Who is the greatest?

[Darkon]

Well it is not entirely semantics, or we wouldn't discuss it...

Chess is a game, but you would never call it a sport. Other things such as golf, darts, bowling is more in a gray area. Where as badminton, tennis, rugby etc. is clearly a sport, because of the physical/athletic needs.

I have great respect for what Woods have achieved. I also have a huge amount of respect for what Kasparov has achieved - but I would hardly call him a greater sportsman than Federer because of it.

[Neil Young]

Yes, I was thinking of Kasparov earlier. Then I accidentally pressed F5 and couldn't be bothered retyping.

[Shaggy]

Ah, I thought you were suggesting Woods is better because Federer isn't number 1 in his sport any more. My point was the shorter career doesn't invalidate his claims to greatness. I agree it gives neither an edge in this grand debate/waste of time.

I wouldn't seriously suggest darts and golf are the same but they do share characteristics, more than tennis and darts do and much more then, for instance, cycling and darts which really have nothing in common whatsoever.

I agree it's all becoming about semantics but it's so silly to argue about these things it's almost inevitable it descends to this sort of thing - we're looking for some definitive criteria to make a valid comparison and that's impossible really.

Well it is not entirely semantics, or we wouldn't discuss it...

Chess is a game, but you would never call it a sport. Other things such as golf, darts, bowling is more in a gray area. Where as badminton, tennis, rugby etc. is clearly a sport, because of the physical/athletic needs.

I have great respect for what Woods have achieved. I also have a huge amount of respect for what Kasparov has achieved - but I would hardly call him a greater sportsman than Federer because of it.

I can't believe you are mentioning chess and golf in the same breath! Why stop at chess players? Why not bring in the world memory champion?

Chess is a game because you play it sitting down! You don't move. It isn't remotely physical. It's like Connect Four. You can drink pints while you play, as you can whilst playing darts, snooker etc.

Golf requires you to blast your way round a golf course of 5 miles and more. Anyone who's played 36 holes in a day will tell you how knackering it is.

[Ben_Itez]

But tennis is far easier because you only play a small handful of opponents, and even then many of the better ones get knocked out and you don’t even have to play them. You can reach the quarters of a tennis tournament without breaking sweat, whereas in a golf event you have to beat 160 odd opponents….opponents who remain in the tournament until the very end, save those who miss the cut.

In golf you are playing against the course, against yourself AND against opponents, albeit indirectly.

But like I said all this is invalid while Federer isn’t even top dog in his own sport.

He has been for an unprecedented period though and is currently the joint highest Grand Slam winner of all time. With no doubt more to come. It is pretty clear that he is in the top 2 or 3 tennis players of alltime (imo the best). Nadal might currently outrank him but i cant see Nadal having the longevity that Roger has had and continues to enjoy.

With modern fitness levels, speed, technology etc i think it is fair to say that Woods and Nadal are the best their sports have ever seen. So really it comes down to comparing the sports which due to their nature are wildly different and thus hard to compare.

A side point, i know, but is Woods actually number one in golf at the moment? Surely his ranking has slipped due to his injury? And has he eclipsed Nicklaus' major haul yet?

[Shaggy]

Woods has won 14 majors to Nicklaus' 18. He's way ahead at the top of the rankings, despite being out injured for ages.

He went to number one in the rankings in 97, less than a year after turning pro. It was the quickest ascent to the top in the history of the game. He's been number one, barring the two year 'slump' when he rebuilt his swing, ever since - 10 of the last 12 years.

Federer reached number 1 in 2004 and lost it in 2008. Four years of almost total dominance in tennis is an amazing feat, but IMO it still falls substantially short of Woods' phenomenal domination of all-comers for the large part of 12 years - with doubtless much more to come.

[Ben_Itez]

...and after finally reading all the posts in this thread i can't believe SO many people think Golf isnt a proper sport

[Shaggy]

I should add that I think other genuinely great golfers have been beaten into submission by the juggernaut that is Woods. I'm thinking primarily Mickelson, who is an outrageous talent but for the most part cannot shed the spectre of Tiger no matter how hard he tries. If Woods wasn't around, people would be talking about PM as an ATG but so often he's collapsed under the relentless pressure applied by Woods.

A different topic I know, but to my mind there's certainly been no sportsman or woman who has the iron will and incredible mental fortitude that Woods so often displays. As close to a machine as a human ever got.

Edit: the sort of mental stranglehold that Nadal holds over Federer. Woods is the complete package, while I feel Federer has an achilles heel in his psychological inferiority to Nadal.

[wiw]

I'm not sure I agree with the Nadal/Federer stranglehold and the comparison but I can't really be arsed debating it at the moment

Another thing in Woods' favour is that Nicklaus took 20 years (ish) to get his 18 majors. Tiger's taken what, 11 years?

[Shaggy]

I'm not sure I agree with the Nadal/Federer stranglehold and the comparison but I can't really be arsed debating it at the moment

Another thing in Woods' favour is that Nicklaus took 20 years (ish) to get his 18 majors. Tiger's taken what, 11 years?

Aye. He's well ahead of schedule and will obviously pass Jack sooner rather than later.

No worries......only my opinion but I do reckon he loses belief when he faces Nadal. He sort of goes into his shell a bit, his play becomes much more error-strewn - a clear sign he can't take the pressure. Granted, normally Federer is the ice-man, nerves of steel, but he's often not the same against Nadal IMO.

[wiw]

Aye. He's well ahead of schedule and will obviously pass Jack sooner rather than later.

No worries......only my opinion but I do reckon he loses belief when he faces Nadal. He sort of goes into his shell a bit, his play becomes much more error-strewn - a clear sign he can't take the pressure. Granted, normally Federer is the ice-man, nerves of steel, but he's often not the same against Nadal IMO.

Just read up on this David Brent stylee and you're completely right The clay match from the other week must be skewing my opinion or something as Federer played a blinder and was attacking in that match. By the look of things Nadal whooped him in their first meeting and has never really looked back

[Shaggy]

What are the stats?

[Ben_Itez]

He's obviously by far the greatest golfer of all time and im pretty sure he'll eclipse Nicklaus' major haul. In fact i voted for undecided but im being swayed in Tiger's favour.

I think we'll be able to judge better in 20 years time ie what impact and impression will they have left on the sport. I know who my money will be on. You can already see a new batch of golfers in the Tiger mould. Extremely athletic 'power' hitters with a new standard they have to reach to get any where near the top. Already Woods has taken Golf to a new level....Federer for me has taken Tennis to a new level but not by such a big step up and Nadal has come along and arguably raised the bar again. No-one's going to come along in the next 10-15 years and consistently woop Tiger.

[wiw]

Head-to-head tallies

The following is a breakdown of their head-to-head results:[7]
Nadal serves to Federer during the 2006 Wimbledon final

* All Matches: Nadal 13–7
* All Finals: Nadal 11–5
* Grand Slams: Nadal 6–2
* Grand Slam Finals: Nadal 5–2
* Masters Cup: Federer 2–0
* Masters Series: Nadal 6–3
* Masters Series Finals: Nadal 5–3

[edit] Results on each court surface

* Clay courts: Nadal 9–2
* Hard courts: 3–3
* Grass courts: Federer 2–1

[Shaggy]

Hmm well those stats are heavily weighted in Nadal's favour due to the majority of contests being played on clay. On the other surfaces Federer shades it, which surprises me.

[Shaggy]

You can already see a new batch of golfers in the Tiger mould. Extremely athletic 'power' hitters with a new standard they have to reach to get any where near the top.