Tiger Woods and Roger Federer more than champions

Nice story. It's awesome to see Tiger in the Federer box during US Open finals. Truly a unique duo.

And I imagine they could have live feeds of Tiger in his box. He swears on the course not the court.

I have to agree I think both Roger Federer and Tiger Woods are the greastest ever in their sporting field. They also have a great friendship and kind hearts to go with it. I wish them both all the luck in the world to carry on being amazing and pick up more and more majors between them as well.

What's special about Roger Federer and Tiger Woods is that they have had a revolutionary impact on their sports -- they have raised the bar, changed how their sports are played, and motivated fellow competitors to train harder and improve. They are also both icons in the larger sports world as Federer was the record four-time winner of the prestigious Laureus World Sports Awards Sportsman of the Year Award (see link)-- beating other world sports greats such as Lance Armstrong, Michael Phelps, Ronaldinho and Michael Schumacher as well as Tiger Woods -- while Tiger has won this Laureus award twice. The 40 great sports legends who make up the Laureus World Sports Academy (e.g., Jack Nicklaus, Michael Johnson, Mark Spitz, Edwin Moses, Dan Marino, Martina Navratilova) vote by secret ballot to select the award winners. Federer is not just arguably the greatest tennis player of all time, he is also the Michelangelo of tennis for the beauty and elegance of his game. If Roger was American, he would be at least as well known as Tiger. http://tinyurl.com/35e66s

Mike wrote:

What's special about Roger Federer and Tiger Woods is that they have had a revolutionary impact on their sports -- they have raised the bar, changed how their sports are played, and motivated fellow competitors to train harder and improve. They are also both icons in the larger sports world as Federer was the record four-time winner of the prestigious Laureus World Sports Awards Sportsman of the Year Award (see link)-- beating other world sports greats such as Lance Armstrong, Michael Phelps, Ronaldinho and Michael Schumacher as well as Tiger Woods -- while Tiger has won this Laureus award twice. The 40 great sports legends who make up the Laureus World Sports Academy (e.g., Jack Nicklaus, Michael Johnson, Mark Spitz, Edwin Moses, Dan Marino, Martina Navratilova) vote by secret ballot to select the award winners. Federer is not just arguably the greatest tennis player of all time, he is also the Michelangelo of tennis for the beauty and elegance of his game. If Roger was American, he would be at least as well known as Tiger. http://tinyurl.com/35e66s

Neither one of these sports icons can even be considered the G.O.A.T. until they surpass the record for the most majors in their respective sports.

While I agree that both have raised the bar from where the former #1s had placed it, only Tiger has changed how his sport is played. Golf courses have been changed/designed in ways to make them more difficult, specifically, for him. Nothing of that nature has happened in tennis as a result of Federer's success.

Also, Tiger is the reigning #1 golfer in the world. Federer is currently #2 in his sport, and has lost 5 out of the last 6 times he has played Nadal, the current world #1 player. Borg was in a similar situation and then ran in to a young McEnroe. All the talk of him being the G.O.A.T. vanished.

Lastly, both Tiger and Federer are great talents, but many still feel that Nicklaus and Laver are the greatest ever to play in their respective sports. Sure, Tiger may surpass Niclaus' 18 majors, however, Nicklaus also finished 2nd in majors NINETEEN times. And under MUCH stiffer competition, I might add. Someday Federer may hold the record for most GS, however, he has never won the calendar GS. Laver won it TWICE, the last time when he was 31. Many of the adjectives used for Federer's style of play were first used to describe Laver's game - quick, smooth, powerful. And, lets not forget, Laver won majors before the open era, during the open era, and was still winning masters tournaments well into his mid-thirties.

Tiger and Federer are truly remarkable athlete's, but they weren't the first to be great, and aren't truly yet the best.

Well said, TMD, especially the part about Rod Laver. I just don't see how Federer can be considered a greater tennis player than the Rocket.

TMD wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither one of these sports icons can even be considered the G.O.A.T. until they surpass the record for the most majors in their respective sports.
While I agree that both have raised the bar from where the former #1s had placed it, only Tiger has changed how his sport is played. Golf courses have been changed/designed in ways to make them more difficult, specifically, for him. Nothing of that nature has happened in tennis as a result of Federer's success.
Also, Tiger is the reigning #1 golfer in the world. Federer is currently #2 in his sport, and has lost 5 out of the last 6 times he has played Nadal, the current world #1 player. Borg was in a similar situation and then ran in to a young McEnroe. All the talk of him being the G.O.A.T. vanished.
Lastly, both Tiger and Federer are great talents, but many still feel that Nicklaus and Laver are the greatest ever to play in their respective sports. Sure, Tiger may surpass Niclaus' 18 majors, however, Nicklaus also finished 2nd in majors NINETEEN times. And under MUCH stiffer competition, I might add. Someday Federer may hold the record for most GS, however, he has never won the calendar GS. Laver won it TWICE, the last time when he was 31. Many of the adjectives used for Federer's style of play were first used to describe Laver's game - quick, smooth, powerful. And, lets not forget, Laver won majors before the open era, during the open era, and was still winning masters tournaments well into his mid-thirties.
Tiger and Federer are truly remarkable athlete's, but they weren't the first to be great, and aren't truly yet the best.

Laver i buy. But, who actually says Niklaus was a better player without question?

You gave your opinion, but put it forth as some expert's thoughts. I know of no experts on the game or its history that irrevocably states Niklaus is the GOAT, and Tiger is a clear #2.

Look, i'm 53, and a golfer. I loved Jack back in the day. But, it seems obvious to me that Tiger is at least as good, and probably better than Jack, given the depth of the fields. That's not a shot at Jack! Just that it shouldn't be obvious to ANYBODY that Jack is superior to Tiger. It's a debate that one can have, but nobody should see it as obvious.

For me, Tiger is already the best competitive player ever. But, i'd be ok with declaring it a tie.

Mike wrote:

What's special about Roger Federer and Tiger Woods is that they have had a revolutionary impact on their sports -- they have raised the bar, changed how their sports are played, and motivated fellow competitors to train harder and improve. They are also both icons in the larger sports world as Federer was the record four-time winner of the prestigious Laureus World Sports Awards Sportsman of the Year Award (see link)-- beating other world sports greats such as Lance Armstrong, Michael Phelps, Ronaldinho and Michael Schumacher as well as Tiger Woods -- while Tiger has won this Laureus award twice. The 40 great sports legends who make up the Laureus World Sports Academy (e.g., Jack Nicklaus, Michael Johnson, Mark Spitz, Edwin Moses, Dan Marino, Martina Navratilova) vote by secret ballot to select the award winners. Federer is not just arguably the greatest tennis player of all time, he is also the Michelangelo of tennis for the beauty and elegance of his game. If Roger was American, he would be at least as well known as Tiger. http://tinyurl.com/35e66s

Roger Federer dosn't need a specific flag tagged next to the genius he is. The world knows and loves him for what he represents and brings to the game of tennis. It's only the commentators and the press who rather swallow their tongue and choke on it before they give Federer the credit that he deserves. But guess what .. Federer is not going away regardless and the millions of Federer's fans are not going away either.

ProfessorGAC wrote:

<quoted text>
Laver i buy. But, who actually says Niklaus was a better player without question?

Where in my post did I say Nicklaus was a better player "without question"? I said "many still feel that Nicklaus and Laver are the greatest ever to play in their respective sports".

.

You gave your opinion, but put it forth as some expert's thoughts. I know of no experts on the game or its history that irrevocably states Niklaus is the GOAT, and Tiger is a clear #2.

Once again, That is not what I said. There have been many debates among golfers and sportswriters about who is/was the best golfer of all time. If you need proof here are a few links that took me about 30 seconds to find:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8534970/ns/spor...

http://www.midweek.com/content/columns/hotair...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/9064...

http://videos.espn.com/m/video/22419352/tiger...

http://www.golfswingsecretsrevealed.com/blog/...

http://www.wisn.com/sports/1854369/detail.htm...

.

Look, i'm 53, and a golfer. I loved Jack back in the day. But, it seems obvious to me that Tiger is at least as good, and probably better than Jack, given the depth of the fields. That's not a shot at Jack! Just that it shouldn't be obvious to ANYBODY that Jack is superior to Tiger. It's a debate that one can have, but nobody should see it as obvious.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

On one hand you tell me that it shouldn't be "obvious" to anyone that Nicklaus was better than Tiger (which I never said), then you go on to say it's "obvious" to you that Tiger is "probably better" than Nicklaus.

Maybe you should take some of your own advice and just stay away from making those type statements. Especially in light of the fact that Tiger himself idolized Nicklaus, and still calls him the greatest golfer ever.

.

For me, Tiger is already the best competitive player ever. But, i'd be ok with declaring it a tie.

You can't declare it a tie because Nicklaus won 18 majors with far inferior equipment, and against much stiffer competition, to Tiger's 14.

If Tiger stopped playing golf today there wouldn't be a sportswriter/expert on the planet that would declare him the G.O.A.T.

TIGER vs. ROGER - Who is the REAL dominant athlete when it comes to majors? Pete Sampras won his first major at age 19 and won his reocrd 14th at age 31. Tiger won his first major at age 21 and his 14th at age 33. So it took Tiger and Pete 12 years to win 14 majors. Roger Federer won his firs major at age 21 and his Grand Slam record 14th at age 27. So it took Roger only 6 years to win 14 majors. SO WHAT'S THE POINT? Imagine if Tiger won his 18th major in 1/2 half the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th. No! Roger doesn't have a unique first name like Tiger that everyone recognizes. No! he doesn't have a golf last name like Woods. No! he is not American. No! he doesn't stick out like a BLACK sheep among a flock of WHITE ones, but ROGER FEDERER IS PURE DOMINANT and I wouldn't be surprised if Nadel retires from tennis before Federer does. Why? The way Nadel plays will take a toll on his body and shorten his tennis career. Finally, all you PATRITOIC TIGER CHEELEADERS need to give RESPECT to the REAL KING of Majors ROGER FEDERER! Oh Ya! in 2009 TIGER CHEERLEADERS will watch Tiger try to win the U.S. Open for the 2nd year in a row. Afterwards, YOU TIGER CHEERLEADERS should watch Tige in New York as he watches ROGER FEDERER in 2009 try to win the U.S. Open for a record 6th year in a row! Now even you PATRIOTIC MEDIA RED, WHITE,& BLUE TIGER CHEERLEADERS know that deserves a PEP-RALLY. Oh ya! What's the TIGER-HYPE gonna be this year? Let me guess in 2008 Tiger wins the U.S. Open on one leg and in 2009 he will try to win the U.S. Open for the 2nd year in a row on the other leg right? I BET AM CLOSE. ROGER FEDERER the all time majors leader in his sport with the Grand Slam at age 27! TIGER OR HIS CHEERLEADERS CAN'T SAY THAT!