Tiger-Roger- Who is the greatest?
It has been going on for quite a while now, the debate, Tiger or Roger, Roger or Tiger who is the greatest? Is it harder to win 14 Grand Slams in golf or 15 in tennis? Can they even be compared? I have struggled with these questions for some time now but never had any convincing arguments to push me in any direction. This past month though, I had a breakthrough, I found logic in an argument and am now convinced. And so while we are fresh of a memorable grand slam victory of my favorite sportsman in the world, here is my take. I have a sinking feeling I am going to get trashed for my views (or the fact that I even had the guts to compare these two legends).More often than not I would say that you probably can't compare achievements in two different sports. How do you compare golf to tennis? The games are so dramatically different. One has multiple surfaces, the other multiple clubs, one has 7 rounds in a grand slam, the other has 4. But here we are not comparing tennis to golf, we are comparing Roger's achievements in tennis to Tiger's in golf.
There is not much to choose between the two. Both have dominated the game they play, both have been world # 1 for a very long time, both have played shots that were never seen before on a court or a course and most importantly both have won consistently.
And then they have their own unique points that the other doesn't. Tiger has won a non- calendar grand slam, he held all four majors at one point, while Roger has not. 
Roger has over taken Pete Sampras as the winner of the most grand slams whereas as Tiger still has 5 more to win before he over takes the great Jack Nickalaus who is at 18 slam wins.
Roger has over taken Pete Sampras as the winner of the most grand slams whereas as Tiger still has 5 more to win before he over takes the great Jack Nickalaus who is at 18 slam wins. So who is the greatest? I am probably a bigger fan of Roger Federer than I am of Tiger Woods, but if I break it down fairly, I think Tiger wins. Here are my reasons, after a deep search for answers I could only find two.
The first one is the logic expressed by Chris Evert, the tennis queen who is now married to the great golfer Greg Norman. When posed the question, which sport is harder, she responded saying golf. Her reason- In tennis you have to beat one individual on that day. In golf you have to beat every person playing the tournament for four days straight (excluding the ones that get cut).
This logic did it for me. While I always believed it is harder to do what Tiger did in golf than what Roger did in tennis, I never really had a great answer for why. This statement by Chris Every however convinced me. The thing about golf is that if you are really having a bad day, you could very easily put yourself in a position, in round 1, from which there is no chance you can win the tournament. However, in tennis, in the first or second round if Roger is playing someone who is ranked 122 in the world, he could probably still pull it off on a bad day. You can't do that in golf. Ironically, there are no mulligans.
Can you imagine if Roger had to play Nadal every single day of a tournament? If he played Andy Roddick again today at Wimbledon the result could go either way. I don't know if this argument convinced you, but it certainly convinced me, Golf is harder.
The second argument is the impact Tiger has had on the game. In 2002, at Augusta National (where they play the masters for all you non golf watchers) they actually 'Tiger Proofed' the course by lengthening the holes. 
This was done to allow other golfers a chance to keep up with the man who can drive the ball off the tee like it is a video game. They changed the game for him. That is unheard of. He also changed the concept of fitness in golf, he has changed what an average length drive should be and he has taken the game of golf to heights that it had never dreamed it would be in terms of popularity. As much as I love Roger, the truth is that he hasn't changed the game of tennis at least as much as Tiger has with golf.
This was done to allow other golfers a chance to keep up with the man who can drive the ball off the tee like it is a video game. They changed the game for him. That is unheard of. He also changed the concept of fitness in golf, he has changed what an average length drive should be and he has taken the game of golf to heights that it had never dreamed it would be in terms of popularity. As much as I love Roger, the truth is that he hasn't changed the game of tennis at least as much as Tiger has with golf.And so in my book, Tiger wins.
Here is the best part though. We are born in a generation where we can watch both. I consider myself so lucky that we can watch these two fantastic ambassadors of sport on a regular basis. If yesterday's Wimbledon final is anything to go by, we are blessed to be born in this age.
Let the comments begin...
Photo Credit
Roger Tiger- David Cannon Getty Images
Roger Federer http://wimbledonlawntennischampionship.files.wordpress.com
Tiger Woods http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com
Great read PRG. Never looked at it the way Chris Evert did. I always thought Tiger was greater and so I agree. But this article helps with some good arguments :-)
ReplyDeleteI agree that golf is harder. But until Tiger breaks Nickalaus' record I don't think you can say he is the greatest. But I agree, his achievements for me are better than Rogers..
ReplyDeleteAgreed...Well put buddy.
ReplyDeleteROGER IS KING!!!!
ReplyDeleteTiger is pretty cool too I guess..but golf is a shit game, so who cares
Don't think you can compare the two bro. Good read though, makes one think of things in another way..
ReplyDeletecan't compare the tow sports or the sportsmen at all. But nonethe less a good read PRG
ReplyDeleteno two sports arecomparable and defi no two sports man one can never reach a conclusion any way a very good attempt
ReplyDeletei agree tiger wins all the way - but if you talking of contemporary greats - i think one guy you can compare with these two is Michael Shummi - On race day he is competing with 20 odd drivers - also multiple times F1 have changed the point system to make the sport more competitve but Shummi still came out on top everytime .... just a thought bro
ReplyDeletegreat insights! not so crazy about sports but an article like this creates an interest!!
ReplyDeletesimply great analysis
ReplyDeleteif that is the case then all Cricketers are the greatest, cause they have to first compete with local authorities to get into a local squad, then with the goons (read politicians) controlling BCCI to get higher up, then with the foreign coaches & team members (as there is a difference of opinion between all 15 players, manager, coach, bus driver, cleaner)also get over the hostile crowds in other countries & then be able to win against the other 11 members of the opposite team plus battle with the 3 umpires. So PRG, Chris Evert's argument that a golf player must compete with all & sundry on a given day does not make any sense. hence the logic is to retain Federer as a better out of the two - cheers mate
ReplyDeletein golf you play the course you are on that day - nothing else. and the course changes every time. so i don't think you can compare the two at all..in tennis there are a handful of courts they play on... not saying one is harder than the other...just saying you can't compare apples to oranges- you will never get an accurate answer.
ReplyDelete@ Kunal Dalal- Good point on Schumi. I had actually thought of putting him in there but since Tiger and Roger were being discussed so currently I left him out. But good point nonetheless.
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous who commented on July 8th. I agree with the point that cricketers struggle and all that. But what does that have to do with being the greatest at a sport? Is there any other sport for you besides cricket?
as McEnroe said - tiger only plays on grass while fed plays on clay, hard court etc also..
ReplyDeletebut agree. harder to get a masters in golf than a slam in tennis... though prefer fed to tiger any day as a sportsman...
I dont think its so simple. Federer has to play against different opponents with different play styles. Its a constant adjustment to balance ones own game, the nature of the surface and the opponents game. Tiger doesnt have the problem of facing players who target the smallest weakness day in day out. Federer can practice his backhand and forehand all day... but what happens when hes up against someone like Nadal who targets the areas where Fed is least comfortable playing?
ReplyDeleteAnother thing is that in golf Tiger can have a mediocre day by his standards and still make the cut. Since he is a player who on his day can beat every other player by 5-8 strokes, it always puts him in the running. The cut system averages out performances enabling the consistent players to catch up. In Tennis however its straight elimination. No second chances. I think thats far tougher to handle making Fed a greater player in mind.
TIGER CHEERLEADERS! Imagine Tiger wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th? How dominant would that be? Check this stat out! Former ATP record holder Pete Sampras won his first major at age 19 and 49 majors later at the age of 31 got his 14th. Roger Federer won his first major at age 21 and 25 majors later at the age of 27 got a new all time ATP record of 15 majors. How about Tiger you ask? Tiger won his first major at age 21 and 51 majors later at the age of 33 has 14 majors. So PETE=14/49, TIGER=14/51, and ROGER=15/25 from there first major won - to there last major played. Can you spot the STAND OUT? As you can see it Roger won 15 majors in about 1/2 the time it took Pete and Tiger to win 14 majors. That's like Tiger wining 19 majors in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th. ROGER FEDERER is the G.O.A.T. Greatest Of All Time & the all time majors leader in his sport. (Tiger or any of his Cheerleaders can't say that) and for those who say Tiger will eventually get 19 majors, I ask you how many majors do you think Mr. Federer will have at that time? NO! Roger doesn't have a unique zoo animal first name that eveyone knows like Tiger or a golf last name like Woods. NO! Roger is not American (African American) and doesn't stand out like a Black Sheep, but SO WHAT!
ReplyDelete