Although I prefer tennis as a sport, I don't think necessarily Federer is better than Woods. I think both are supreme athletes, the best in their generation of players.
However, I believe both are so good at their particular sports, that the only way it is possible to answer this question, is at the end of both their careers. If either takes their open/grand slam wins past the current records, then they will be the chosen one. They are just too good that we need to look book in hindsight. At the moment it is just too difficult a questions.
These pics are awesome! As for the questions, I'd say, based on the recent gillette advert, that both of them are idiots... (but I suppose you could argue they're okay at their respective sports!)
I would have to go for Woods. Although Federer is an all time great, I really think that golf is a lot harder to dominate than tennis. Every week Tiger has to beat 200 odd people, all of which on their day are world class. When Fed wins a tournament he only beats 6 or 8 people. In terms of changing their sports, Tiger has also had a more revolutionary effect than Fed. Before him golfers were overweight, white and more into the beers after the golf than the training before hand. It was also always an upper class sport which is now gaining appeal across the board largely because of Tiger. Thats my argument for Tiger, what do you guys think? Two completely different sports of course, so it's almost a moot point anyways. Interesting to think about though!
Well clearly Golf's harder than tennis to begin with and Woods was selected as 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 Player of the Year by the PGA TOUR, the PGA of America, and the Golf Writers Association of America. And in terms of Major Titles he's won 4 US Masters, 2 US Opens, 3 British Opens and 4 PGA's......So that trumps 5 wimbledon tittles i think!
Jonny d said it right..."5 Wimbledon titles in a row - it has to be Federer". sure Fed has struggled a littel of late but Woods had an off patch too. What is great about Fed is that this entire time he has remained world number one and has in fact still performed to a bloody great standard. Of course, Woods is a great and always will be but for a Swiss bloke to achieve what he has in much more impressive - I mean after he got that first cow for winning Wimbledon, he could have just settled down and become a dairy farmer!
12 Comments:
Although I prefer tennis as a sport, I don't think necessarily Federer is better than Woods. I think both are supreme athletes, the best in their generation of players.
However, I believe both are so good at their particular sports, that the only way it is possible to answer this question, is at the end of both their careers. If either takes their open/grand slam wins past the current records, then they will be the chosen one. They are just too good that we need to look book in hindsight. At the moment it is just too difficult a questions.
These pics are awesome! As for the questions, I'd say, based on the recent gillette advert, that both of them are idiots... (but I suppose you could argue they're okay at their respective sports!)
I would have to go for Woods. Although Federer is an all time great, I really think that golf is a lot harder to dominate than tennis. Every week Tiger has to beat 200 odd people, all of which on their day are world class. When Fed wins a tournament he only beats 6 or 8 people.
In terms of changing their sports, Tiger has also had a more revolutionary effect than Fed. Before him golfers were overweight, white and more into the beers after the golf than the training before hand. It was also always an upper class sport which is now gaining appeal across the board largely because of Tiger.
Thats my argument for Tiger, what do you guys think? Two completely different sports of course, so it's almost a moot point anyways. Interesting to think about though!
tiger definitely has the hotter partner!
Screw u Ross, "Mr. Golfer!" :)
Sorry Ross Evans, thought your were Ross Andrews!!
ha ha...Chris you dumb ass....stop covering all your bases....you forgot about Ross Field and Ross from friends. They might be offended too.
Is golf a sport?
5 Wimbledon titles in a row - it has to be Federer
Well clearly Golf's harder than tennis to begin with and Woods was selected as 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 Player of the Year by the PGA TOUR, the PGA of America, and the Golf Writers Association of America. And in terms of Major Titles he's won 4 US Masters, 2 US Opens, 3 British Opens and 4 PGA's......So that trumps 5 wimbledon tittles i think!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRQEtAyiTM
Number 4 - incredible.
Jonny d said it right..."5 Wimbledon titles in a row - it has to be Federer".
sure Fed has struggled a littel of late but Woods had an off patch too. What is great about Fed is that this entire time he has remained world number one and has in fact still performed to a bloody great standard.
Of course, Woods is a great and always will be but for a Swiss bloke to achieve what he has in much more impressive - I mean after he got that first cow for winning Wimbledon, he could have just settled down and become a dairy farmer!
Post a Comment