Alternate Shot: Was Tiger really the top golfer of 2007?

Let's not bury the lede. One of our "experts" watched the entire 2007 golf season and has declared that Tiger Woods was not the best player of the year. via ESPN

[twostroketerror]

I'm dumber for having read the entire article.

[bmj]

twostroketerror wrote:

I'm dumber for having read the entire article.

...no, I feel cheap and foolish for not heading to your note....I read the article and I became dumber then you!

[Rich Brannon]

Wow, what a waste of time. You would have thought that 'No Contest' wrote the article, you know, comparing apples to oranges. You just can't compare what one athlete does in his/her sport with another in their sport. Its just as bad as comparing today's athletes to athlete's of the past. No can do!!

[NO CONTEST]

Golf and Tennis have 4 majors every year and they are dominated by Tiger Woods and Roger Federer. This is why you can compare the 2 sports and the athletes that dominate them. The question on who dominates their sport more right now is easy. Let's just look at the facts. Tiger won his first major in 1997. From 1997-2007 he has won 13 out of 44 majors a wining percentage of 29.54%. Roger won his first major in 2003. From 2003-2007 he has won 12 out of 20 majors. A wining percentage of 60%. Tiger is age 31 and Roger is age 26. In 2008 Tiger will try to win the PGA Championship for the 2nd year in a row. Roger in 2008 will try to win the Australian Open for the 3rd year in a row, the U.S. Open for the 5th year in a row, and Wimbledon for the 6th year in a row. Moreover, if Roger wins 3/4 majors like he did in 2006 and 2007 he will be the all time majors leader in his sport at age 26. Tiger can't at age 31 he still needs 6 more. A golfer told me 9/10 people know who Tiger Woods is and 9/10 people don't know who Roger Federer is. I said OK! Now just find me 1 on this planet who is willing to bet in 2008 Tiger will win more majors than Roger? Tiger Woods and Pete Sampras called Roger Federer the most dominant athlete on the planet. YOu may disagree, but you, your golf buddy, or any sportswriter does not know more about being dominant in a pro sport than Tige or Pete. WARNING - stop making excuses for TIGER AND GOLF and start giving credit to ROGER FEDERER. Last, put your APPLES AND ORANGES back in the produce section.

[Bud]

Roger will blow out his knee and retire before this ever happens, too bad Roger, what could have been.

[Rich Brannon]

Bud, he just doesn't get it. To win the tennis U S open a player plays what?? 8-10 times in two weeks. To win the Golf U S open you have to be in the top 60 or so to make it to the weekend where the golfer still keeps his score!!! Then you have to beat the 60 or so players to win. He will never convince me that Roger is a better all around athlete. He is the best in tennis and Tiger is the best in Golf. Both will end up being the best ever in their respective sports. You can't compare the two sports.

[NO CONTEST]

Bud it's 2008 the year Roger Federer passes Tiger Woods in majors at the age of 26. This may also be the year he becomes THE ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER IN HIS SPORT. Who cares? I do people need to realize how dominant this guy is especially all of thos bling Tiger Cheerleaders.

[Bud]

Rich Brannon wrote:

Bud, he just doesn't get it. To win the tennis U S open a player plays what?? 8-10 times in two weeks. To win the Golf U S open you have to be in the top 60 or so to make it to the weekend where the golfer still keeps his score!!! Then you have to beat the 60 or so players to win. He will never convince me that Roger is a better all around athlete. He is the best in tennis and Tiger is the best in Golf. Both will end up being the best ever in their respective sports. You can't compare the two sports.

Cheers Rich, he/she does not get it, your right. I have come to the conclusion that this must be some teenage kid with a crush on his/her sports hero. I just think this person would have better luck with their opinion on a tennis forum rather than here on a golf forum. Wonder how long we will continue to have to here the drival.

[NO CONTEST]

No I am not a teenage kid! I am someone who can write FACTS like Golf and Tennis have 4 majors a year. Tiger won his first major in 1997. From 1997-2007 he has won 13 out of 44 majors. A wining percentage of 29.54%. Roger Federer won his first major in 2003. From 2003-2007 he has won 12 out of 20 majors. A wining percentage of 60%. Tiger is age 31 and Roger is age 26. Furthermore I can write FACTS like in 2008 Tiger will try to win the PGA Championship for the 2nd year in a row. BIG DEAL! Roger in 2008 will try to win the Australian Open for the 3rd year in a row, the U.S. Open for the 5th year in a row, and Wimbledon for the 6th year in a row. And you thought Tiger was dominant on grass? I can also write if Roger wins 3/4 majors in 2008 like he did in 06 and 07 he will be THE ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER IN HIS SPORT at age 26. Tiger age age 31 can't he stil needs 6 more. Can you golfer's write a thread like that? No you can't! Do I sound like a kid to you just because am not like one of those old men Tiger dominates on the PGA Tour. Take the average age of the top 5 golfer's in the world and the average age of the top 5 tennis player's in the world and you tell me who is in their MALE PRIME and who is closer to SOCIAL SECURITY? Finally, it's time to go to school! IN 2008 ROGER FEDERER WILL PASS TIGER WOODS IN MAJORS at the age of 26. CLASS - DISMISSED! Finally, be an educated sports fan, not a patriotic media hyped sports fan.

[twostroketerror]

Could you folks keep to the subject? Tiger vs. Federer is Supercross vs. Curling. Apples and oranges. Go back to your own weird little thread.

[Rich Brannon]

NO Contest hijacks all golf threads with the same ol' rethoric. Has been for about 2 months now. Nothing can be done that I know of. Probably some high school kid think he is cool or something.

[Bud]

He/she just doesn't seem to get that you can't/shouldn't compare the 2 sports, it's ridiculous

[NO CONTEST]

TIGER CHEERLEADER - Golf and Tennis have 4 majors a year, both are country club sports, and both are individual sports. That's why you can compare them. The only reason you don't want to compare them is that when you do you find out Roger dominates tennis more than your golf God Tiger dominates Golf.

[Bud]

NO CONTEST wrote:

TIGER CHEERLEADER - Golf and Tennis have 4 majors a year, both are country club sports, and both are individual sports. That's why you can compare them. The only reason you don't want to compare them is that when you do you find out Roger dominates tennis more than your golf God Tiger dominates Golf.

Once again, I'm not a Tiger fan, just a golf fan. I also enjoy watching tennis but don't get to play that much. Two totally different sports, one requires high intensity and concentration. The other can be relaxing and leisurely, does require concentration and can be frustrating at times but not intense. The fact they both have 4 majors has nothing to do with anything, If golf adds a fifth major are they then not comparable in your eyes. Two different sports, two different types of athletes required to play them. They both deserve the credit they get in their respective sports but there achievements cannot be compared, sorry. If you want to compare Rogers stats to Pete's that can be done and Tigers to Jack's, also can be done, can't accurately compare the 2 no matter what you and your calculator come up with.

[NO CONTEST]

OK Bud let's just say this. Golf and Tennis have 4 majors a year and when it comes to wining majors in golf or tennis no Pro currently playing today in golf or tennis has a higher wining percentage in majors than 26 year old Roger Federer. It's not because golf is harder, it's because Roger just wins and dominates that much more.