Jul 6th 2009 By Jeremy Taylor

Roger vs. Tiger -- Who Is the Greater Major Champion?

Not only did Roger Federer's epic four-hour, 14-minute, five-set Wimbledon victory over a gallant Andy Roddick yesterday ruin holiday-weekend brunch plans all over America, but it gave him 15 major championships, breaking the record he had shared with Pete Sampras.

In addition, the Swiss tennis star passed his good buddy Tiger Woods, who has 14 major wins in the other country-club sport. As if to remind everyone he's still around, Woods also kissed trophy on Sunday, setting himself up as the favorite to win the British Open in two weeks and catch right back up with Federer in majors won.

Unrivaled in their respective sports, it is only natural that Woods and Federer are pitted against each in discussions of athletic immortality. As Federer's grueling Wimbledon final displayed, golf and tennis require very different skill sets, meaning we will probably never be sure which one is greater. But that shouldn't stop anyone from having an opinion.

Tags: andy roddick - AndyRoddick - golf - roger federer - RogerFederer - tennis - tiger woods - TigerWoods - wimbledon

Email This

Comments:

Add a comment

Monday 06 July

By Heavytoka

Neutral

I don't know? I can play golf but, I can't stand watching it or Tennis.

Monday 06 July

By Doug Winship

Neutral

I play both. Tennis is hands-down the more difficult game.
No split-second decisions in golf.
Far greater test of fitness in tennis.
All the nervous tension in a tee shot or ten foot putt is there with every serve.
And when you hit your serve perfectly, there's still another guy in tennis who can turn your gem into coal.

Wednesday 08 July

By Tony Harris

Neutral

Everyone is quick to dismiss golf as an athletic sporting event, however those who do that do it a severe disservice. Stand over a 10' down hill side hill put on a green that has been 6 or better on a stent meter for $1M or just to make the cut! In tennis you face you opponent face to face in side an marked boundry with only the boundries and the net as an obstacles. A golf course is designed to test the player as a person in total control of his/her self and the environmental elements (the opponent is nature and all she has to offer). In golf, you can not defend yourself against someone having a career day, the rules that will penalize you (or better still have you penalize yourself) for the slighest infraction, such as a ball that moves as you address it; that may cause you to lose a tournament -- major or not!!

Friday 07 August

By Paul Tyagi

Neutral

yeah but in tennis u have to be fit and in golf u can weight 20 tons and still play

i personally play both sports and i am better at tennis

yes golf is very diffuclt and to fade and draw and also to hit it straight but......... u don't have to run in golf.

yeah u can play 5 hours of golf and not lose a pound but im tennis your fit and strong

Sunday 26 July

By Dan Johnson

Neutral

Tennis is by far more challenging then Golf! Golf is a game. Yes there is skill involved but you are basically playing against yourself. You win or lose because of what you alone did on the course. Tennis is a sport, and like any sport and it involves both offense and defense. Your opponent has as much a say in the outcome as you do. And what they do or don't do will influence the result of the final score. You have to have physical skill and talent and you also have to know how to overcome your opponent you might be equal or more talented then you. There is strategy, there is quick movement and reflexes, there is physical stamina. And like any real sport, Your opponent is a thinking person who will influence things to cause problems for you in a more direct way then "nature" will influence the roll of a ball. In golf you hit a ball. In Tennis the ball comes back. I like tennis. But I also like any sport that has both offense in defense. I like to watch a game where each person or team can effect each other. Its a lot harder and more challenging then golf or bowling or any other one man game.

Friday 07 August

By Paul Tyagi

Neutral

right on man

right on

Monday 10 August

By Tony Harris

Neutral

Paul & Dan,

While I can truly appreciate your views and extremely valid points, you don't want to consider the power of the mental aspects of any sport. Having been a QB in the now defunct World football league and enjoyed some success pitching at the college level I took golf up in my early twenties. I found that the mental aspects associated with golf could affect you far more than your opponent's reaction to your actions. Furthermore while a golfer doesn't run nor does he/she face a human opponent, or have to be in the best shape (several of the more successful found physical conditioning to be a major plus, ..see G. Player, T. Woods), the mental aspect is far more formathable. Evidence of that can be found in the stats relating to winning %. The top 50 tennis players have a winning % above .50, here are the winning percentages of golf's top winners; Tiger Woods 27.36% (55 out of 201), Ben Hogan 20.7% (61 of 294), Byron Nelson 17.8% (50 of 281), Sam Snead 14.9% (81 of 549
Jack Nicklaus 12.2% (73 of 594), Billy Casper 9.2% (51 of 556), Arnold Palmer 8.4% (62 of 734). Oh yeah, by the way, the mental aspect is the part lay people or fans call "choking".

Friday 04 September

By Chuck R.

Neutral

Tony Harris

I appreciate you trying to use facts and stats in your post but it is irrelevant because golf's winning percentage is based on tournaments entered and won, not each round won. That is why golf's top players' winning percentage is so low because they need to win the entire tournament for it to count as a win. Tennis winning percentage includes all matches won even if they don't win the tournament. This is an exaggerated example but let's say Roger entered only the 4 majors in the year and made all of the finals but lost all of them too. So his record on the year would be 24-4. That's an 85% winning percentage. Now let's say Tiger entered 4 majors and didn't win the tournament, let's say he took second. He doesn't get credit for beating the other players in the field so his winning percentage would be 0-4 or 0%. If tennis kept winning percentages in the same manner as golf, Roger would also be 0-4 or 0%. So far in 2009, Roger has entered 12 tournaments, winning only 4 of them so his winning percentage, according to the way golfing determines winning percentage is 33%. So the winning percentages of top players is irrelevant because the rest of the top tennis players have even worse percentages.

You mention the mental aspect of golf and appear to speak from experience. I speak from experience that the mental ability required in tennis is just as important. There are MANY cases of pro tennis players not having the mental stamina to make it to the top of the game; Amelie Mauresmo, Ana Ivanovic, Dinara Safina come to mind. Research them and their mental game. Dinara has "choked" in every major final she has made. Watch her interviews, she even admits her game is fine and that it's just her brain. It's the only thing keeping them from winning majors because they are physically capable of winning them just not mentally.

I feel that the one thing that separates golf from tennis is the fact that you share a ball in tennis. In golf you are the only one that can make or break a shot. It's completely up to you what happens on your shot. In tennis, you're shot is dependent on the type of shot that you get from your opponent, so to have optimum control over your shot you need to have ample control over your opponent (meaning, getting them out of position or on the run to get slow shots from them to make your shots easier). Golf does not have this element in competition. Golfers have more than optimum control over every shot they make, they have COMPLETE control.

This is no disrespect to Tiger Woods or golf as I believe it to be the third most difficult sport after hockey and tennis.

Friday 04 September

By Chuck R

Neutral

Tony Harris

I appreciate you trying to use facts and stats in your post but it is
irrelevant because golf's winning percentage is based on tournaments
entered and won, not each round won. That is why golf's top players'
winning percentage is so low because they need to win the entire
tournament for it to count as a win. Tennis winning percentage
includes all matches won even if they don't win the tournament. This
is an exaggerated example but let's say Roger entered only the 4
majors in the year and made all of the finals but lost all of them
too. So his record on the year would be 24-4. That's an 85% winning
percentage. Now let's say Tiger entered 4 majors and didn't win the
tournament, let's say he took second. He doesn't get credit for
beating the other players in the field so his winning percentage
would be 0-4 or 0%. If tennis kept winning percentages in the same
manner as golf, Roger would also be 0-4 or 0%. So far in 2009, Roger
has entered 12 tournaments, winning only 4 of them so his winning
percentage, according to the way golfing determines winning
percentage is 33%. So the winning percentages of top players is
irrelevant because the rest of the top tennis players have even worse
percentages.

You mention the mental aspect of golf and appear to speak from
experience. I speak from experience that the mental ability required
in tennis is just as important. There are MANY cases of pro tennis
players not having the mental stamina to make it to the top of the
game; Amelie Mauresmo, Ana Ivanovic, Dinara Safina come to mind.
Research them and their mental game. Dinara has "choked" in every
major final she has made. Watch her interviews, she even admits her
game is fine and that it's just her brain. It's the only thing
keeping them from winning majors because they are physically capable
of winning them just not mentally.

I feel that the one thing that separates golf from tennis is the fact
that you share a ball in tennis. In golf you are the only one that can
make or break a shot. It's completely up to you what happens on your
shot. In tennis, you're shot is dependent on the type of shot that
you get from your opponent, so to have optimum control over your shot
you need to have ample control over your opponent (meaning, getting
them out of position or on the run to get slow shots from them to
make your shots easier). Golf does not have this element in
competition. Golfers have more than optimum control over every shot
they make, they have COMPLETE control.

You also mention golfers opponent being nature. Tennis players have a human opponent and also contend with nature. Dealing with the wind moving the ball around, running around in 120 degree weather, serving with the sun in your eyes. Golf definitely contends with nature but so does tennis and in conjunction with a human opponnent.

You also state that in golf you can't defend yourself from another player from having a career day. In tennis, try having a career day and still lose because you're superior opponent was having an "alright" day.

And finally, you mention small infractions. Tennis has infractions. Foot faults? Getting overly upset? And my goodness, relying on humans who are prone to error to determine if your shots closest to the lines are in or out. And imagine how much that would affect your mental fortitude in a match.

This is no disrespect to Tiger Woods or golf as I believe it to be
the third most difficult sport after hockey and tennis.