Who is the greatest?

[Neil Young]

Federer. Because he's not a cat.

[Shaggy]

Thats unfair though because even old men can play top level golf, where as Tennis is a younger man's game.

What old men are currently playing golf at the top level?

[Imy]

What old men are currently playing golf at the top level?

Phil Mickelson is 38 and at the top level (ok in the grand scheme of things he's not really that old) But can you envisage a 38 year old tennis player being able to challenge Nadal, Federer, Murray etc?

Tiger Woods is 33 compared to Federers's 27 and poor roger supposedly struggles against the younger more powerful Nadal.

[Shaggy]

38 years of age doth not an old man make! There are plenty of 38 year old footballers yet no-one uses that to denigrate the sport.

Age is irrelevant anyway.

[wiw]

Tiger Woods for me. Federer isnt even the best in his own sport currently where as Tiger is simply unrivalled.

Has Tiger always been number one?

Nadal has certainly put a spanner in the works but I think if Federer comes back and continues to win majors and take number 1 spot back..I'm not sure what my point is exactly. ****sake

[Imy]

38 years of age doth not an old man make! There are plenty of 38 year old footballers yet no-one uses that to denigrate the sport.

Age is irrelevant anyway.

I know its not old, we ain't that far off from it

I do think it's relevant, in many physical sports which require speed, strength and reaction skills the younger guys have this in abundance and as they get older it catches up with them.

Eg: Do you believe Tim Henman at 34 would be beat Andy Murray? I beleive a young Tim Henman would certainly give him a good game and probably beat him at Wimbledon (followed by losing to Pete Sampras )

[Darkon]

38 years of age doth not an old man make! There are plenty of 38 year old footballers yet no-one uses that to denigrate the sport.

Age is irrelevant anyway.

But how many 38 year old footballers do you consider to be among the best in the sport??

Many golfers in the late 30s and up till mid 40s are in the top-10 of their sport you won't ever see that in football!

[Neil Young]

38 years of age doth not an old man make! There are plenty of 38 year old footballers yet no-one uses that to denigrate the sport.

Age is irrelevant anyway.

No it isn't.

Golfers, like dartists , have a longer career. That's because it's not as athletic as proper sports. In fact, Woods is about the only real athlete among them which is why he has been so far ahead over the years.

Can you imagine a tennis player with the problems of John Daly being able to compete at all on the ITP tour?

[Neil Young]

[Shaggy]

No it isn't.

Golfers, like dartists , have a longer career. That's because it's not as athletic as proper sports. In fact, Woods is about the only real athlete among them which is why he has been so far ahead over the years.

A very simplistic viewpoint IMO. It is just one of a multitude of reasons.

Can you imagine a tennis player with the problems of John Daly being able to compete at all on the ITP tour?

John Daly did not compete in the slightest when he had his problems. He took part...for a bit. He is now competing again but he is over his problems.

Whether you like it or not, golf is quite obviously a 'proper sport'. You might deride it and that's fine, you don't have to like it. I think 'cycling' is utter ****e and nothing more than going for a bike ride, but despite that it remains a sport, albeit a minority one.

[Imy]

A very simplistic viewpoint IMO. It is just one of a multitude of reasons.



John Daly did not compete in the slightest when he had his problems. He took part...for a bit. He is now competing again but he is over his problems.

Whether you like it or not, golf is quite obviously a 'proper sport'. You might deride it and that's fine, you don't have to like it. I think 'cycling' is utter ****e and nothing more than going for a bike ride, but despite that it remains a sport, albeit a minority one.

Golf is a sport, it takes some skill to master it.

But in my opinion the physical nature of Tennis plus the skill level adding the fact that you're not playing a course you're playing another human being makes it harder to master.

[Shaggy]

Has Tiger always been number one?

Woods obviously had to climb his way to no.1 but once there he has remained there ever since…at the pinnacle.

In fact I believe this debate isn’t even a valid one as Federer isn’t currently the no.1 in his sport. As great as he is, there’s no comparison in my opinion.

[Shaggy]

Golf is a sport, it takes some skill to master it.

But in my opinion the physical nature of Tennis plus the skill level adding the fact that you're not playing a course you're playing another human being makes it harder to master.

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.

[Neil Young]

A very simplistic viewpoint IMO. It is just one of a multitude of reasons.



John Daly did not compete in the slightest when he had his problems. He took part...for a bit. He is now competing again but he is over his problems.

Whether you like it or not, golf is quite obviously a 'proper sport'. You might deride it and that's fine, you don't have to like it. I think 'cycling' is utter ****e and nothing more than going for a bike ride, but despite that it remains a sport, albeit a minority one.

There is a massive difference between racing and going for a bike ride. You might as well say there's no difference between trotting over to the pub and running like Usain Bolt.

I understand you like the game of golf and that's fine. However, there is a clear difference between the physical demands of golf and games like tennis or football, let alone the pure athleticism of racing like in cycling or running or many other sports.

I realise we're in danger of talking about definitions but since it seems you want to take this discussion seriously (which I hadn't previously understood given your first post) then I don't see how you can dismiss the different athletic requirements.

What else makes Woods so good at golf? The ability to handle pressure incredibly well. Magnificent hand/eye co-ordination. Anything else?

[dww]

Woods obviously had to climb his way to no.1 but once there he has remained there ever since…at the pinnacle.

In fact I believe this debate isn’t even a valid one as Federer isn’t currently the no.1 in his sport. As great as he is, there’s no comparison in my opinion.

You could argue that golf is simply less competitive.

I'm not sure anything meaningful can be said in terms of comparing the greatness of people in different sports. They both redefined the standards of the sport they compete in.