Monday, June 8, 2009

Tiger v. Roger

Who is more dominant?

It's a country club question for sure, but it is something to think about. Let's do that now...

Tiger's Case:

Woods has to:
Beat fields of over 150 players (unless it's the match play championship).
Compete on different courses and sites throughout the year.
Be on top of his game, physically and mentally when he tees it up.
Be the leading man in his sport.
Face intense media scrutiny when he fails to win.
Continue to be the Pied Piper of golf.

Federer's Case:

Federer has to:
Defeat 7 opponents to win a tournament (majors).
Play on 3 different surfaces (hard court, clay, grass).
Play in many different countries, time zones, etc.
Be the leading man in his game.

Tiger wins out, and here's why.

Golf draws more viewership than tennis, and it's because of Tiger. TV doesn't rule the roost--Tiger does. If Woods is in the hunt on Sunday, TV ratings climb. If he isn't in the field, something else is on your TV set.

Sad thing is, Federer is one of the greatest players of all time. His win at the French Open on Sunday completed his career Grand Slam. Problem with that is, he didn't defeat Rafael Nadal to do it. Federer lost 4 straight French finals to Nadal. Nadal's perfection on the red clay ended, and that opened the door for Federer. It's not his fault, but there will be those that say the win wasn't legit (an argument I don't buy).

Tiger's 4th Memorial win on Sunday was classic Tiger. Birdie 17 and 18, rip the hearts of your opponents out, and show it to them as the room goes dark. That's what he does. He's an assassin in Dri Fit. He smiles at you as he's beating your brains in, and he does it with the grace and class of a Jack Nicklaus, Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, or a Gene Sarazen.

Tiger played at Bethpage Black on Monday, a day after winning at Muirfield. Rather than go back home, he went to have a look-see at the US Open course.

Oh yeah, he won last time the Open was played there.

Tiger has that smile again. Watch out.

Mike Solarte


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

TIGER CHEERLEADERS! Imagine Tiger being the only person to win 3/4 majors all in the same calender year 3 times? Imagine Tiger wining 2 different majors 5 years in a row? Imagine Tiger having MORE MAJORS than the REST OF THE FIELD COMBINED? Imagine Tiger being only age 27 and wining 15 of his last 25 majors and being THE ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER IN HIS SPORT? Imagine Tiger in 2009 trying to win his 6th U.S. Open in a row? Now TIGER CHEERLEADERS open your eyes to REALITY and say ROGER FEDERER! More? OK! Imagine Tiger wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th. That won't happen because that time for Tiger has come and gone, but Roger Federer did win a record 15 majors in 1/2 the time it took previous record holder Pete Sampras to win 14. Check these stats out! Pete Sampras on his first major at age 19 and 49 majors later at the age of 31 got his record 14th. Roger Federer won his first major at age 21 and 25 majors later at the age of 27 got a new ATP record of 15. How about Tiger you ask? Tiger won his first major at the age of 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 win to there last major played. Can any of you TIGER CHEERLEADERS see the STAND OUT? Roger won a record 15 majors in 1/2 the time it took Pete and Tiger to win 14. Need I say anymore? GAME, SET, and MATCH ROGER FEDERER! - NO! Roger doesn't have a unique first name like Tiger or a golf last name like Woods. NO! Roger is not African American or doesn't stand out like a Black Sheep, but SO WHAT!