to winning it was reaching the Semifinals in 1996. And he to alot of people is the greatest ever.

Federer has been to the finals the last two years at the French and to the semi's the year before that.

I hate the argument that Tiger is so much better than Roger. Just don't even mess with that. And for all the ignorant people on here that think tiger could take games from Roger (ive heard the argument on here before) is ludicrious.

[mhd24]

Golf and Tennis are incomparable. Tennis requires so much physical skill, stamina, fitness, that a tennis players prime is roughly 4 years. No one wins majors even close to 30 (Sampras wasn't anything close to his prime for his last 3 years. He won 1 wimby and 1 open).

Moreover, you have a bad day in Tennis, you are through. In Golf, you can't do anything to affect the opponent's game. In Tennis, there is no coach, no caddy, no guide, just you and the opponent. I don't think you can compare such a physically demanding sport such as Tennis to Golf.

Federer's still the 2nd best clay-courter in the world (he's won many masters events on clay). Federer still beats Nadal on grass easily (The difference is night and day from clay to grass), and is the better hard-court player (more consistent).

On clay, all of Nadals weaknesses (weak serve, poor volleys) and mitigated, and his strengths (speed, insane spin, bounce) are enhanced. Nadal can lose to guys like Youzney and Blake on hard courts because the aggresive players can attack with the speed reduction a non-factor (Youzny crushed him last year at the open)

Federer's still the greatest ever. He's a better hard court player than Sampras, destroys him on Clay (no comparison. Sampras sucked on clay. He won one masters event, and made one semi at the French), and a better grass court player (Much better defender, a better forehand, and backhand).

[jbooma]

I hate the argument that Tiger is so much better than Roger. Just don't even mess with that. And for all the ignorant people on here that think tiger could take games from Roger (ive heard the argument on here before) is ludicrious.

Tiger has multiple grandslams last I checked Federer doesn't even have one, and lets be fair Tiger is facing for better competition right now. Mens tennis has been a joke the last couple of years.

Sorry you can not be the greatest at your sport if you can not win one of the major championships.

[mhd24]

Tiger has multiple grandslams last I checked Federer doesn't even have one, and lets be fair Tiger is facing for better competition right now. Mens tennis has been a joke the last couple of years.

Sorry you can not be the greatest at your sport if you can not win one of the major championships.


Please, mens tennis has tons of depth. Federer's so good, that other guys can't get majors. However, guys like Djokavic, Daydenko, Nadal, Roddick (even if I think he's a major a-hole), Hewitt, Youzney, Safin, Murray, Gasquet, Blake, etc. all have the ability to win grand slams. They just run into the greatest clay-courter ever (Nadal) and the greatest grass/hard-court player ever (Federer). Every one of those guys are better than the previous generation. You have blinders on. Hewitt destroyed Sampras at the 01 U.S. Open. Safin destroyed Sampras at the 00 U.S. Open.

Does Golf require the sheer physical ability and fitness of tennis? You think Tiger can run for 5 hours constantly without a coach, caddy, etc. in 100 degree heat on clay? Tennis is the most physically demanding sport in the world. I'm sorry, playing 18 while walking 5 miles is nothing compared to playing 5 set matches for two weeks against elite athletes. Does Golf have the equivalent of a clay court, where spaniards grow up and play year round? Isn't a coincidence that clya-courters like Kuerten, Muster, Brugera, Coria, Gaudio never do squat on any other surface? Golf and Tennis are incomparable. Roger's close to the # of majors Tiger has, despite playing far fewer years. I'm sorry, Roger competing against physically fit, elit athletes beats Tiger playing (and losing occasionally) to players with man boobs, ever-enlarging waists, and simply unathletic guys.

[DjTj]

Tiger has multiple grandslams last I checked Federer doesn't even have one, and lets be fair Tiger is facing for better competition right now. Mens tennis has been a joke the last couple of years.

Sorry you can not be the greatest at your sport if you can not win one of the major championships.The differences between the golf majors are nothing compared to the differences between Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

It's not like Federer is completely flopping at the French Open. He has been to the finals the past two years, and he has lost to someone who may go down as the greatest clay court player in history. I can only wish that Tiger had a rival like that to give us an anticipated matchup like the French Open final every year.

In any case, it's really hard to compare golf to tennis, but here's an argument for Federer over Tiger: In the past five years, Federer has won 10 out of the 18 majors that have been played, and there are still two left this year. Tiger has only won 4 majors during that time, and his best stretch was from 2000-2005 when he won 8 of 20 majors.

They are both elite players and will likely go down as the best in history - but you're right to point out that since Federer has not won the French, he isn't quite Rod Laver ... yet; and Tiger isn't quite Jack Nicklaus ... yet.

[mhd24]

Oh, and Laver played in an era where 3 of the fourt majors were played on grass.

[no1fanofno21]

Tiger has multiple grandslams last I checked Federer doesn't even have one, and lets be fair Tiger is facing for better competition right now. Mens tennis has been a joke the last couple of years.

Sorry you can not be the greatest at your sport if you can not win one of the major championships.

What are you talking about. Tiger has One grandslam, where he won the 4 majors in a row and not in the same year. That is what Roger was going for today.

Facing better competiton, what? who is his competition.

The only reason men's tennis has been a joke to you is because there isn't an american on the top of the sport.

If you take tiger away from golf is there even a purpose of discussing it. If Roger were american it would be on the front page of the sports pages and all over ESPN.

[jrockster21]

jbooma, pwn3d again. :laugh:

But I will say though, watching tennis on TV is about as exciting as watching paint dry. :silly:

[jbooma]

What are you talking about. Tiger has One grandslam, where he won the 4 majors in a row and not in the same year. That is what Roger was going for today.

Facing better competiton, what? who is his competition.

The only reason men's tennis has been a joke to you is because there isn't an american on the top of the sport.

If you take tiger away from golf is there even a purpose of discussing it. If Roger were american it would be on the front page of the sports pages and all over ESPN.

The grandslam of the sport is having one of each major (doesn't have to be all one year) :doh: I believe that is called the yearly grand slam

Mens tennis has been a joke because the competition has not been great. You have a player always winning the french but can't win anywhere else.

Sorry Jrockster I was right :)

[jrockster21]

The grandslam of the sport is having one of each major (doesn't have to be all one year) :doh: I believe that is called the yearly grand slam

No, a grand slam is winning all 4 majors consecutively. :doh:


Mens tennis has been a joke because the competition has not been great. You have a player always winning the french but can't win anywhere else.

That has already been countered at length. You are very incorrect.


Sorry Jrockester I was right :)

Sorry, but you're not.

[jbooma]

No, a grand slam is winning all 4 majors consecutively. :doh:



That has already been countered at length. You are very incorrect.



Sorry, but you're not.

That is a Calander Grand Slam, there are different types maybe someday you will figure that out :)

You do know technically each major event is called a Grand Slam right :)


But the self-effacing American was almost lost for words after sweeping aside German outsider Rainer Schuettler in the final.

"I can't describe how good this feels," Agassi told BBC Sport Online.

"I'm always extra surprised when I win a game these days - never mind a tournament.

"So to win my fourth Grand Slam here is something which will take a lot of time to absorb."

So you are Powned!! :)


By the way how many great players are there right now playing in mens tennis, umm 1 so yes his competition is bad compared to Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Conners etc....

[jrockster21]

That is a Calander Grand Slam, there are different types maybe someday you will figure that out :)

Nope, wrong again.

A Calendar Grand Slam is winning all 4 majors in the same calendar year. A non-calendar grand slam is winning all 4 majors consecutively over a 2-year period, which is what Tiger has done.

"The Grand Slam is generally considered to be winning all four of golf's major championships in the same calendar year. Before The Masters was founded, the two national amateur championships were considered majors along with the two national opens and only Bobby Jones has ever completed a grand slam with these. No man has ever achieved a modern grand slam, Tiger Woods being the closest in winning all four consecutively, but over two calendar years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_of_golf

"In tennis, a singles player or doubles team that wins all four Grand Slam titles in the same year is said to have achieved the Grand Slam or a Calendar Year Grand Slam. If the player or team wins all four consecutively, but not in the same calendar year, it is called a Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

Technically, Tiger hasn't even won a grand slam. :laugh:


By the way how many great players are there right now playing in mens tennis, umm 1 so yes his competition is bad compared to Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Conners etc....

How many great golfers are there right now? 2? :laugh:

[jrockster21]

So you are Powned!! :)

:laugh: They are called grand slam tournaments - by his 4th he meant his 4th tournament. :doh:

PS - nobody has won 4 grand slams. :laugh:

You must enjoy being wrong, I think.

[jbooma]

Jrock you forgot this:


In tennis, a singles player or doubles team that wins all four Grand Slam titles in the same year is said to have achieved the Grand Slam or a Calendar Year Grand Slam. If the player or team wins all four consecutively, but not in the same calendar year, it is called a Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam. A player who wins all four at some point in his or her career, even if not consecutively, it is called a Career Grand Slam.

The four Grand Slam tournaments are the most important tennis events of the year in terms of world ranking points, tradition, prize-money awarded, and public attention. They are:

So there are two names and the events themselves are Grand Slams :)

semantics bro, semantics :)

it doesnt matter because Federer can not win one :laugh: :laugh:

There are a lot of good golfers right now, now I agree not like when Jack was playing but back then there were 5 great and then 5 to 10 good golfers and no one else, now there are a couple of great and then 50 to 100 good golfers.

[mhd24]

The depth today is insanlely more then of Sampras's era.

I'd argue that Hewitt and Safin (who both DESTROYED Sampras at the U.S. Open), Nadal (who's better than any clay-courter/grinder (i.e. Courier, Brugera, Kuerten, and Chang), Federer (better all-arounder than Sampras, Agassi, and Becker), Nalbandian (much better than no slam contenders like Martin is much better competition than in Sampras's era).

Sampras couldn't do jack against clay courters his entire career. He only won 2 Aussie opens, which is frankly criminal to his so called greatness. He should have fiested on those conditions.

Moreover, Federer beat Sampras on grass, at Wimbeldon when he was only 19.

Guys like Edberg and Becker (who were great players) would get crushed today. They didn't have the forehands and defense to cope with the all-rounders of today.

[jbooma]

The depth today is insanlely more then of Sampras's era..

I disagree, no one else is winning slams right now so how can you see it is better. When we see someone besides Roger win then I might agree.

[tizzod]

Guys like Edberg and Becker (who were great players) would get crushed today. They didn't have the forehands and defense to cope with the all-rounders of today.

Nice observation. Edberg had NO forehand. Ever. And he knew it. So he would just come in as quickly as possible.

Clay is such a freakin' tough surface. So slow. The serve and volleyers have no chance. But get Nidal on a grass court and see how he does. To find someone that dominates on everything....now there's a challenge.

I think Federer is as close as we have right now, but who knows.

[mhd24]

I disagree, no one else is winning slams right now so how can you see it is better. When we see someone besides Roger win then I might agree.

That's because Federer is too good. He's certianly the most talented player ever. Nadal is certianly the most talented clay courter ever. These guys would crush Sampras's era peak vs. peak.

Lets see the slam winners during Sampras's peak:
1) Sampras
2) Agassi
3) Rafter
4) Kafelnikov
5) Kuerten
6) Ivaniesavic
7) Becker
8) Johanssen
9) Krajieck
10) Courier

During Federer's reign:
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Hewitt
4) Safin
5) Roddick
6) Gaudio

Krajiek and Johanssen were one slam wonders who did nothing (relatively speaking) the rest of their careers. Kuerten was a monster on clay, but Nadal's the better player. Hewitt beat Kuerten on clay in Brazil in a great davis cup match. Becker was done once Pete started winning, and was lucky to win the 95 AUssie open. Becker did his winning in the late 80's. Kefelnikov was a joke, who frankly wasn't as good as Safin, Hewitt, etc. (the 2nd tier players). Courier was done after he won his 2nd french open. The best players on that first list are Sampras, Agassi, and Rafter. I'd take Federer, Nadal, and Hewitt over those 3 every day of the week.

[jbooma]

The best players on that first list are Sampras, Agassi, and Rafter. I'd take Federer, Nadal, and Hewitt over those 3 every day of the week.


Agassi and Sampras are two of the bests to ever play so Nadal and Hewitt are not even close. Nadal can not win on anything except clay.

The reason why Federer is winning all the time because none of the other men are any good right now, sorry but its true. They other guys don't even make it to the finals right now.