SPORTS
Tiger over Federer in best-ever debate
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Derek Zetlin:
- Gridiron: BCS top 2 intact; who's No. 3? (November 29, 2007)
- Cinderellas fly under national radar (November 1, 2007)
- GRIDIRON - No sure bet this year in Heisman race (October 25, 2007)
- GRIDIRON: Senior quarterbacks show potential (October 18, 2007)
- USC loss keeps upset train rolling (October 11, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Woods dominates entire sports column (February 2, 2007)
- Tiger Woods: best of our time (October 3, 2006)
- Baseball, Bonds on steroids; shocking (April 7, 2006)
- Looking past the gridiron (September 16, 2004)
- Take a swing, swig like a champ (October 18, 2007)
by Derek Zetlin
Friday, September 21, 2007
In sports, people debate about the "best ever." Will A-Rod pass Bonds, who passed Aaron, who passed Ruth? Is LT the best running back of all time? Will LeBron one day surpass Michael? No matter your take on each of these questions, each is a valid debate. However, two current athletes' legacies contain no more gray area. The question marks have been erased, and their names have been etched in stone. In their respective sports, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer are the best. Ever.
As Tiger chases Jack Nicklaus' career majors record and Federer gains on Pete Sampras's same mark, I find myself cheering for one and not the other. But why?
As a general rule of thumb, if I have no vested interest in a given sports matchup, I tend to root for the underdog. It's fun to watch teams that aren't supposed to win pull off the unthinkable. It was exciting when Appalachian St. knocked off fifth-ranked Michigan, whether you're a Wolverine hater or not. On any given day, any team can beat any other team. That's what makes sports great; that's why they play the game. With that said, it would only make sense that I would root against Tiger. I root against whoever stands opposite Federer, for surely he is an underdog. But I just can't do it; I can't root against Tiger. He's just too much fun to watch.
The point of this is not to debate who's more dominant: Tiger or Federer. For argument's sake, let's call that a wash. Both have an arsenal of shots that leave you speechless and begging for more. The question is: Why is Tiger so likeable and Federer's just not?
Maybe it's that Tiger hits his 9-iron as far as most people hit their 3-irons. Or maybe it's the red on Sundays, the utter ferocity each time he swings his driver, or his patented fist pump after sinking a long birdie putt. Maybe it's all of the above, plus more.
I'm not sure. All I know is, each time I watch Tiger Woods on Sunday afternoon, my eyes stay riveted to the television in hopes of another shot like the chip-in on 16 in the 2005 Masters, which resulted in the back-bending double-fist pump, something that puts chills down the spine of every golf fan in America. The fact is, Tiger plays with emotion, with passion. He's flat-out fun and entertaining. Roger should take notes.
Although Federer and his devastating one-handed backhand are cause for countless jaw-dropping reactions, there's just something about him that makes me want him to lose. John McEnroe and Andre Agassi were fun to watch, not only because they were amazing tennis players, but because they were characters on and off the court; they added excitement to the game. Ernie Els and Vijay Singh are great golfers, but no matter how many 8-irons they knock pin-high, watching them will never equate to watching Tiger.
I wish I could say the same about Federer, but I can't. He's an emotionless robot until just after the match point of a major, when each time he flops to the ground looking like a ten-year-old girl who just found her lost puppy. That celebration (for lack of a better term) would be OK once, but after the 11th and 12th times, it's getting a little old. Roger, stop acting so surprised, and either get a little creative or stop with the shenanigans. Sampras didn't have much of a personality either, but he never pretended to have one. Grab your trophy, and keep your knees off the court.
Federer may even be more dominant in his sport than Tiger is in his (I'm aware that's very debatable). But at this point, no matter how many majors Federer wins — even if Tiger wins no more — there's nothing he can do; Tiger is the No. 1 competitor in my book, hands down.
If you didn't realize it by this point, then wake up. We as current sports fans are spoiled. We are witnessing two individuals dominate their respective sports like no one else ever has. Golf and tennis fans alike know this already, but those of you who think individual sports are boring to watch, think again. I challenge you to watch these two phenoms on a Sunday afternoon. You won't regret it.
Derek Zetlin (dzetlin@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in economics.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 3:59am):
You suck, federer > Tiger any day.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 4:14am):
Hey Idiot
You americans always support your people.
Just be glad to be born in federer era to watch his play. Though Tiger is equally talented, Federer is more of pure genius and has next door boy image.
If you want to support americans, let it be in your thoughts, not in internet.
Is that clear?
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 5:03am):
You say that Federer is putting on a show when he falls to his knees after a major win. So why is it that Tiger was NOT putting up a show after that marvellous chip with his clenched fist, etc?
Get real. Dont judge athletes by their emotions or their life off-court. Judge them by what they do on the court.
Oops, maybe you are an American and like all americans you dont have enough IQ to understand what is happening on the court and want only a show to be put up. what a pity!!!
PS : If you still want to see Federers emotions, just watch all the matches that he has lost (not much, mind you)
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 5:34am):
Very American biased article. Makes me feel sad about journalism. Try to know Federer better and show some respect. Disgusting.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 6:10am):
You are, without a doubt, the stupidest person i have ever heard. Your view on tiger beaing better than federer is so blatantly biased its funny, in truth, its just bcos tiger happens to be american that you stay 'riveted' to the most boring sport in the world, golf. Federer is hands down a better sportsman and personality than tiger, and you're the only idiot in the world who's dumb enough to think otherwise.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 7:56am):
Tennis is an athletic sport requiring a player to be incredibly physically fit...golf is a game..enough said! You don't see fat,out of shape, smoking, drinking tennis players. There are plenty of those on the PGA tour. Golf is closer to bowling than tennis as an athletic sport! You may like Tiger more but Federer is a far superior athlete!
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 8:02am):
hey you stupid,
what non-sense did you write. Outside USA, Federer is far more popular than any US athlete. For example, in India, almost everyone knows Federer and no one know Tiger. Just grow up man, Federer is the most popular athlete in the world and greatest tennis player of all time. Just remember that when you write about someone, dont just write by keeing US in mind, think of the entire world.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 8:09am):
Federer is better than Tiger, period. Outside US, Federer is much more popular than Tiger. In a lot of countries like India, they dont even know who Tiger is. But Federer is very popular in India. Talent wise, both are great but Fed express is better. Golf does not need the stamina that tennis needs. That is a simple example of why Fed express is the greatest atlete.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 8:12am):
Hi Derek,
You are a great example of why Federer is not as popular as Tiger is in the US - a jingoistic xenophobe. Don't get it? Read this by Frand Deford (hope you heard of him).
"Suppose, just suppose, that instead of having an American father and a Thai mother, Tiger Woods had an American mother and a Thai father. Yes, suppose Tiger Woods had grown up Thai.
Can you just imagine what mere cursory attention he'd be getting in the U.S.? Why, most of the media would probably be falling all over themselves wondering if Davis Love III and Chris DiMarco could finally improve their games to catch up with that whatshisname Asian guy.
And suppose, just suppose, that Roger Federer had come from Maryland instead of Switzerland. Why, our kid from Bethesda would already have a new Cadillac model named after him, and Paris Hilton and Joe Lieberman would be leading the new American tennis boom. "
For the full article, here is the link for your convenience:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/frank_deford/09/20/usa/index.html
Recently Bud Collins talked about American jingoism. He covered Wimbledon for some 33 years.
Talk to McEnroe, Courier, Agassi, or even Roddick or Blake. They will tell you why Roddick and Blake are more of household names in the US than Roger is. It is simple, fellow, Roger is not American. That's his fault. Not yours for hating him :)
You had a good article going until this:
"Ernie Els and Vijay Singh are great golfers, but no matter how many 8-irons they knock pin-high, watching them will never equate to watching Tiger."
Again, my friend, you see the common thread here. Ernie and Vijay are not American.
You will not see more professional golfers than these two. And they are as talented as any.
I will tell you something. If the media spent half the time hyping up Ernie and Vijay as they do Tiger, they could be as popular as Tiger is. Same with Roger.
But thanks for a nice post anyway. It is a great reflection of a big part of our society and our culture - a jingoistic, xenophobic one.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 9:07am):
No way!
Tiger is fine~~~but in no way has the athletic *shazazz* of Federer!
If you think Federer is a robot~~you need to look harder.
He has a winning personality and everyone who knows him talks about how much fun he is to be around
On the court he is an artist.
He's a magician.
Maybe you should try to give him a second chance...
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 9:42am):
You are ignorant and do not appreciate a true legend in Federer. While Tiger has to walk around day after day with someone else carrying his clubs and can afford to have a day day or two, Federer cannot do the same. He has to be at the peak of his fitness for two whole weeks and play seven games of three hours or more to win a slam. While Tiger may smile now and then, lets face it, he has no charisma or personality. Federer acknolwedges and respects his oppoenents but not Tiger. So dude, go watch a grand slam and then write such articles.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 9:58am):
Federer is a class act. If he doesn't show off his emotions that often during the match that can only mean one thing: its working for his wins!
He is a true gentleman off and on the court. His personality is his own and he is no Connors, Mc Enroe, Sampras.....he is Federer!!
From your naive approach to the article it seems that you would appreciate him more if he started throwing tantrums on the court and flipping his opponents and intimidating them?
Sabih Sahto
sabihrs@gmail.com
Joydeep Mitra (September 21, 2007 @ 10:05am):
Hi Derek, just spewing emotions on court doesn't mean you don't have any. Unless you have passion you cannot achieve the legendary status that Federer has reached. Instead of looking for superficial displays of melodrama just revel in his genius. If you want to learn more about him off-court, go to his website rogerfederer.com. But I personally want him to win every game he plays because of the true classy sportsman he is. The true greats of the past like Rod Laver were all like Federer, well-liked and respected by his peers and victims. It is these true sportsmen whose legacies can stand the test of time.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 10:33am):
Dude, did you even bother reading your own article? So, tiger, mcenroe and agassi were interesting and Federer, Singh and the others boring? Hmm.. let me think now... what's the pattern here...??? This one's difficult....! AMERICANS GOOD THE REST BAD????? is that what this is all about?
Here's an idea kid. Go get some brains, finish your economics and stop commenting on matters that you americans cannot comprehend.
Joydeep Mitra (September 21, 2007 @ 11:18am):
Regarding my previous comment I would also like to qualify that I am an American and a great fan of Roger Federer!
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 12:32pm):
I know it's kind of cliche to talk about how Americans are all caught up in their stuff, especially if you are from outside the U.S., but read these comments and tell me there isn't some definite anti-U.S. bias being thrown around. Kind of ironic from the "more intelligent" foreign contingent...
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 2:20pm):
off topic here... but how can anyone actually enjoy watching golf? zzzzzzzzzz...
Joydeep Mitra (September 21, 2007 @ 2:34pm):
I agree with the previous anonymous comment (BTW it would be nice if some of you registered so we could associate some names to the comments), some of the comments definitely have an anti-american bias. I re-read the original article and I believe the author is expressing his own views here (though he should be a little more careful about not generalizing some of his points). It would be nice if the posters could address specific issues in the author's article instead of just bashing him and steering the discussion to an anti-american angle. I don't think Federer himself would have approved of this because true to his nature I personally believe that Federer is respectful towards all people irrespective of their ethnicity. If you follow Federer closely you'll know that one of the principles he closely follows is "It is nice to be important but more important to be nice".
Best wishes,
--Joydeep
Derek Zetlin (September 21, 2007 @ 2:38pm):
Let me clarify a few things:
The point of the article is NOT to compare the two in terms of dominance or greatness, that is clearly stated. The headline is midleading in that regard. I merely was comparing them from an entertainment standpoint, who I root for and why. If you diagree with me, then that's your opinion.
Also, the foreign vs. American "theme" is merely a fluke. In no way did I intend for that to happen. I chose Singh and Els at random, not because they are foreign. I don't dislike foreign athletes by any means. In no way did I mean to offend anyone at all. I said that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever, remember that.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 3:29pm):
Sports journalism should not carry such a heavy bias...just because you 'try' to play golf and never attempted tennis does not mean you can actually judge the players attitudes in their respective sports...if you want something to ponder...ponder that Federer is more fit than Woods or most American athletes hands down. He trains for hours in the heat 110 degree heat of Dubai when he's not playing in a tournament. Such commitment and dedication is something all sports fans should admire. Even biased meat-heads like yourself.
Anonymous (September 21, 2007 @ 7:14pm):
Dear Derek,
Unfortunately, your article is not worth our time.
1.) You support Tiger because he's American and you don't like Federer because he's a foreigner. I think we get your point.
2.) Here is your most ridiculous statement: "But at this point, no matter how many majors Federer wins -- even if Tiger wins no more -- there's nothing he can do; Tiger is the No. 1 competitor in my book, hands down." Hahahaha, c'mon, nobody takes you seriously after writing that.
3.) If you knew something about tennis you wouldn't focus on Federer's backhand. It just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Anonymous (September 22, 2007 @ 1:05am):
Federer has won almost the same number of majors in 4.5 years as Tiger has in 11. Even Tiger admits he's second best. The only reason you dislike Roger is 1. He's not American, 2. You're not a tennis fan. Either reason makes you unqualified to make an objective comparison between these two athletes.
Anonymous (September 22, 2007 @ 10:47pm):
And why do I care about your opinion, Derek? I think I'll go watch a recording of Fed opening a can of wup, again.
Jel
Anonymous (September 23, 2007 @ 7:34am):
Hi Darek,
I am not an American and I am not a Swiss. I am a neutral Asian. Reading the article I definitely got the impression it was a little xenophobic. But if you want to talk about being emotive of these two, then title it appropriately(Dont title it best ever debate and proceed to discuss the entertainment value).
Lets forget about all those other factors consider about only the entertainment value. If you want a fist pumping thigh slapping gung ho hero go watch a hollywood movie. Dont watch the sports. Tiger maybe the very best of the Golfers of all time but by his own admission he has said he wants to be in Championships as he doesn't have to stare at the opponents and still keep his cool he is playing against the greens only. But in Federer's case he is keeping his cool inspite of the opponents level of games and their mannerisms and the crowd support(invariably the opponent gets the crowd going for him). And STILL keep his cool. And that my friend is class. Hope u understand this. I dont know if being an American might make it tough for you to understand this(as others seem to be suggesting) as I am not one.
Infact Federer of younger days was a bit of a devil with temper tandrums which could rival McEnroe in his earlier days, but his greatness has been achieved when he has become focussed on his game and has obtained his Zen mentality. He has infact applauded Djokovic's antics saying that he likes that because it shows that the serb is confident and he himself went through the phase where the thought he could uproot trees and be a superman.
On a closing note I just want to ask you this: how can you find guys standing around or walking most of the time and hitting a couple of shots to be more entertaining than the ball flying around all over the court at incredible speeds and incredible angles and guys sliding, gliding, turning and flying? It is a fact that Federer lets the ball and racquet do all the talking where the lesser mortals have to resort to fist pumping and shouting. and for most part all the stares and admiring looks are already given by the opponents so why should Fedex shld waste his energy.
Anonymous (September 23, 2007 @ 3:00pm):
articles written in this vein usually come from people who know nothing of the game of tennis.i do so pity you if this is journalism get yourself a proper job.one that you know something about.its so irrate and childish to see a grown man write in such a manner.Federer is the alltime best accept it graciously and forget your nonsense of Tigers golf being so amazing its a game .what Federer does is sheer hard work and perfection Tiger doesnt have to work like Federer or never will.
andre marshall (November 19, 2007 @ 10:22am):
Tiger vs. Roger - Roger won 3 majors in 2007 and Tiger won 1.
andre marshall (November 29, 2007 @ 6:07pm):
TIGER vs. ROGER - 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 will bet that in 2008 Tiger will win more majors than Roger?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
