Not disputing your excellent point, JJ, but it seems to me that another big difference between golf and tennis, one that gives tennis the edge in difficulty, is that there days in tennis on which you just cannot be off your game. In the 2005 Masters, Tiger Woods and Chris DiMarco ended up in a playoff. Tiger had a bad day on Thursday when he shot a 2-over 74. DiMarco's bad day was Saturday when he shot the same. Obviously, you can't be really terrible on any day, but you can have any combination of a reasonably bad day with three great days and win a tournament. In tennis, you can't make up for your bad day later. If Federer is going to shoot a metaphorical 74, he'd better do it early and be lucky. It's harder to make up for your bad day in tennis because your tourament might be over before you get the chance, and the likelihood of prevailing on an off day in the final two matches of a major, when you're likely to be facing top-10 or top-5 competition, is pretty small.
That's true - it's a bit like facing the tennis equivalent of golf's halfway cut seven times (in each round) instead of just once, but again, that gets me thinking about the fact that in tennis you're only ever playing one guy at a time. In golf, the best 60 or 70 players play on the weekend. In tennis, it is very unusual that the the best 16 players progress through the round of 32 (let's say Murray plays Federer and takes him to five sets but loses - in another game Ancic beats Gonzalez, despite playing really badly (he just plays less badly than Gonzalez) - Murray played better than Ancic or Gonzalez, but he doesn't get to go through). To start arguing against myself a bit, a factor that makes tennis tough to dominate at is the level of fitness required (not just in terms of having more stamina, but also in terms of remaining free of injury). I think Tiger is proving that physical fitness really can help your golf, but by and large, most golfers can play hurt (or play fat) to some extent without losing too much of their edge. In tennis, the slightest niggle can cause big problems, and you're also umpteen times more likely to pick up those niggles in the course of playing tennis than you are strolling around a golf course. They're both stunning athletes, and I think they're both establishing periods of dominance the like of which have never been seen in their respective sports. Nicklaus was great (and remains the greatest until Tiger beats all of his numbers), but even when he was playing well, there were still three or four guys out there with him who were capable of beating him. When Woods is playing well, he stands alone - whether that's because fields are weaker these days or Woods is just better than anyone ever has been could be debated all night, and I for one refuse to get into it until someone is buying me a drink to discuss it over. Samprass was great, as was Borg, but they too showed their greatness in flashes and had great rivals (who arguably spurred them on to even greater things). Much and all as the press would like to talk Nadal up as Federer's great rival, he really isn't once they get off the clay. In short (was I ever?) - they're both very good, I'd play Woods a flat match at a course of my chosing for my monthly paycheck verses his, but I wouldn't fancy my chances against Federer. Then again, I wouldn't really fancy my chances against anyone when it comes to tennis [self link].
Of course I'd beat him on my best day compared to his worst. He's shot over 80 (twice in his professional life I think) and I've shot less than that. Okay, so you are a decent golfer, but have you ever played a course set up like the pros have to play? Those greens are unbelievably fast and the pin placements are a little difficult to say the least. I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure that Tiger's worst day would probably get your best. Of course this debate is moot because we'll never really know, will we? As far as rivalries go, look at this: www.pgatour.com I mean you have to get all the way down to number 94 before you find some making less than a million. Maybe some of these guys would play a little harder if they actually had to win to make a paycheck. I realize that Tiger doesn't have this problem, but the difference is that he's not just playing against himself and the field, he's playing against Jack. He wants those records so bad that he keeps his drive to win, while, it seems to me anyway, the rest of the tour is happy getting a fat payday even if you're ranked as low as 93. Of course that's my opinion, and I'm not wrong. :) p.s. sorry about the link, couldn't get it to work.
hellamarine, I'm being unfair and not disclosing that I used to be a pro. It's a whole other game, I agree, but I was good enough at it (briefly) that his worst verses my best wouldn't have been a contest. Sadly, I never got to play in a field he was in so I can't back that up really, but I've shot in the 60s and he's shot in the 80s, so if those two things happened on the same day... you get the picture. My only point really is that Federer would beat a similar standard tennis player (i.e. someone good enough to have a shot at being a pro for a while, but who then got injured, or just wasn't good enough, or hid behind being injured to avoid having to admit he wasn't good enough [/lifestory]) everysingletime I reckon. Part of it also has to do with the fact that what Federer does directly affects his opponent, whereas what Tiger does doesn't prevent anyone else from playing their own game (on anything other than a psychological level). That list is frightening - what's the cut-off point for keeping your card? From that list, it looks like you could make three-quarters of a million dollars and still have to go back to school. I agree with you that the money is making losers of a lot of decent players these days. I also think it's part of the reason Europe keep winning the Ryder Cup. Generally speaking, I think most of the European guys have struggled a bit more to get to where they are.
Okay JJ, that's what I was trying to get out of you. I figured you were either a pro, good enough to be a pro, or talking out of your arse. I really was hoping you weren't talking out of your arse, btw. Okay, I'll give in to you on the JJ vs. Tiger - best vs. worst arguement, then. I myself used to be an above average tennis player, and I know on my best day and his worst, Federer would pound me. I wouldn't stand a chance against Tiger whether he was playing his best or not. I think you're right, guys making around 3/4 a milllion dollars have to be a little worried about losing their card, I would think. I can't remember exactly where the line is, but it's somewhere right around there. I also agree with you on your opinion of the Europen wins Ryder Cup. Sorry I pressed you so much. I was just trying to figure you out. ;)
Tennis vs. Golf. There's no definitive answer. Tougher for Tiger Arguments 1. Federer can play a bad first set, and the second set still starts 0-0. If Tiger Woods has a bad first round, he starts the second round trailing the leaders. 2. Federer always knows where he stands with respect to the guy he's playing and can take steps to make sure that guy doesn't beat him. Tiger Woods can shoot a great round, but he's still just playing the course like everybody else. He can't do anything to make Phil Mickelson hit driver off the tee on 18 instead of playing it safe. Federer can, at least in theory, keep hitting to his opponent's backhand until it breaks down. Tougher for Federer Arguments 1. The flip side of # 2 above. Federer's opponents can directly impact his play. Both golf and tennis boil down to executing one's shots. However, in tenns, a player's opponent can cause you to rush your shots or hit shots with which you aren't comfortable. Tennis keeps track of "unforced errors" to differentiate them from instances in which a player's opponent has forced the error. In golf, all bad shots are unforced errors. 2. If Tiger Woods has a bad round, he has quite a bit of time before he has to tee it up again. He can have a sit-down with his swing coach, Hank Haney, and go back to the practice tee and try and address any problems. Unless there's a rain delay, Federer has a couple of minutes before the next set starts, and he can't talk to anyone about how to fix the problem.
"1. Federer can play a bad first set, and the second set still starts 0-0. If Tiger Woods has a bad first round, he starts the second round trailing the leaders." Federer starts the second set 0-1/0-0. He's love-all in games, but a set down.
Don't let the fact that I used to be a pro blind anyone to the fact that I also like to talk out of my arse. I think both sports would be improved if you were allowed to tackle your opponent.
"Federer starts the second set 0-1/0-0. He's love-all in games, but a set down." Perhaps a better way to look at it would be, it doesn't matter if Federer loses that first set 6-7(20-18) or 0-6. Either way, he still starts the second set 0-1/0-0. If Tiger shoots in the 80s in the first round, he can kiss that green jacket goodbye. There were folks saying he had no chance after shooting a high first round in 2005. If Tiger Woods plays an abysmal first round, he has a much bigger hole out of which he has to dig himself. If Federer's getting smoked in the first set he can start taking cuts, mixing things up, to try and get himself back in rhythm for the remaining sets without handicapping himself further.
Heh, this is kinda funny...Federer is like Tiger Woods, only he doesn't wear slacks, and there's another guy hitting the ball back at him, and in tennis you start from zero at the start of a new set, only not really, and physical conditioning has a bigger effect in tennis than in golf, and Tiger's got a car endorsement, and...
...and Tiger's not Swiss!
Tiger may have a car endorsement, but Fed's got a cow endorsement: 
www.youtube.com
I think both sports would be improved if you were allowed to tackle your opponent. posted by JJ at 10:58 AM CST on January 29 Wish granted: www.liveleak.com
To: The Black Hand And you're not funny. Geez, I've searched these forums and, to be frank, I hope you don't spend a lot of time watching sports, because, if you do, your retention leaves a lot to be desired.
And yet he made you smile not so long ago. Lighten up.
zippinglou, is that real? If so, I imagine it made a few insurance people's hearts skip a beat when they saw their boy launch himself at someone. Still, nice turn of speed, even if he was only chasing a white guy carrying a golf bag.
Is it Tiger tackling someone in an ad (video is blocked here at work)? If so, it was on PTI last week. Apparently they were supposed to cut for the stunt double to do the tackling, but Tiger decided he was going to handle the chores. The guy got dinged up too.
I like the expression "handle the chores" and intend to use it the next time I get in a bit of a ruck. So never hopefully.
Yeah, the guy got a cut on his forehead, even though he and Tiger had "sort of" preplanned the whole thing. Apparently, though, it caught the rest of the crew by surprise. You can see the bloody area on the guy's forehead near the end of the video.
