Whew. At Least The Federer Debate is Over
Tennis July 6th. 2009, 12:45pm
Since we spent most of Sunday on a beach and missed the gentleman’s final at Wimbledon, the best we can offer you on the greatest tennis player of all-time (it’s official now, if it wasn’t after he won the French Open) is a smattering of glowing – and one negative! – commentary about Roger Federer: (Also, for those of you clinging to the idea that Tiger’s better at golf that Roger is at tennis, Federer’s career record is 182-26. In the last five years, he’s an astonishing 121-8. There no longer is an argument for Tiger > Federer.)
“For those of us raised on the thrilling and also childishly embarrassing but distinctly American court antics of Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe, Federer is an acquired taste. But well worth the time it may have taken to acquire it.”- LA Times
“More problematic is the Swiss star’s 7-13 record against Nadal, for some would argue that if Federer is not even the best player of his time then it is a nonsense to hail him as the best ever.” – The Age
“In the open era, Federer is in a class of his own. While Sampras played in 52 grand slam finals to win his 14 titles, Federer has played in only 41 finals for 15 victories. Sampras was 31 when he won his last grand slam. Federer is only 27.” – Sydney Morning Herald
The Telegraph compiled the 20 greatest athletes in the world all-time, and some of you may take umbrage with the paper’s selections in the NBA, NFL, and baseball.
Roger Federer (tennis)
Jack Nicklaus (golf)
Muhammad Ali (boxing)
Michael Jordan (basketball)
Michael Phelps (swimming)
Martina Navratilova (tennis)
Pele (football)
Usain Bolt (athletics)
Valentino Rossi (MotoGP)
Babe Ruth (baseball)
Michael Schumacher (motor racing)
Lance Armstrong (cycling)
Sir Steve Redgrave (rowing)
Jackie Joyner-Kersee (track and field)
Wayne Gretzky (ice hockey)
Carl Lewis (track and field)
Don Bradman (cricket)
Gareth Edwards (rugby)
Joe Montana (American football)
Shane Warne (cricket)
111 Responses to “Whew. At Least The Federer Debate is Over”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Manny Ramirez!
/Worldwide Leader’d
July 6th, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Joe Montana? Give Telegraph credit for having a sense of humor.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Any list that doesn’t contain Jim Thorpe in the top 5 is bullshit.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I felt so bad for Roddick. He played brilliantly an pushed Fed further than Fed would have ever dreamed. I really wanted him to pull it out.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I’m not sure how you construct an argument one way or the other on this. That comparison is beyond apples and oranges. It’s like apples and dumptrucks.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Two of the 20 greatest athletes of all time played…cricket. Certainly.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Tiger is playing against a field every time out. Anyone only has to have one good tournament and tiger is screwed. In tennis you compete directly against your opponent and you only have to beat one of them at a time. Your talent can overwelm there talent AND you don’t have to personally defeat the vast majority of the competition. This is not a valid comparison.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Ding, ding, ding!
July 6th, 2009 at 1:00 PM
WHOA. I’m a huge Federer and tennis fan but this is comparing apples and oranges. Most of the time Federer’s 1st round opponents are qualifiers and guys just barely in the field. Not to mention Federer only has to beat 7 guys for a major while Tiger has to beat a 100 AND the golf course. The more astonishing fact is that Federer never slips up. HE’s never lost to a player outside the top 5 in any major. That is remarkable.
But if people want to say Tiger is better at golf than Federer at Tennis I’m inclined to agree since Tiger has a lot more variables working against him.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Taguchi hit the nail on the head. Tiger has to beat 150 guys to win a tournament. Federer has to beat 8 (or whatever the actual number is).
July 6th, 2009 at 1:01 PM
still think the mid 90s Sampras would have smoked Federer at his best.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Best athletics player Ive ever seen
July 6th, 2009 at 1:02 PM
i would say tiger > federerererer. because tiger is ‘MUUURICAN
July 6th, 2009 at 1:04 PM
No homo?
July 6th, 2009 at 1:05 PM
still think the mid 90s Sampras would have smoked Federer at his best.
And you’re still wrong Sparty.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:06 PM
/threadjack
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/news/story?id=4308751
agreement has been reached on the cubs sale…finally.
/end threadjack
July 6th, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Are you still clinging onto that overhead smash argument? Cuz that’s how Federer closed out Haas.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:07 PM
there never was an “argument…”
it’s 144 times easier to win a tennis tourney than a golf tourney. why 144? you face ONE guy in tennis, you face 144 in golf, and there’s far less a discrepancy in talent. all golfers are reasonably as good as each other on the PGA Tour…not so in tennis.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Actually, Tiger is playing against…himself. Or the course if you will. It would be like Tennis having a skills competition and then the winner being who achieved the highest score in those skills.
Tiger doesn’t do so well in match play, does he?
July 6th, 2009 at 1:08 PM
apples and dumptrucks are much more similar than most people think.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:08 PM
anyone who dont agree with me on this subject
go back to slurping more of what you really love to slurp.
[drops mic] [exits stage left]
/weekend polotics reference
July 6th, 2009 at 1:09 PM
you have got to be shitting me.
there are golfers who are better than tiger woods. lots of em. yet he wins because he’s simply better.
tiger’s fucking amazing in match play. 3 junior ams, 3 us amateurs, a bunch of WGC match play titles, 9&8 over steven ames…
July 6th, 2009 at 1:10 PM
THis is actually a fairly compelling argument, but I wonder how many of those 13 losses to Nadal came on clay.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Can’t believe they voted Sir Steve Redgrave in for rowing. This list is bogus!
July 6th, 2009 at 1:10 PM
what i meant to say.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:11 PM
go back to slurping more of what you really love to slurp.
[drops mic] [exits stage left]
/weekend polotics reference
Would you call that “being mrejr’d” or “being paolo’d”?
July 6th, 2009 at 1:11 PM
(head explodes)
July 6th, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I totally disagree. Sampras at his best was a serve machine with tremendous volleying skills and an occasional lethal forehand. Federer at his best was the best returner, best placement server, best forehand, best agility of anyone on tourand anyone maybe ever. Look at Federer around 2006. I’ll take that Federer against anyone thats ever played. Sampras serve would have been big, but Federer’s return game was so good back then that Sampras wouldn’t have been able to serve himself out of big spots.Don’t forget that Federer made big servers look very very average. He’s lost his return game recently so he looks average but if you look at what he did to Roddic in ‘05 and ‘06 he pretty much made Roddick overhaul parts of his game because he got every serve back.
Not to mention Fed would win most baseline rallies due to being able to move Pete around the court and get to a lot of balls only the likes of Agassi could get back in Sampras’ day.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:12 PM
What is “athletics,” and why is it different than “Track & Field.”
The comparison on Tiger v. Federer is perfectly legit. Federer is more dominant at tennis than Tiger is at golf. Who cares how the opponents are structured, Federer is more dominant, and he is probably the most dominant athlete ever.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I’ll happily concede.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Rod Laver.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Die Eagles Die = Dan Shanoff
July 6th, 2009 at 1:16 PM
If you’re going to use that argument then Michael Phelps is the most dominant athlete ever.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:16 PM
What, no snookers players? No badminton players? This list is fraudulent.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:17 PM
At least they kept Secretariat off the list.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Walter Ray Williams Jr (Bowling)
July 6th, 2009 at 1:18 PM
The argument is so stupid, but because tennis and golf are always intertwined, it will exist forever. Tiger plays more people each time, though none of those people every physically push back against Tiger like they do in tennis. I hate the argument that Tiger is better because he beats more people. I don’t know how many people are in a given golf tournement, but I bet, much like tennis, it really comes down to about 10 people who have a shot at the title. So the total numbers talk is bogus.
I think this is an interesting question. If the surface was Wimbledon circa 1995, Sampras wins in 3 (all tie breaks). If the courts are playing slow like they are now, Fed takes him down in 5.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:18 PM
who are these ‘150 golfers’ that Tiger has to play all the time? you act like the competition is fierce. one of the biggest hits against Tiger is that he’s never had a rival.
of the last 22 majors, there have only been 12 diff winners.
i dont know how many of those Tiger has played in, but i’d venture to guess he was favored in 95% of the ones he played in.
You can have a bad day and rally the next 3 days in golf. federer has a bad hour and he’s potentially out of a tournament.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:19 PM
or, what GoG said.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Excellent point.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Also this is a joke. Its like saying that the Washington Nationals went 12-6 against the Phillies, Philly won the World series, but the Phillies can’t be called champions because the Nats beat them.
Guess what, Andy Murray is 6-2 against Federer. Murray is the best player of his time! Federer is now 3rd best ever behind Nadal and Murray. Change those record books!
July 6th, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Gold in five straight Olympics. Say what you want about rowing, but dude was a beast.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:21 PM
This is the same argument that gets Tim Wakefield on the All Star team. He has a lot of wins, even though the underlying numbers aren’t all that impressive. Tiger may not win EVERY golf tournament, but his underlying numbers are spectacular. Federer wins more because in one of the sports it’s easier to win. This does not automatically make him better than Tiger Woods. The most dominant tennis player SHOULD win more than the most dominant golfer.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Woulda’, shoulda’, coulda’. I agree with you, but you can’t have him in the mix because of the 5 year issue when pros weren’t allowed to play in the majors. Had he played in those 5 years, the record would be in the 20’s. But he didn’t, so the argument cannot be made. He was a beast though.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Look at the number of ‘dominant’ tennis players over the history of the game… LOTS. There seems to be a player every single era (if not two) that just run through every opponent. In golf there have been arguably about 4.
Golf is harder to dominate therefore when someone does, it is a bigger accomplishment.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Tiger has to beat Sergio. He’s never won shit, but I hear he’s fucking fantastic.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:23 PM
And in tennis’ last 23 majors there have only 5 different winners
July 6th, 2009 at 1:24 PM
The courts were lightning quick the past two weeks. You really think Federer wouldn’t be able to break Sampras in both of their primes? I find that hard to believe since Federer is one of the greatest return men of all time. Its an interesting argument, but Federer is a better returner than Agassi with a better overall game than Andre and Agassi battle Sampras in their primes.
On grass I’ll say toss up. On any other surface I take Federer. No way Federer loses 3 tiebreaks on any surface. He has one of the best tiebreak records ever. Too bad we can never see this and the best we get are these crappy exhibitions where Federer is barely trying and Sampras is going balls out.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:25 PM
And Federer is favored in 75% of the tournaments he plays in (everything but clay courts).
July 6th, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Nadal vs Federer is not the same as what you have above. Team sports arguments cannot be used in this debate because individual sports are so different. The fact that Nadal owns Fed (and trust me, he OWNS him) is a very large knock against the GOAT argument. Nadal lost to Fed at Wimby’s 3 finals’ ago, but were it not for a knee injury, he had Fed on the ropes. He then housed him in the Aussie Final, French Final and then beat him at the Wimby final. The Nadal argument is tough to get around for Fed’s greatest of all time claim.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Yeah, because nobody’s don’t win golf tournaments ALL THE TIME.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:28 PM
They were lightning fast for the past few years, but still slow compared to Pete’s era. Also, Fed broke Roddick once in 35+ service games, and Roddick’s second serve is no where near Pete’s. His is and will most likely always be the best second serve in tennis.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:29 PM
And Federer is favored in 75% of the tournaments he plays in (everything but clay courts).
Federer actually worked really hard, and would be favored on any clay court anywhere, except when he’s playing a healthy Nadal.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:30 PM
No fucking way. Federer is a great returner, but he is not as good as the best returner of all time.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I’m confused.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Agree with your argument regarding team/individual, but as far as Nadal owning Federer isn’t that (ignoring Clay) a relatively recent occurance? Federer would beat Nadal over and over again on every other surface there for years. Federer is probably already on decline. Seems like you can just argue that Nadal can beat current Federer but not past guy. (And yes, you can just as easily argue Nadal has gotten better.)
July 6th, 2009 at 1:32 PM
You said that only ten people have a shot at winning a golf tournament most of the time. That is simply not the case.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Gods- You can’t use Federer now. Federer in his PRIME was an amazing returner. He has lost a lot of his return. Look at what Federer did to the Roddick serve from ‘05-’07. That is when Fed was at the top of his game. Agassi called him the greatest returner ever. If we take both players at their prime we can’t take Federer now and mid 90s Sampras. We have to take ‘06 Federer and mid 90s Sampras.
‘06 Federer vs mid 90s Sampras (totally agree on the second serve) on the quick lawn is fascinating, but I’ll still take Fed
July 6th, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Shane Warne shouldn’t be on the list, but Sir Don Bradman should be top five on any list compiling greatest athletes ever. His statistical reocrds swamp out even todays batsman, and his domination over his contemporaries is the greatest of any athlete in any sport.
On top of his sporting excellence, he was a role-model for the young nation of Australia when they were first throwing off the yoke of colonial relations. He demolished the british at a quintessentially british game.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:33 PM
dude, come on. believe it or not, tiger is not a god. he’s not the best ballstriker (sergio, mahan, ohair, and a bunch of other guys are all better), he’s not the best putter (steve stricker), he doesn’t have the best short game (phil, ogilvy), he’s just more mentally tough.
who cares how many he was favored in, if anything, that’s a testament to how good he is. golf is set up so you cannot dominate, yet tiger has on a historically great pace. jack, arnie, and gary player have all won around 10% of his tournaments…the only other guy in tiger’s class, ben hogan, has 21%. tiger has won about 27% of the tourneys he enters. oh, but because he’s a favorite, it doesn’t count? get out of here.
and tiger had a bad hour at the end of his first round at the us open that, ltierally, cost him the tournament. so there goes that argument.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I can’t believe the amount of energy being exerted to debate Tiger v. Roger. An amazingly moronic argument. It’s like arguing which is better: Reese’s Pieces or 30 Rock. They do 2 things that have business being compared.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:35 PM
So mediocre players winning majors in golf but not tennis helps the argument for Tiger or Federer?
July 6th, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Bill Russell: 13 seasons
11 championships
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01.html
dont give me the era argument, or the Red argument … this guy’s got to be top 5 … maybe No. 1 (Federer, too)
July 6th, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Oops. NO business.
/Jay V is amazingly moronic
July 6th, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Nadal lost the first match in 5 sets (after being up 2 sets to 0) and after that has pretty much owned the series. His spin he puts on the ball really bothers Federer’s backhand, making a very strong backhand rather mediocre. That, added to the fact that Nadal is stronger and faster, is the reason he beats him. Also, he has a mental edge over Fed, which cannot be underestimated.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:36 PM
another case for tiger being more dominant.
fed can’t beat nadal on clay.
ANY golf tournament ANYWHERE, tiger is favored. doesn’t matter if it’s on a pin seeker’s course in the desert, a brutish classic in the northeast or a links course with heavy weather in scotland.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Reese’s, easily
July 6th, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Interesting article on breaking down Agassi’s return, Sampras’ serve, and Federer’s dominance by statistics.
http://www.tennisweek.com/features/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6633156
July 6th, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I can’t believe the amount of energy being exerted to debate Tiger v. Roger. An amazingly moronic argument. It’s like arguing which is better: Reese’s Pieces or 30 Rock. They do 2 things that have business being compared.
Reese’s Pieces suck compared to 30 rock. You’re the moron.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:38 PM
regarding fed vs. Nadal.
It worth nothing that nadal is suffering from knee tendinitis, probably from overtraining and too much competition, while only 23. I don’t think Fed has ever suffered from similar overuse injuries, and it could be possible that Nadal will already be on the way down.
Nadal’s game is entirely based on a combination of his physicality, funny angles from lefthanders, and the slowness of modern courts. If he cannot keep up his intense training regimen (especially without PEDs, which he has been linked to) he will be a minor footnote in tennis. Comparable to Bo jackson, lets just say.
In that analysis, Fed comes out on top.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:40 PM
This is more of a question for Spencer, but I am pretty sure that 90% of the entrants have zero REALISTIC chance at winning the tournament.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Nadal owns him on Clay, but these other matches Nadal has won have all been 5 sets. It’s not like Nadal is destroying him and winning in straight sets. Federer had a match point in last years Wimbledon final.
By the way I 100 percent agree with the mental edge he has on Federer. Nadal losing at the French renewed Federer. No one can tell me any different. Can you imagine if Federer lost to Nadal again at the French? This whole Wimbledon might not have happened because Nadal has slowly broken Federer’s will. Doubts creep in. Its fascinating to watch.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:42 PM
What’s the equivalent of the clay argument in golf? Oh. there is none.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Reese’s Pieces aren’t even the 5th best peanut butter based candy. They’re what you get at Halloween, when Halloween sucks.
30 Rock is totally awesome. It compares favorably to Nutrageous, even.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Some bullshit tabloid makes shit up, and you bring that up as evidence?
July 6th, 2009 at 1:43 PM
What’s the equivalent of the clay argument in golf? Oh. there is none.
British courses?
July 6th, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Not that I care…but….false.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Word.
Nadal is in the beginning of his prime, Federer is on the way down. You can’t use a MJ vs. Kobe argument today unless you compare them to their prime years of playing, even if their career overlaps.
The big issue is that Nadal’s body may not stand up for much longer (see knee issues). Federererer had been able to play at a high level for a long time, putting him in the GOAT argument.
The issue of injuries and amount of stress put on your body in tennis vs. golf also makes the definition of dominant apples vs. dumptrucks differ.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:45 PM
EVERYONE who enters has the potential to win a golf tournament. period. no if’s, and’s or but’s.
hell, chez reavie, a dude who can’t hit it farther than i can, beat out AK, jim furyk and vijay singh last year in a tournament. brian gay, he of the 170 yard 4-iron has a TEN STROKE win this year in a stacked field and a FIVE stroke win.
jack fleck beat ben hogan in the us open.
zach johnson won the masters despite topping out at 280 on a 7,600 yard course.
francis ouimet beat harry vardon and ted ray to win the us open back in the early 1900’s.
there’s millions of examples out there. it’s WIDE open.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:45 PM
+10938249479
July 6th, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Or the fact that he was the patient of a doctor who supervised the one of the largest blood-doping rings in europe. Google Operation Puerto. He was implicated by sources, and is believed to be one of the hundreds of non-cycling samples that have not been investigated when the Operation closed up.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:46 PM
yea, because links golf in scotland is EXACTLY like playing a course in arizona.
it’s actually a perfect parallel, TBL.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:47 PM
I would need to comb over Pete’s losses (which I won’t do), but I cannot imagine he was ever beaten as badly in a big match as Federer was by Nadal at the French two years ago. The only one I can think of is when Safin pasted him in straights at the US Open, but it wasn’t nearly as bad as what Nadal did to Fed in Paris. If Nadal sees Fed at the French, it is a given he’s going to beat him.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:47 PM
/fixed?
//less-than-casual golf fan.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Bite your tongue.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:48 PM
mizerle…from comment #22.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:50 PM
ESPN just bleeped out about 5 seconds of Trey Wingo & Cowherd talking about the Joe Buck show and Artie Lange. No idea what he said
July 6th, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Tiger WAS amazing at match play. Didnt know junior titles were counted in this argument. LeBron has 3 championships. Plus a few AAU titles.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Spencer, citing a ben hogan tournament from god know’s how long ago might be an exception proving the rule.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Spencer, what did you think about Mahan’s run yesterday? Dude was on fire. I had never heard of him before the Rider Cup, but now I follow him quite often.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:53 PM
(combs archives for Sampras’ scores in the French Open final)
July 6th, 2009 at 1:54 PM
they used to be considered majors so…and they totally are relevant in this argument if you ever saw the matches themselves. simply stunning shit…tiger was pulling this stuff when he was 18. plus there’s simply not that much match play left in golf.
so citing a “tournament” (it’s the US Open, not the PODS Championship or some shit) where the 2nd most dominant golfer of all time loses to a guy who was a local pro doesn’t help my argument that golf fields are infintely deeper than tennis fields?
gotcha.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Oh my God. Admittedly, I’m a casual golf fan but at least once a year someone wins a major that I’ve never heard of. That tells me that more than ten people can win the Duluth Open most of the time.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:56 PM
gods…mahan has been a favorite of mine since 2007 when he won the travelers.
here are my thoughts.
he’s one of my favorites.
if you don’t feel like reading 1k words about golf, i’ll sum it up…it was the single most impressive round of golf i have ever seen played in my lifetime.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:58 PM
I was referring to majors when I said around 10 people have a shot at winning them.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Also, what the fuck was up with Tiger’s dumb ass speech thing when he was presented the trophy? Am I missing an inside joke?
July 6th, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Seriously, Reese’s Pieces? They’re gross. They’re a bait and switch. They look like M&M’s and they’re weighted like M&M’s, but they totally melt in your hands and the candy coating tastes like the coating on a wire hanger. And then all you get is stupid peanut butter, barely sweetened.
How is that even close to 30 Rock? How do you account for Toofer? Remember that time Frank wore that hat? Or that other guy said that thing that was funny?
There is absolutely no comparison. Now had you said peanut butter M&M’s, with their somewhat sweeter peanut butter, non melty candy coating, and little ring-0-chocolate for contrast, then I would consider you knowledgeable enough to continue arguing with.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:02 PM
when a no name wins a major in golf doesnt that show that theres more skill needed to win a tennis major?
July 6th, 2009 at 2:02 PM
it was a bad joke…it was hosted by him so he presents the trophy to the winner. he’s just a humorless robot in front of cameras, that’s all.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:04 PM
It was the single most impressive putting round I’ve ever seen; won’t go so far to describe it re: the total package.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:04 PM
hardly. it means that even no-name golfers are just as good as the top guys.
you’d be shocked at how good the guys on the nationwide tour are…a bunch of them could win a PGA tourney as well.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:05 PM
he was just as impressive off the tee. super long and accurate…his round all started there.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Got it. Stu Scott teased in the into to sportcenter that some reporter made an ass out of himself. Then they showed it, and I had no idea what the hell was going on. At least he tried to be funny I guess…but it was a swing and a miss.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Spence – I don’t like Congressional as a US Open course in ‘11. I wish they had stayed with the old layout, but the USGA has a bug up their ass about finishing with a Par 3. I think they should have just expanded the area near the green to bring the water more into play.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:26 PM
roeth…me neither. they’re tearing up all the greens too and there’s a chance it might not be ready by the 2011 open.
that’d be a debacle to say the least.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:26 PM
They just don’t have the mental edge to win big tourneys.
/bringing it back to tennis for Spence.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:29 PM
They just don’t have the mental edge to win big tourneys.
Mental edge had nothing to do with it. They’re just playing against the court
/you’d
July 6th, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Okay, I laughed.
But a golfer can go play by himself and get a score on a course (dumptruck). A tennis player needs a direct living opponent (apples) to have a score.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Spencer, what’s your take on this.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:23 PM
gods…he’s 100% spot on.
great talent, needs to focus if he wants to be a truly great golfer. it’s that kind of bullshit (or shit like being pictured hammered drunk with big ben in vegas during the middle of the beginning of the PGA season) that concerns me about his long-term prospects. right now, gimme mahan or sean o’hair over AK. gimme rory over AK too while we’re at it.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:21 PM
[...] Whew. At Least The Federer Debate is Over- Â [TheBigLead] [...]