Who's the greatest?
It seems absurd that events in a different sport can influence another, but doesn't Roger Federer's Wimbledon success further shorten the odds on a Tiger Woods win at the Open?
Federer's record-breaking 15th Grand Slam title generated a congratulatory text from the Woods mobile just as soon as Tiger had wrapped up business in Bethesda where he enjoyed his latest PGA Tour win at the Congressional Country Club.
"We texted," said Woods. "He won the French and I won Memorial, so it was kind of let's do it on the same day, let's do it again today. That would be nice. His are a hell of a lot bigger than mine, though. He won two Slams and I won two Tour events. Hopefully I can get the majors now."
The two greatest individual sports stars of our time (who don't propel darts for a living) are big buddies. They have us believe their bond is down the unique insight they share on how to utterly dominate a global sport.
Their conversation topics must include how to keep the opposition down, the media at arms length and how to make sure the noughts keep being added to the sponsor contracts they share.
They act as spokesmen for each other, bigging up the other's triumphs and excusing their disappointments. "And most people forget he was ill then," Woods has said many times to explain Federer's failure to win the 2008 Australian Open.
These two do share much in common and being mates makes a lot of sense at all levels. Tiger will be dispensing nappy changing and night feed advice before long.
But, perhaps more significantly, they remain big rivals as well. The BBC Television commentary on Federer's epic win over Andy Roddick duly noted that the great Swiss had rolled past not just Peter Sampras in the major stakes "but also Tiger Woods."
What was a golfer doing muscling in on such a huge moment for tennis?
Well, it is a reflection of how intertwined the careers of these two have become and it provides a reason why Woods becomes an even more dangerous prospect at Turnberry.
And this makes me wonder whether Federer is in some way Woods' biggest rival? Certainly no current golfer comes close to Tiger's achievements and it is hard to imagine one emerging soon.
So do we have to look to another sport to identify a true rivalry? If we do, then we should look no further than the six-time Wimbledon champion.
It was a question that floated around throughout my time at Wimbledon (I hot-footed there for 5 Live straight from the US Open). Inevitably the other was who the greater sportsman, Federer or Woods?
The nature of the Federer's extraordinary victory will surely have nudged him to the front, just as Woods' US Open win on one leg last year (combined with Rafael Nadal's rise in tennis) had the American golfer ahead.
It's a fascinating argument with no definitive answer - and the fact that golfers don't have to run to play their sport is irrelevant. It is a debate about the skill and nerve required to beat all comers at games played the world over.
It is a story of two great competitors from two great sports plying their trade simultaneously at a level rarely seen before.
Yes, there is an element of comparing apples with oranges here but there is enough common ground to still make the discussion as tasty as the best fruit salad.
Top golfers and tennis players share much mutual respect. That was evident from the golfing talent that joined us in the 5 Live Wimbledon commentary box over the fortnight - Sergio Garcia, Rory McIlroy and Graeme McDowell all joined us and Adam Scott was also spotted at the All England Club.
But back to the two arguably biggest individual sportsman in the world. Federer moved from 13 to 15 Grand Slams to eclipse Sampras' major record by winning the French Open and then Wimbledon in quick succession.
Were Woods to perform at a similar level and capture the Open and PGA, Federer would be playing catch up again by the time he arrives at Flushing Meadows for his US Open defence at the end of August. This fact will surely not be lost on Woods.
Indeed, both would like nothing more than to continue a tit for tat rivalry and for the golfing world that means Woods will be as motivated as ever at Turnberry and Hazeltine.
Mind you, that would have been the case anyway - competitors at this level don't tend to need any extra gee up. Not that that should stop the discussions thrown up by the greateness of these two extraordinary athletes.
I’m Iain Carter and I’m 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~54~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Federer is better than Tiger. Tigers game is too one dimensional. He has no backhand, no volley skills and dosent run towards the net enough.
So i would take Federer.
Great idea to compare the two is it not?
Complain about this comment
It would be great to watch RF play a round of golf and TW a set of tennis. Perhaps arm wresting or darts could be considered, with maybe a game of snooker if it finishes all square..............to decide who really is the greatest!!!!
Complain about this comment
Those Gillette adverts are a bit dodgy. Why is Fed hanging round in men's bathrooms?
Complain about this comment
tiger is a better sportsman- he is totally dominant in his sport, whereas federer (until recently) wasn't even the world number 1. Federer is a fantastic tennis player but you could argue that nadal is better as he has a better record against federer. How can you be the best sportmen in the world if you can't even be it in your sport?
Complain about this comment
Seaming Wicket (Post 1)
I haven't seen Federer hit a 300-yards-plus drive straight down the middle, or a 3-wood 260 yards that lands like a butterfly with sore feet, or sink a 12-foot putt to get into a Major playoff.
Could be Federer isn't a complete sportsman after all - merely the best at what he does.
Complain about this comment
Yawn...What a pointless article...yawn
Complain about this comment
seemingwicket:
does federer have to judge the trajectory of his shot to such an extent as woods on every shot?
Does federer have to play on a mix of terrains in a single match?
Does federerhave to work out contours to suit his shot?
Don't get me wrong, I believe the men are equal, but it's difficult to be decisive on such a topic due to the differences in each sport.
Complain about this comment
tiger is better, because in golf you have to beat everyone whereas in tennis you just beat the person on the other side of the net(e.g. federer did not have to go through the mental and physical challenge of beating nadal at the french). and in golf you have more time to think about what could go wrong- you have to do that for around 3-4 hours- 4 days in a row as well. in tennis you may only be out there for an hour and a half every other day.
but i still prefer tennis!!!
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry but i find all these comparisons and debates as to who the best sportsman is rather dull and pointless.
You cannot compare people from different sports objectively. It's a moot point. Just enjoy Federer for what he is - an excellent tennis player and perhaps the greatest ever.
Complain about this comment
I agree with conorleedsfan - to win a Grand Slam Federer has only to beat 7 guys and normally a couple of those are ranked outside of the top 50, whereas Woods has to beat 120 other guys and nearly always every one of the other top 50!
Complain about this comment
It's obviously tough to compare such varying sports but to put it into context Federer's dominance of Grand Slams (20-odd consecutive semi final places) is the equivalent of Tiger coming in the top four in 20-odd Slams. I admit that there are more variables in golf such as inclement weather, and one bad shot can massively set you back. The two are both incredible sporting legends who will both be revered for years. I'd have Federer just in front (But I'm more of a tennis fan than gold which is probably the contributing factor.)
Complain about this comment
The two greatest individual sports stars of our time (darts aside) - not of my time and I'm only 43! Ever heard of Jahangir Khan? he played 555 consecutive competitive squash games without losing once! Yasuhiro Yamashita was involved in competitive Judo at the highest level and NEVER LOST. So please, you work for the BBC after all, try and be a little better informed before writing superficial attention-grabbing articles!
Complain about this comment
Agree entirely Dafunkhead.
A transparent attempt to take advantage of the increase in the number of people reading tennis articles because of the Wimbledon effect.
"Who is the greatest?" is not a fascinating question. Trying to compare sports personalities in different fields or even across different eras is pretty pointless.
Complain about this comment
Fed is best.. In golf there is no-one that is actually trying to stop your ball from going in the hole. In tennis you obviously have an opponent. In every golf tourney it's you against the course. Not so in tennis, where you have to get the better of the opposition.
Complain about this comment
As much as I'd love to compare the relative skills involved between the two sports, as many have already pointed out they are essentially incomparable. So the metre of judgement must be their impact in the wider world beyond their sport. How far do the men transcend their own arena and become role models and icons, providing inspiration and a positive example for those who have never picked up a bat or club? It is their wider impact that will determine who the greater sportsman is as a posed to who the greater athlete is.
Complain about this comment
If you can smoke while you're doing it it isn't a sport. Bad luck golf.
Complain about this comment
This is the silliest article i've seen for ages... Totally pointless. How can you compare the sports?
Federer may only have to beat 7 players to Woods 120 as someone says, but none of those 120 players have any direct influence on the shot Woods hits, none of them can force a mistake. Tournament Golf is basically a game you play against your own head and the course, not other people...
Complain about this comment
If your going to have a discussion like this shouldnt Valentino Rossi at least get a mention. The things he has done in his own sport are absolutely amazing, for example leaving the dominant team in moto gp at the time (Honda) and then winning the title in his first year with Yamaha at a very big disadvantage.
Complain about this comment
We dont really need to sit here comparing them. They're good friends and thats it. Phil Taylor and Ronnie O'Sullivan are good friends as well, shall we compare them?
Complain about this comment
People are missing the point when the say Tiger has to play 120 people, Roger 7 to win a grand slam.
Big difference is that Tiger has four days and can afford a bad day, Roger could play one person who for 2 hours could play out of their skin and beat him. This is not the case in Golf as to sustain it for four rounds for someone else is harder.
A better judge would be Tiger's matchplay form, and looking at the Ryder Cup he doesn't go too well at that!
Roger has reached 21 consecutive semi finals, how many successive cuts has Tiger made in Majors? I don't know but would be interesting to find out.
Roger is slightly better in my view.
Valentino Rossi should not be included nor should any motor racing driver. These silly sports involve machines.
Complain about this comment
16. At 4:41pm on 06 Jul 2009, Waldo0 wrote:
If you can smoke while you're doing it it isn't a sport. Bad luck golf.
errrr....i can provide photographic evidence to prove that i can smoke whilst playing both tennis and golf. If we are goingto provide arbitrary judgements i shall provide mine: golf is fun to play; with the exception of matches involving one of the many blonde russian female tennis players, tennis is tedious...so bad luck tennis!
#6 Dafunkhead - easily the most insightful sentence on the whole page.
one last point.....the new roof on centre court...whats the point in that? it has to be biggest waste of money in british sport
Thank god thats tennis done for 12 months now!
Complain about this comment
Until Federer wins a Grand Slam with a broken leg I'm afraid he can't come close. That is the sign of a champion.
Everyone knows it too, which is why Tiger gets someone to carry his bag....respect! Federer always carries his own, because noone wants to help him.
Tiger wins.
Complain about this comment
Flubster - you must be one hell of an athlete. Can you provide links to those pictures?
Complain about this comment
You cannot compare the sports, both are great sportsman in their field it's a non topic!
That aside I cannot understand why people are consistently carping on about Nadal? Nadal is injured, Federer is again the number 1, so ask the question why is Nadal so injured at such a young age?
Trained too hard, too many tough matches, not economical enough, not smooth enough not as skillful as Federer?
The fact is the smoothest most economical and skillful tennis player on the planet has to date never had injury.
Complain about this comment
Roger is a legned is Tennis and Tiger is a legend in Golf, the only point that may push Roger ahead is that is generally accepted that Roger is the greatest tennis player of all time now he has won 15 slams and won on each surface.
Tiger is the greatest Golf player on the circuit at the moment, but is he better than Jack Nicholaus?
I think you need to be considered the greatest in your own sport before you can try to lay claim to be the best.
Complain about this comment
An interesting discussion about who the real number two is, although if either one gets cancer then goes on to dominate thier sport in a way never before seen then they could be right up there with Armstrong.
Complain about this comment
You must be joking!
Lance Armstrong is greater than Woods and Federer both put together. No contest !!!
Complain about this comment
Charlie-999, Federer was world number 1 for 237 consecutive weeks less than a year ago. He is world number 1 as we speak! He's broken so many tennis history records that I have lost count. Lengends (Pete, Andre, etc) in the game insist that he is the GOAT. Shall I go on?.....
You might not be King Roger's fan, but please be brave enough to admit it. He is the number 1 tennis player. Period!
Complain about this comment
Given that most tennis pundits agree that's it is impossible to even compare tennis players from different eras, how on earth you are meant to come up with any viable method of comparing Federer and Woods is beyond me. The only thing more perplexing than this article is the comment from Charlie-999 (number 4). Do the 5 years that Fed spent as world number 1, combined with the fact that he has now regained that ranking anyway, not count for anything? One day you may be able to argue that Nadal is a better player, but at the moment he isn't even close to matching what Federer has achieved in the sport.
Complain about this comment
Why do people read an entire blog only to then call it pointless and criticise it? Miserable so and sos....
Federer is the best sportsman I've ever seen. I've only watched Golf over the last 3 or so years though while I've been a fan of Tennis since the early 90s so my opinion is probably biased. I probably didn't see Tiger at his best in the early 2000s.
Complain about this comment
This is a pointless excercise but I know I can rule out Tiger Woods for the same reason the writer has ruled out Phil Taylor. If you can win a Major in a sport when you are in your mid forties and overweight like many of Tiger's compatriots it's not a proper sport.
In fact I think you can rule out any sport where you play with a stationary ball, so out goes Stephen Hendry and whoever happens to be the best bowls player of all time.
Complain about this comment
You cant compare the technical side of two totally different sports. You have to look at how they approach and dominate the gmae, mentally.
Complain about this comment
The very fact this question cannot be answered is part of the fun, but the big point that stands out is that these two have been so dominant in their own sports that the obvious rivalry comparisons are beyond them. That, in itself, is testament to their extraordinary strangleholds over their sports.
Complain about this comment
While on the topic of talented sportsmen, I'll throw one Dan Carter out there, NZ flyhalf, only man i've known to be capable of dismantling a team on his own....irony being he has nothing to show for it....somewhat of an unsung sporting hero...far more complete player than even our very own Wilko :)
As for Tiger and Federer I personally would rather not compare the two and just express how much respect I have for them as individuals truely amazing sportsmen.
Complain about this comment
Re: Post 20. steviehullyyy
"Roger has reached 21 consecutive semi finals, how many successive cuts has Tiger made in Majors? I don't know but would be interesting to find out."
Some quick research. 37 consecutive cuts made stretching from The Masters in 97 to the Masters in 06. He missed a cut in the 96 Masters and made the US Open and The Open but did not play in the USPGA so I did not included those two as he missed a major. Not bad going.
To the original article, not really worth the debate but it's still interesting nonetheless! If I was really forced to pick one I would say Tiger, but they are both extroadinary!
Complain about this comment
Comparing two great players of the same sport from different eras is enough of a challenge. It is therefore utterly pointless to try and compare greats from different sports altogether.
Complain about this comment
Federer is ahead in my books.
It can't be argued that if Woods wins a couple more then he moves in front of Federer because Tennis players have shorter careers, and Federer has already set the record for the most GS ever. Woods could carry on playing golf for years and his biggest challengers will probably be much older than the biggest challengers in Tennis. Let's face facts you can be overweight and middle aged and still be successful at golf- you can't be successful at tennis unless you are young and at the peak of fitness.
Nadal pulled out of Wimbledon this year because of dodgy knees and he is most certainly a better athlete than Woods. The fact that Woods won with a bad leg not only shows the greatness of the man but also the difference between the sports.
When Woods gets close to retirement he might have eclipsed Federer but at the moment any rational person would put Federer ahead. This does not detract from the achievements of Woods (and I'm a massive fan) it simply reflects the acheivements of Federer in a sport where players have a more limited shelf life and put their bodies through far more physical pressure.
Two great sportemen.
Complain about this comment
Firstly to those who say its a boring article...why reply then?
Anyhoo, can you compare them? yes... just read above, lots of people comparing them... is it scientific and based on facts? of course not its a bit of fun you daft twonks, just enjoy it ;-)
Of current sportsmen they are the two most worthy Id say, of recent years Michael Schumaker would have run them very close. Going back a few years further Don Bradman is still unrivalled as a cricketer.
Mohammed Ali of course had all the talent in the world and is a personal favourite. Pele, again genius, Maradonna, cheating genius, Best, drunk genius, which might actually lay in his favour, to be that good under the influence?? wow!
Phil Taylor? do me a favour...its a board game.
Keep chatting though, cos its all good fun!
Complain about this comment
in keeping with the great British tradition of associating alcohol with sport, they should each be invited to down a yard of ale and then play each other at pool and/or darts. the true test of sporting greatness.
Complain about this comment
Floyd Mayweather Jnr is at the same level in terms of dominating a single competing global sport.
Complain about this comment
i couldn't possible say who is better. but the point about federer only has to beat 7 people to win is not really applicable. it is a match play senario- if federer has one bad day he could go out there and then. If tiger has a bad day, he has the time to make it up in the other rounds of golf. for this reason tiger himself says that what roger has achieved is greater than what tiger has.
Complain about this comment
This is the sort of debate that could go on forever and with other sportsmen of such quality but both are great role models in their sport coming across as humble and win (lose) with dignity.
Complain about this comment
Comes down to either a preference of golf over tennis or Woods over Federer. Anybody claiming to be completely impartial is either lying or their opinion should be disregarded because they would have no real interest in the debate.
Complain about this comment
How can you possibly compare people from different sports, that require different levels of discipline, skill and fitness and try to decide which one is the greatest?. A golfer does not require a higher level of fitness than a tennis player or an Olympic athlete but the tennis player probably needs the same amount of skill as the golfer.
The argument about who is the greatest in their own sport is down to a personal viewpoint and can never be 100% sure because players from vastly different eras can`t be matched against each other.
What we can say with certainty is that Tiger is by far the best of the current generation of golfers and Roger has the best tennis record of the past 20 years at least but only time will show if they can ever be surpassed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
An odious comparison! Each time he plays, Federer has one opponent only at a time (albeit over several rounds)- in a sport where rising stars are few and far between.
When Tiger Woods plays, he has to beat up to 150 of the best players "round by round" in a sport that is more competitive year by year.Out of 150, a percentage will always "overperform" and a percentage will "play to their ability." Federer only has one man who can overperform, and he can control that to an extent. Tiger can't do this.
Also, One bad round can destroy Tiger- such is the quality of his peers- whereas Federer can get away with one bad set.
Whatever Federer's quality, Tiger's achievements are way beyond his on any statistical level.
No contest, I'm afraid!
It would be fairer to compare Federer to another "one on one" sport.
Complain about this comment
There is no way in which Woods and Federer can be compared, as the two sports they practice are in no way comparable. Similarly, it's difficult to compare their levels of dominance.
Tiger may need to be the best of 150 people over 4 days of golf; Federer has more interaction with his opponents, and has to beat each before being able to progress to the next stage of a tennis tournament.
The mental and physical strength Tiger posses, and the shots he is capable of have set new boundaries in golf; Federer is doing as many previous players have done, but arguably better.
Federer is the winningest player in the history of men's tennis, but Tiger is yet to surpass Jack Nicklaus's major record.
Phil Taylor (regardless of what you think of darts) has possibly dominated a sport more than anyone else in history, and the likes of Michael Schumacher (7 time Formula 1 champion), Valentino Rossi (8 time motorcycling world champion), Floyd Mayweather Junior/Joe Calzaghe (unbeaten in boxing) and Lance Armstrong (7 time Tour de France winner) may feel they deserve a mention as the Greatest Sportsman.
Complain about this comment
Based on that argument Tamero, I guess that marathon runners are the greatest since they have numerous other competitors to overcome! Foolishness. Please refer to point 41- if Woods has an off day he could make up time later in the day/event. Federer does not have this luxuary. There are pros and cons to each sport. Tennis is far more of an athletic sport and injury is therefore more prevalent. Do you honestly think Nadal would have injured himself if he was a golfer!
Be that as it may, as I said it is a choice between golf and tennis. I choose tennis because it is clearly a more physical game and is played by natural sportsmen. This differs to golf where one natural sportsman (Woods) comes along and dominates.
Complain about this comment
All of these "who's the greatest" debates are ultimately subjective, unresolvable and futile but it doesn't make them boring. What's certain is that Woods and Federer stand head and shoulders above all of the sportsmen and women of our time.
I would give the edge to Federer who has displayed far greater dominance and consistent brilliance in his own sport than Woods over the same period. 15 wins, 5 times runner up and 3 losing semi finals (or top 4 position) in the last 25 grand slams is a stunning return. Over the same period Woods has 6 wins, 4 RUs, 3 other top 4 positions in majors. That's quite a difference.
It's true that Federer doesn't have to beat every competitor in his field but in truth golfers play the course not the man. In head to head play over just one round Woods is more vulnerable but only relatively to his own dominance in the sport.
What clinches it for me though is that during six years of unparalleled dominance the sporting public has never tired at all of the joy of watching Federer's unique game. I don't think any sportsman past or present has ever induced such gasps of astonishment from his audience than Federer. Even uncompetitive straight sets victories seem like works of art. But with Woods the air of inevitable victory that he sometimes brings to events drains the occasion of all its atmosphere and excitement. There is awe and respect but a lack of affection too.
Complain about this comment
Is golf really a "sport"? Surely any game you can play while smoking can't be termed a "sport"!!!
Marvel at each individuals skill and domination but comparisons are ill-judge, boring and pointless.
Complain about this comment
Federer isn't even the best player in his sport, Nadal is the better man, and I think he would have beaten Federer again this year.
Complain about this comment
Of course darts is a sport. Is Archery a sport? will it's in the Olympics so I think it qualifies. Think of darts as a bit like archery. and while we're at it, why isn't darts in the Olympics? Britain would clean up. Bring it in for 2012. "sir Phil Taylor"
I really don't think too many people appreciate how difficult darts is and to succeed at the top level for as many years as Taylor has is simply incredible - nobody compares.
Federer vs woods? not sure. which of them has the prettier wife?
Complain about this comment
One way to determine who is the greatest may be to ask their opponents how much they fear having to face either.
Complain about this comment
Agree with all of those who say that comparing sportspersons across different sports is a completely inane exercise. Even if it weren't this inane, comparing golf to tennis is especially ridiculous - any sport where John Daly can be a contender is not a sport - it's a GAME, to be discussed along with other games like darts, pool, chess and checkers.
Complain about this comment
Tiger > Federer.
Complain about this comment
Comparing Tiger and Federer is nearly impossible as they are complately different sports. However, both games have a similar structure (tennis - four grand slams, golf - four majors etc.).
1.Federer has won 15 Grand Slams to Tiger's 14. (But to be fair, tennis has had 3 grand slams this year and golf has only had 2.)
Tiger 0 - 1 Federer
2.Tiger has won 68 PGA Tour titles to Federer's 60 singles titles.
Tiger 1 - 1 Federer
3.Federer has only won at least one of all the Grand Slams (due to his only French open win) and Tiger has won all majors at least 3 times.
Tiger 2 - 1 Federer
4.Federer was no.1 for 237 weeks before being overtaken to Tiger's 264.
Tiger 3 - 1 Federer
5.If we class a grand slam semi-final to the equivelant to a Top 10 in a major, federer has 21 consecutive semis to Tiger's 7 consecutive Top 10s (excluding those he missed due to injury.)
Tiger 3 - 2 Federer
Re: post 20 - "Roger has reached 21 consecutive semi finals, how many successive cuts has Tiger made in Majors? I don't know but would be interesting to find out." - 49 of the last 50. The one he missed may have had something to do with the fact that his father died a few weeks earlier.
Game, set, match - Tiger Woods.
P.S. Tiger has won a major with a severe knee injury - yet to see Federer win a Grand slam with an injury.
Complain about this comment
And to #51 (GusKnowsBest):
You wrote - "Nadal is the better man, and I think he would have beaten Federer again this year".
Whose fault was it that Nadal wasn't at Wimbledon? To enlighten you - it was HIS OWN! Or rather, the playing style that he uses. So no, he wouldn't have beaten Federer this year, because he wouldn't even have made the final - someone would have exploited his injury and beaten him well before that.
Nadal is a great player, but his extremely physical style make him susceptible to injuries and fatigue (also evidenced by the fact that he fades by the US Open every year). So I will be very surprised if Nadal can sustain his excellence as long as Federer has - and in order to be ranked among the greatest, he will have to.
Complain about this comment
For me what sets great athletes apart is the ability to win against the odds. Ali's greatness is measured by his domination, bald stats and sublime skill but DEFINED by his beating of Liston and Foreman. Wins against the odds. He shook up the world. So for me Tiger nudges Fed because of that win on one leg. A win against the odds, a triumph over adversity. If Roger was injured (heaven forbid) out for a while, entered Wimbledon seeded 25 then won the tournament, that would draw more gasps than his considerable achievement yesterday.
Complain about this comment
The comments complaining about the comparing of two men from two different sports are ridiculous. They do after all both play sport and that is where the real comparison is. They both dominate there respective sports and in terms of majors titles, will not be caught by anyone currently active, making them both true greats and making it merely a bit of fun comparing them!
Complain about this comment
I'm going to do a Benitez and talk about FACTS.
Golf is the most technical sport on the planet.
Tennis is the second most technical sport in the world. However it has the physical, stamina and variety that golf hasn't got.
So who knows... They are both legends. Difficult to compare the best tennis player ever to not just the best golfer but also the most influential golfer of the past 50 years.
Complain about this comment
They both have a lot of playing time left too. Wait till they are both calling it a day and then decide. On that thought Tiger could easily set an undefeatable golfing record.
Complain about this comment
Tiger Woods has grown the game of golf through his impact on and off the off course like no other athlete has ever done for any other sport. People who never used to be interested in the game now play or watch, I don't think people watch Tennis because of Roger Federer, they watch because they always have or becuase they can't avoid it if you're watching BBC Lol.
But seriously, people play the game in Asia in their masses now because of Tiger Woods, they are both great sportsmen, but Roger is just a great Tennis player, Tiger is mch more than a great golfer, his foundation has reached over 10 million children and his legacy for other golfers is massive, multi million dollar prize funds every week, and the crowds for this week's tournament were over 200,000 for an event which is only three years old and is not a major championship. Golfers are fitter than ever before and younger than ever before, you only have to look at the field for the Open, there is a 16 year old from Italy and a 17 year old from Japan.
Complain about this comment
Depending on what you mean by "our time" you could argue that Michael Jordan is right up there and probably ahead of both Woods and Federer.
He made the all star team in his rookie season (as a starter), he was a fantastic player both offensivly (3000 points in his first full season after his rookie season) and defensivly (200 steals and 100 blocks in same season as his 3000 points).
He was voted finals MVP 6 times (more than any other player)
He played in the all star game 14 times
Won two olympic golds.
And all that is just scraping the surface of his stats and achievments.
Complain about this comment
I mean no disresepct, but I think it's very pointless to speculate. Clearly they are both supreme in two very different sports. It's like trying to argue who's the better - Nigel Kennedy and Brian May. Or Kiri Te Kanawa and Amy Winehouse (ok possible bad example). In my opinion.
Complain about this comment
can you compare completely different sports no achievement yes and they are close but fed is just ahead and has the best ever record in his field so I would have to give it to him Tiger may better Nicholas but who is to say but then you could say Phil Taylor is the planets best sportsman just look at his record
Complain about this comment
Tennis Major - you know the winner will come from the top few seeds.
Golf Major - the winner can come from anywhere in the top 100, and often does.
It is harder to be dominant in golf.
Tiger wins.
Complain about this comment
I agree, it is unfair to compare two individuals from two different arenas, but in the spirit of things I'll give it more of an informed go, and hopefully an unbiased one too;
Woods 68 PGA Tournament Wins, 36 european tour wins=104 total wins
Federer 60 career titles
Verdict Woods 1-0
Woods Major wins 14
Federer Grand slam wins 15
Verdict Federer 1-1
Woods Only player to win 4 majors consecutively
Federer 3 of 4 grand slams won consecutively
Verdict Woods 2-1
Woods has won all 4 majors 3 times, masters x4,US Open x3, Open Championship x3, PGA Championship x3
Federer has won all 4 slams, but only french once, US x5, wimbledon x6, Australian x3
Verdict edged by woods due to ability to be consistent amongst diferrent courses, weather conditions, and competition, whereas federer struggles on clay vs rafa nadal. Woods 3-1
Woods world number 1 for 264 consecutive weeks, 555 total weeks at no.1
Federer world number 1 237 consecutive weeks, 238 total weeks at no.1
Verdict Woods 4-1
Woods consecutive major top 10's = 8 Us Open 1999- Masters 2001
Federer Wimbledon 2005-US Open 2007 10 consecutive grand slam finals
Verdict Federer 4-2
Woods career earnings (golf only) $86,914,539
Federer Career prize money $49,475,219
Overall verdict Woods 5-2
Interesting facts
Woods 3rd in all time PGA tour victories (Snead 82, Niklaus 73, Woods 68)
Woods 2nd in all time Major victories (Niklaus 18, Woods 14)
Federer 4th in all time weeks at ATP world number 1 (Sampras 286, Lendl 270, Connors 268, Federer 238)
Federer 5th in all time grand slam wins (Connors 233, Agassi 224, lendl 222, Sampras 203, federer 182)
Federer 2nd in all time slam win % (Borg 141-16 89.8%, Federer 182-26 87.5%)
So both still have a little way to go until they can show all time dominance of their respective sports.
Complain about this comment
i play a lot of golf and tennis, so this is always a huge debate for me.
To be honest, i don't know how they are comparable.
when tiger wins, he has to beat the whole field, wheras federer only has to beat 7 people, it is much trickier to win a golf tournamnet.
whatsmore, tiger has changed the game of golf beyond belief, federer has a bit, but nowhere near as much as tiger.
as much as federer is a brilliant sporting person, tiger is much better
Complain about this comment
From a personal point of view as a youngster i played all sports played football, cricket and rugby to a decent standard until i hit my thirties and smoke and drank and consumed other things that are not recommended. I can eagle a golf ball, hit a fifty plus at snooker and if id been coached from the age of 2 would prob be a dab hand at tennis. Anyway the point being as fantastic,good looking and all round genius that i am, i cannot throw darts, try as i might, and although 90% of the population have probably tried nobody else can throw em either, not like Phil taylor.
Personally cant stand the smug bugger, but when i add up stats, participation and personal experience the fat man is the best of all time x
Complain about this comment
Of course one of the main reasons we cannot compare Tiger Woods' achievement with Roger Federer's is that golf is more of a pastime than a sport. Of course it requires some flexibility and hand to eye co-ordination, but so does walking (or in golf's case, "a good walk ruined" as Mark Twain famously complained). Compare that to Roddick being physically and mentally drained by Federer's relentless willpower on Sunday. Don't believe me? Ask yourself this: could you play 18 holes with Tiger, could you play 5 sets with Federer?
Complain about this comment
Silly debate, but here's the question that I think could be quite telling:
Have Tiger and Roger play the number of rounds there are in a Major, and see how many shots Roger is behind.
Then have Tiger and Roger play 7 best of 5 set tennis matches, like in a Grand Slam and see how many sets Tiger wins. Or games he wins. Or service games he holds. Or serves he returns. Or points he gets....
Anyway, I think it's a stupid comparison, especially as a golfer's career is so much longer. (Is that not also a little telling?) And whoever made the broken leg comment is an idiot - of course Feder could never win a Slam with a broken leg, but I didn't see Tiger running flat out on it, serving on it, and jumping on it for 3 hours every other day for 2 weeks solid! That's the trouble with stupid articles - it brings out stupid people with stupid answers. And you can include me in that group.
Complain about this comment
JohnB999 - quite right about Rossi
Just a comment about both Federer and Woods, greatest of the modern era yes but let Woods play with old fashioned golf clubs and Federer with wooden rackets, would they cope ? they would because of the talent but would they be the greatest.
Nicklaus and Laver in their prime would have been a match for these 2.
Complain about this comment
"The two greatest individual sports stars of our time (who don't propel darts for a living) "
im sorry but that just smacks of arrogance, why doesnt phil taylor deserve to be mentioned in the same breathe as woods or federer? just because he isnt the front page stuff of a glossy mag or the fact darts isnt as glamarous?
ohh and your entire article is pointless, how can you compare two differnt sports? the two men mentioned are greats in the their own right.... just as the people who "propel darts for a living" are...
Complain about this comment
Wake up, golf fans! How can the fact that Tiger was able to win a major with one leg be a good thing?! All that proves is that golf isn't a sport, it's just something for the old folk to do to improve their mobility following a hip replacement. You might as well say that David Bryant is the greatest sportsman ever for his domination of indoor bowls.
Complain about this comment
Well well, This is a difficult answer I can try to answer.
Firstly I should declare that I have terrible eye-hand coordination and therefore completely useless at both sport. So, so far Roger and Tiger are both exceptional players compare to me. What I can talk about is their smaller more accessible form:
Golf and table tennis. I've been on Britain's fun golf circuit for a while (Barry Island, Ramsgate..) and always managed to get a decent score as playing against myself did find the odd moment of concentration. So I am better at golf (extrapolating here). At table tennis I can successfully serve fairly regularly but rarely managed to return, in fact even hit the ball when it was returned to me by any opponents (in a few occasions the guy I was playing was asleep and managed to score a point).
So again by extrapolating tennis, for me, is a much more difficult sport (let alone the back ache every time I tried tennis). than golf and my admiration goes to Roger.
Complain about this comment
thesefeetdontdance wrote:
"Nicklaus and Laver in their prime would have been a match for these 2."
Respect your opinion, and Laver was peerless in his time, but at 5'8" he would be more of a "pocket rocket" nowadays and his artistry would, unfortunately, be muscled off court. More skilled with a racquet, very likely, but he just wouldn't have the physical power to win.
Complain about this comment
To the question: Who is the greatest, Tiger Woods or Roger Federer? The answer is Lance Armstong
Complain about this comment
Same debate from April last year:
http://sportuk.blogspot.com/2008/04/woods-versus-federer.html
Complain about this comment
Surely golf can only be classed as a pastime along with darts, snooker, bowls, tiddlywinks, fishing in the cut, monopoly, conkers and cross stitch embroidery. Roger Federer is a very fine athlete and sportsman and probably the greatest tennis player ever.
Still no takers for Lance Armstrong then ! He has just had three years off on the beer and has still managed to put himself into third place today in the TdF which is arguably the toughest- and biggest- annual sporting event in the world.
Golf. Tiger Woods. You cannot be serious ! ! !
Complain about this comment
to people saying that golf is a pass time sport, have a look at woods' physique and i guarantee that is not for boating, but that is what is required in golf.
golfers are the highest paid sportpeople for a reason: its a true sport...
tiger is the best
Complain about this comment
The reason these two stand comparison is not because their sports have any similarities (they don't), it's because both sports have 4 majors each year. So regardless of the symantics involved in actually winning your chosen sport, you still get 4 goes each year.
So on that basis you can compare them, maybe winning a golf major is harder, but then they get a longer career. Maybe Fed only really gets three goes per year because of Nadal's (injury free) ability on clay.
Nadal's unlikely to catch Fed in terms of best ever, but he may well be a worthy competitor for many years to come and has good chance of becoming the best clay court player of all time.
Tiger plays the US tour, maybe to be considerd truely great he should do a few seasons in Europe just to make sure he's really as good as he is.
they're both superb sportsmen but I think I've got to agree that federer having gone ahead in majors/slams and being considered the greatest ever rather then greatest of his generation plus having done it all in 6 years has the edge for me.
Complain about this comment
the guy who reeled off all the stats was interested reading and i agree with all of his points except Tiger hasnt won 34 european tour events, he hasnt even played in that many in his career. He has counted majors and world golf championships on top of PGA tour victories but they are co-sanctioned events. he actually has 7 european tour victories that were not co-sanctioned events, but none the less Tiger is the greatest sportsman/woman of all time.
Complain about this comment
oh yeah,I've played Tennis for 15 years and I've just got into golf (5 games into my "career") I'd still reckon I'd nick a hole of Tiger before I won a game off Fed
Complain about this comment
Let me close this case for all of you: First of all how can you compare tennis to golf? My grand grand father could compete in a golf masters' tournament and have a shot at winning. In tennis you need skills and stamina, in golf, you can have a beer belly as big of my mini van and still beat tiger woods.
Shall I say more? You can call a great golf player as much of a sportsman as you can call a poker player, it is really not a sport, so if golf is not a sport then tigerwoods is NOT a sportsman, but Roger is because he has to run for every point.
Case closed, now go eat your pancakes and don't try to make a case that is not.
Complain about this comment
Indeed we are told Woods does have a great physique - I believe he was an excellent 400m runner. However, this only confers an advantage to his game - he has still been beaten by podgy old goats with beer bellies. At the top of tennis, an excellent physique with fitness to boot is a basic requirement. Not meaning to be controversial but golf is a highly skilled activity, tennis is a sport - the two cannot be compared.
Complain about this comment
Re 80. There is plenty of money in golf not because it is a sport but because very rich, high flying, corperate business people enjoy doing it.
It does however take considerable skill and practice to play it well and Tiger Woods, certainly, is very skilled and gets plenty of practice .
I am very good at wallpapering because i'm very skilled and get loads of practice. Perhaps wallpapering should be classed as a sport !
Complain about this comment
connorleedsfan: tiger is better, because in golf you have to beat everyone whereas in tennis you just beat the person on the other side of the net
Wow, you cannot win the tournament by just beating one guy (who's on the other side of the net) RF definitely has more skills than TW, Golf for me is a boring game - one shot then you walk, what a waste of time, there is no real time interaction with other players - it's just you and the hole while in tennis oh wow this is where you got to show your real deal skills combined with your quick thinking and physique capabilities, you'll be on the edge of your seat with too much intensity from the players non stop. King Fed just made Tennis look like a simple game to play but in reality everybody is struggling to get at title of their own, have you seen John McEnroe's comment on BBC? Roger you made us look like an average player.
Complain about this comment
The point that Mr Carter is making is not who is the better Sportsman - Tiger or Roger but is the other their biggest rival. Does ones success motivate the other. They are currently the most succesful players in their respective sports and appear to have a strong personal friendship (Shame about poor Thierry but they always say that 3s a crowd).
So Mr Carters arguement is that Roger is not driven by the thought of a Nadal or a Murray coming along nor Tiger is looking at Phil Mic or Paul Casey as they do not scare them but more a case of one up manship over their mate. Interesting thought - I think that it would be sort of side bet because I personally do not think that Rog and Tiger have that lack of respect for their fellow everyday competitors and if they do then they would be poor champions and not really worthy of the respect and devotion given to them by millions of fans worldwide.
So its not about who is the greatest because that is unmeasurable but is the success of one the driving factor for the other and in reality the only people who can answer that probably do not have BBC 606 Accounts
Complain about this comment
I think its pathetic that anyone believes in this so called 'friendship'.
Complain about this comment
pointless article, two wonderful sportsmen who are impossible to compare. They have been at the pinnacle of their disciplines for a long time but then the likes of Phelps and Lance Armstrong have to be considered.
Complain about this comment
I agree that you can't really compare competitors from different sports but it's fun trying. All of the arguments are subjective so you just have to go with your gut feeling. Mine is for Tiger..just...i think.
I would like to make a point though:
I feel that Tiger has more competition than Roger. Every golf championship has at least 50 players, maybe even more, capable of winning. You pretty much know that most tennis tournaments are going to be won by the same 5-6 players.
On that same note, how many people around the world play golf and how many play tennis. Tiger's the best out of millions of serious golfers worldwide whereas Roger's the best out of hundreds of thousands of serious tennis players.
Complain about this comment
The dictionary defintion of a sport is:
'A physical activity that involves skill OR physical prowess'. The keyword there is OR so all the people saying golf (or darts, snooker etc) isn't a sport need to start saying that it 'shouldn't' be a sport - in their opinion.
Complain about this comment
"I feel that Tiger has more competition than Roger. Every golf championship has at least 50 players, maybe even more, capable of winning. You pretty much know that most tennis tournaments are going to be won by the same 5-6 players."
That is not a valid point. You can't say who is greater on the basis of the rest of the pack being more evenly matched. In fact, your point that any one of 50 can win might even point to there being more luck involved than in other sports, as golf is the only sport I can think of that is that 'open' in terms of possible winners.
Complain about this comment
"On that same note, how many people around the world play golf and how many play tennis. Tiger's the best out of millions of serious golfers worldwide whereas Roger's the best out of hundreds of thousands of serious tennis players."
And could this not point to the ease of the sport? I know many people who have never played golf, but I'm confident they could be driving down the fairway with a few hours of practice. I'm not sure how many of those people would be able to return a serve, or serve and volley. It's like saying Bolt isn't the fastest runner in the world because there aren't many serious 100m runners out there. In fact, I can't think of a single one.
I think trying to make this comparison is silly - it's just too different. It's like saying who's better: Muhammed Ali or Picasso?
Complain about this comment
Roger is the greatest.
I can play golf okay, single figure handicap, sink the odd long putt, a wee bit nifty with a pitching wedge.
And I can do this the morning after seven pints of fizzy lager and a kebeb with extra chillis.
I also try and play tennis. If I try to give it laldy on a sundy morning, I come over a wee bit sickly, if you know where I am coming from.
Both games require you first and foremost to master the mental challenge. But tennis requires you, as a side line, to breathe whilst having a heart rate of 150 for three or four hours. Thats a sport.
Complain about this comment
Firstly, I cannot take Lance Armstrong seriously due to the myriad drug problems in his sport, not accusing him, but if he dominated his sport when all his rivals were using performance enhancing drugs....it just looks dodgy, that's all I'm saying.
Secondly, in certain sports you can continue with serious injuries such as Tigers knee, see Hendry winning the world championship one year with a fractured elbow.
Thirdly, I cannot recall when Tiger won his first major, but it was in the nineties when Federer was a novice. Federer won his first in 2003, how many had Tiger won by then?
Fourthly, what is their conversion rate? Federer has played in a lot less Grand Slam events than Woods has played Majors. His success ratio must be much higher.
Fifthly, as for Nadals record against him, we know Nadal is totally dominant on clay, if Nadal hadn't burst on the scene when he did Federer would have won at least three by now. On other surfaces it is two Grand Slam Finals wins each, hardly domination by Nadal is it, 50-50?
Sixthly, if Fed lets his form drop he is out. Woods has three other days to get it right and in some of his major wins he had at least one bad day. Plus he is playing himself and the course, Fed is playing himself, the court and a very determined opponent.
Seventhly, how can Fed losing the #1 spot and regaining it be a bad thing. Mohammed Ali lost his title and then won it back. He is, probably correctly, named by most as the greatest sportsman of all time, yet no-one says he failed by getting beaten, but that he was a legend for getting it back. Fed lost it, he now has it back, he has won 3 of the last four Slams and been second in the other. There are lots of reasons a tennis player can lose the #1 spot, a loss of motivation, illness (we know he had glandular fever), increased competition (Djokovic, Murray and a resurgent Roddick lie in wait even if Nadal cannot overcome his injuries.)
Eigthly, One of Woods huge advantages is his length off the tee, couple this with three of the majors being in the US, being designed for US players and getting increasingly longer you have to say he has had an advantage Federer has not had, tennis courts haven't been redesigned to give Fed a leg up.
Ninthly, Woods plays a sport that is one of the most popular in the US. One the US has always excelled at, whereas how many Swiss tennis legends can you name? That makes his acheivements even greater.
Fed for me, but I'd love to see him, Laver, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl etc play each other on a level playing field. Of course it not possible, but what a tourney that would be!
Ditto Woods, Trevino, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player etc all with the same clubs and at their peak.
Still it's all conjecture.
Complain about this comment
(Shame about poor Thierry but they always say that 3s a crowd).
What you mean FA Cup winner, Premership winner, Copa Del Ray winner, La Liga Winner, Champions League winner, Confederations Cup winner, European Championship winner, World Cup winner, Footballer of the Year winner Thierry Henry.
Oh yeah, he's done nothing!!
Complain about this comment
#92 I think your definition means welding can be called a sport. I imagine there is an element of competition involved as well.
As for comparisons between Golf and Tennis, I think they're pointless as each one requires different abilities to play at the top level. Most people can hit a tennis ball with a racket but it's a lot harder to hit a golf ball straight with a club (except a putter).
There again, it's very difficult to impart spin on a tennis ball and hit it just over the net whilst it's relatively easy to putt a ball into the hole in a few shots.
Federer has to cope with a few different surfaces (three I think) but beyond that his playing arena is basically the same in every match. Woods has to cope with an arena where no two holes are exactly the same and the weather conditions can vary tremendously.
Federer has to be supremely fit to succeed, but I imagine Woods has to use more mental energy in the course of a 4 or 5 hour round of golf.
Personally I just recognise that Federer and Woods are the supreme exponents of their respective skills, just as Phil Taylor is of his. Beyond that I don't really care who is considered the 'greater' sportsman.
Complain about this comment
Golf requires the most skill out of any sport to be the best at. It is the highest skilled sport by some distance. Tennis hadly requires the skill that a golfer needs. With such a fine margin for error for a golfer. For this reason Tiger Woods is the greatest out of the two for me.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad to see that I am not the first to pull the rug out from under this journalistic claptrap.
to compare federer with any of the tennis champions of other eras - rosewall, borg, laver, perry - is misguided, to use the most generous description. other commentators have given enough justification of the spurious nature of this fruitless exercise.
to engage in this lightheaded foray into federer:woods smells of the desperation of someone struggling desperately to find something else to write about the fed's achievements.
can we expect a similar piece about federer:schumacher or federer:ali or federer:wg grace, and why not federer:connolly or navratilova or lenglen? and why have we not had one already?
Complain about this comment
Golf Pro - post 56 - interesting thoughts but I'm not really sure how you can compare making the cut (i.e a top 70 position) and a top 10 position in a golf major with a grand slam semi final. The semi puts the player in the top 4 at the very least. Woods consistency has been amazing yes but still some way from matching that of Federer
Your other statistics also relate more to the greater length of Woods' career and the greater prize money available than evidence of his superiority. As for the broken leg..........I'd be interested to see Woods chase down bombs from Roddick for over 4 hours in that condition!
But both are amazing sportsmen enough said.
Complain about this comment
Lets look at this like this...
Tiger has had the World number one spot for 556 weeks in total and his current streak stretched to 212. Only 12 men have EVER had the right to call themselves world number 1 in the 23 years the rankings have existed, Tiger totals over 10 years worth of those 23.... enough said?
If not then lets look at Tiger holding all 4 majors at once, something Federer has yet to achieve.
Finally Tiger has some humility and decency, anyone who saw the aftermath of Sunday's final must surely have lost some respect for the 'great' man. First of all the sickening jacket, anyone who feels the need to show of about his 15 majors with a jacket engraved on it in gold. Also, it seems rather cocky and arrogant to have that premade to put it on dont you think?
secondly to compare his loss last year when he had already won 5 to Roddicks defeat seemed tasteless.
If someone needs to wear gold trim and show off that they have won 15 grand slams then clearly they dont do enough talking with their game!
Complain about this comment
The Fed has got where he is after stringent drug testing. Woods was a vociforous opponent of it in golf but when it was going to happen he suddenly took six months off. He has returned with a different physical appearance. Steroids?? Who knows, but we know the Fed is clean.
Complain about this comment
you almost got it right- tiger called federer from the putting green before he went out for his final round win at congressional. both are iconic sport figures, but you can't compare across sport. it's like comparing apples and oranges. each is the best in their respective sports. tiger's chasing nicklaus just as federer chased sampras. but tennis is a shorter span to make your mark than golf and tiger will have many more years to play and add to his major total once surpassing nicklaus. if you want some kind of overall athletic champion look to the decathlon...
Complain about this comment
I don't think it's relevant here but the point that anyone, regardless of size, vertical or indeed horizontal, can play golf is quite valid to portray just how much potential competition is out there. Yet despite the millions of weekend warriors playing around the world, these are the best. Someone said you may win a hole from Woods. But I imagine a club tennis player might win a point from Roger with a great serve, much like a decent golfer might beat Woods on a Par 3 by playing the tee shot of his life.
Anyway, back to the question. I've thought about it and just can't split them. As someone has said, it comes down to your preference really, be that sporting or their personality. I prefer to play and watch golf, therefore, for me, it's Tiger.
Complain about this comment
Great article.
I think its difficult to compare the two. Both are way ahead in their respective sports.
Interesting also in an interview Federer said he received a message of congratulations from Valentino Rossi aswell as Woods.
Three of the greatest sporting competitors ever.
Complain about this comment
what a complete lazy piece of journalism to try to compare Woods and Federer !! Woods doesnt actually beat anyone unless its matchplay whereas Federer has an opponent everytime he plays !! Im not a brilliant golfer but could have a better round against Woods if he had a disaster and i played brilliant whereas id be lucky to win a point against Federer never mind a game !! They are the best at what they do in their fields but cant be compared and there are certainly no grandslam winners in their 40s playing mens tennis !!!
Complain about this comment
How much did Nike pay you to write this article? Totally agree with kyri1966
Complain about this comment
This is the most stupid article I have ever read.Maybe it would not be so stupid if the question of who's the greatest were not asked.
How do you compare golf and tennis?One has you play directly against an opponentwhile in the other you face all opponents at once and only depend on how you play for yourself. You can only compare each sportsman's dominance in their respective sport and what oppositions they face.
Tiger is soo dominant that it does not depend on who is in the field with him but Federer still has a nemesis in Nadal and ?Murray.
Both are arguably the greatest in their respective sports but can't be compared directly to each other.
Complain about this comment
Well... both golf and tennis are individual pursuits, and both games are interesting for their challenging mental aspect.
Tennis is by FAR the more athletic undertaking (imagine John Daly on the tennis court, if you will), requiring strength, tremendous coordination, lightning reflexes, and incredible endurance to perform at the highest levels, and so Roger Federer would tend to get my vote... (As a lifetime duffer, and one who truly loves the game, I DO understand the endless practice required for perfection of swing and form, and the tremendous mental discipline required to play championship golf, and do not underestimate the challenge.)
So then, that's it for me - Roger Federer is the greatest, at least in terms of this particular comparison...
However, I do believe that Woods may be the more ADMIRED of the two - though it's a minor criticism, Roger COULD work a bit towards polishing his public persona, particularly the false modesty he so often attempts. (For example, Andy Roddick outclassed him by FAR in terms of his public comments following the Wimbledon epic - he might have spoken about himself, pointing out that he took the only two sets that were won outright, and effectively "tied" the other three, perhaps presenting himself as the victim of bad luck, or whatever... but he chose instead - just moments after a bitter defeat, in what so nearly was (and perhaps should have been) his finest hour - to thank the fans, to remind them that he was one of the lucky ones, to acknowledge the honor of participation in front of the former greats in attendance, and to give FULL credit to Federer... and you could TELL it was absolutely genuine... Federer was modest enough, to be fair, but rambled on and on (and on) about himself and how he'd overcome this and that along the way, etc....As a tennis star, Federer's credentials are established for the ages; as a public hero, his image is certainly not BAD, but could use a bit of polishing, especially given tennis' reputation for the highest levels of sportsmanship...
Complain about this comment
However there is also another way of looking at it.
Not to dampen Federers achievements, but Federer is only ever playing one opponent whilst Woods is constantly up against 100 others.
You could also say that (bar Nadal) there is no other players who have won two majors during Federers era of dominance. Woods has had to deal with the emergence of Mickelson, Cabrera and other major winners.
Also you could argue that for Woods to return from injury the way he has done is impressive. Federer has never really been injured for a great length of time. Could he recover from such a serious injury?
I'd give it Woods, just about. Maybe its because I prefer golf to tennis but that doesnt take away from the unbelievable achievement of the man from Basel.
Complain about this comment
PLAYING THROUGH THE PAIN:-
- Federer reached a Slam Semi-Final, 2 Slam Finals, Won a Slam and an Olympic Gold Medal with mono and a bad back. Woods won the US Open with a gammy knee and then went on a 10 month hiatus to get better.
WOODS 0 - 1 FEDERER
CAREER TITLES:-
- Federer(Pro in 98) has 60 career titles. Woods(Pro in 96) has 68 PGA Tour career titles. Federer has won 60 titles in roughly 216 tournaments, Woods has won 68 PGA titles in roughly 231 tournaments.
WOODS 1 - 1 FEDERER
MAJOR DOMINATION:-
- Federer has 15 majors in the last 6 years. Woods has 14 majors in the last 12 years.
WOODS 1 - 2 FEDERER
WORLD NUMBER 1:-
- Federer has been World Number 1 for 238 weeks, including a run of 237 weeks. Woods has been World Number 1 for 555 weeks, including a run of 264 weeks.
WOODS 2 - 2 FEDERER
Any more for any more?
Complain about this comment
Federer >> Woods
Woods is only revered in America.
Complain about this comment
What a tasteless comparison. Roger federer is a good athelete and the second best all time player of tennis but never be compared to the likes of tiger woods,mohammad ali,rod laver,maradona etc. for one just simple reason in an emotionless game when he played the worst and lose he just cried like a baby and said that the lolly-pop the other guy hand in mouth is his.lacks sportsmanship,tell him to learn from tiger. Childish.
Complain about this comment
Considering a lot of folk here say this subject is pointless it's got a fair few replies.
Of cause you can compare the greats across differing sports, but what do you actually compare, wins, rankings, and do you then divide by a timescale, the answer is maybe but to be accurate you have to compare stats and more, players of any sport that are a generation ahead are often seen, throughought that sports history, Senna (F1), Davis/Hendy (Snooker), Pele (Football), Nicholson/Woods (Golf), Samprass, Federer, Navratalova (tennis).
What you also have to look at is who the opposition is when they are winning all their titles, and the leap forwards in technology (equipment, playing surface).
You just cannot compare titles from 1 eara to another, there will no doubt be greats from most era's.
Lets take a perfect example, F1, the team with the best car almost always wins so can you compare an F1 driver with say Federer or Woods, is there any less skill/ambition/desire... no not really. Can you compare say Nicholson with Woods, no not really, clubs and balls have changed significantly.
So what can you comapre, drive, determination, discipline, dominance but all these have to be judged against their peers.
I would say if a player is dominant over say 50% of their career then they are in the super league, 60% & they are remarkable and 75% they are pretty unique... very few if anyone reaches the unique level.
Yes Woods is great, as is Federer but they are both in the 60% category, as for who's the best hmmmm I would go for a tie.
The real greats can only be judged when a career is finished and that is not just about their stats its about how they have conducted themselves both as players and after their playing career's have finished, the true greats take retirement as their chance to give something back to the sport that created them, that ultimately sets them apart from the rest.
Complain about this comment
Re 96. So you think all cyclists are cheats. The sad truth is that some of them are. However cycling is no different to many other sports including football, athletics, tennis, golf etc. As soon as a major drugs scandal comes to light such as the recent Operation Pueto fiasco -where there were more atheletes, footballers and tennis players on DR Fuentes books than cyclists - it was, as usual, the cyclists that got the publicity . Why dont you take your blinkers off. Lance Armstrong has probably taken more dope tests than anybody on this planet. The press never seem to hound the other sportsmen and women in the same way. Perhaps they are getting bungs to keep things quiet. When a drugs scandal involving golfers seemed set to appear a couple of years ago it was soon swept under the carpet.
And whilst I'm ranting. Nicole Cook number one female cyclist in the world , Mark Cavendish ,23years old, the worlds fastest sprinter and greatest British road cyclist ever, both British, both squeaky clean and practically unheard off here. Why ? !
Complain about this comment
This is a fantastic theme. I just feel the author was kickstarting it, only to let it splutter without revs. On the blogs,we really want drama, adventure and opinions laid on the line, and sadly this fell short.
Congratulations to Fed, who showed again the ruthlessness and infallibility of a true legend. Despite my allegiance to British and European golf (I was in class with Graeme McDowell), I'd love to see Tiger become the most successful golfer of all time. What an honour to say I've witnessed the careers of the two greatest individual sportsmen in history.
Complain about this comment
Federer is at a distinct advantage whereby age will hinder him past 30. Woods has already been playing for 12+ years. Federer will be lucky to have a career that spans that long at the top. He has eclipsed Woods in a career where he won his first slam event in '03 in terms of majors per year. The argument will rage on on what type of skill and mentality are required for both. For me, Woods has a way to go before he passes Nicklaus as best ever in his own sport. Nicklaus career included such peers as Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, the list goes on. Those guys are responsible for about 30 major titles, and beacuse of that Nicklaus finished 2nd in a number of majors. Noone has come close to being mooted as a rival to Woods. Not Woods fault admittedly but he's hardly played in a vintage period.
Anyway, in danger of rambling on here, so Fed vs Woods? Fed shades it for me but that doesn't they are both great at what they do. And I'll take golf anyday over tennis personally to let you know where my loyalty lies.
Complain about this comment
How many times does Federer hit the ball in one tennis game? Maybe 3 or 4 times per point, 7 or 8 points per game. Over a set of 10 games he hits the ball around 250 times.
Tiger hits the ball around 270 times IN A WHOLE TOURNAMENT.
Federer plays 3 or 4 sets in each match against one opponent. Tiger gets to hit his ball 270 times in one tournament against 150 opponents.
If Tiger got to play a 4 round tournament against one man at a time, he would win every single time he played. He is that dominant.
For Federer to be as dominant as Tiger he would have to win every single tournament he plays and only drop a set a couple of times per year!!
Complain about this comment
This is ,of course, just a throwaway question designed to stir up some 'false premises' argument among notoriouslly combative fans of two unrelated sports. Sports journalists have to buy food for the lady love and the wee birdies too, you know.However my opinion is that neither man is theb greatest. Tiger will have to break Jack's record and fed will have to beat Nadal consistently.
Some have pointed out that some major winning golfers have a paunch, smoke , and look fat.Right !So unless thay are millionnaires , why are they sitting on their behinds criticising fat men ,when they could be out there making millions knocking a little white ball in a few holes?
Complain about this comment
#22 When did Tiger win a tournament with a BROKEN leg? please let me know
Complain about this comment
it's so pathetic you got injured while playing golf, what? somebody whacked you with a club?
Complain about this comment
In golf you can "lose" in the first two rounds but still end up winning the tournament, you have to win all the time in tennis!
Complain about this comment
man its obvious when there are lulls in the sporting calendar, questions such as this have to be contrived!! why not ask " who would win in a fist fight?" or " who's mother gave their sporting son more love?" do they pay you guys for coming up with this rubbish?
Complain about this comment
Check out this somewhat light hearted comparison of Woods and Federer from last year:
http://blog.golfpredictor.com/2008/07/tiger-woods-vs-roger-federer.html
Complain about this comment
I always thought that this ridiculous comparison was an issue in The states because they had to come up with something, now that their tennis-players aren't top of the rankings, but also for the BBC it seems to be an issue.
Well let me help you out, there is no comparison, golf ain't a sport and if it is is, it's in the same league as darts, snooker, bowls, "sports" which almost require no physical stamina. Woods has never and will never win a tournament based on the fact that he outlasts his opponents due to being a tremendous athlete, he just walks around, doesn't carry his own equipment, compare this to a tennis-player, a footballer, a boxer, a gymnast or whatever.
I had a look at three of his opponents, the number 2 in the world his main rival is 39 years old, compare this to a 23 year old Nadal, do you think that Nadal at 39 will still be a serious contender at slams.... off course not, the only other player in the top10 I knew by name was Singh, the guy is 46, Mats Wilander is 45, do you think he would be in the top10 if he was still playing at professional level?
A few weeks ago I read an article that John Daly was playing again, that could be compared to a story which said that Yevgeni Kafelnikov will be back at the US open, so there is simply no comparison. Woods shpuld be compared to guys like Stephen Hendry, Phil Taylor or Gay Kasparov and not to Federer.
http://www.rafa-nadal.com/Images/Fotos/1/3/Rafa-Nadal---Puro-musculo-930.jpg
http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/11/25/daly__29__gallery__340x400.jpg
Complain about this comment
Reading the comments seems to have highlighted the ignorance of many so called sports fans who have no place making their views heard when they know so little about one of the sports in question.
I never intended to respond but I feel that I have to set right some of the comments which are just completely false.
Comment 103 - Tiger was one of the biggest and most public advocates for the introduction of drug testing and he has already been tested a number of time. Furthermore his physique is very similar to what it was in 2008.
Comment 113 - Tiger Woods is a global superstar and perhaps the msot recognisable athlete in the world today.
Comment 123 - In golf if you "lose" the first two rounds then you miss the cut and will not be around on the weekend to win the tournament.
Golf is a sport because it requires certain key elements of athelticism as well as immense skill and on top of that it is perhaps the most testing sport mentally. I play both sports and after competitive matches I would say both are about as tiring as each other.
I also don't understand how the fact that the total pool of tennis competitors is limited due to the necessary physical qualities is used as an advantage for Federer. Surely this just means that the competition for Tiger is greater as it is less limited.
Complain about this comment
Seamingwicket are you an idiot. How is golf on dimensional, tiger my not have to play a backhand of a dropshot. But he has to make 30yard puts, play punch shots, fade and pull shots, flop shots, hits the ball from 200 yards with 10 ft. Do you play golf, there are more verity of shots in golf then there are in tennis.
Complain about this comment
timmy1948 is right...Seamingwicket are you an idiot!
Both are exceptional individuals...and a pleasure to watch.
I put Lance Armstrong up there with them too..
Complain about this comment
So many comments such little time. Firstly to whoever through in a Squash player and a Judo guy. NOBODY CARES ABOUT THESE SPORTS lol.
It would seem to me that there was great point in Ian writing this blog as it has sparked wide debate on the topic. You can compare anything if you just think about it, saying that you can't compare the 2 of the greatest sportsmen ever because they play different sports is complete nonsens. Its like those idiots that say you can't compare a Centre back with a forward in football.......absolute tosh!
It is fairly obvious to anyone that knows anything about Sport that there is very very little between them on comparison. Both are the greatest ever in their field and have both broken so many records its unbelievable.
As for Nadal,rafalinho sums him up well...injured because he has no technique.
Result - Draw!
Phil Taylor can't be too far behind, as Darts falls somewhere in between Squash and Golf/Tennis on the list of sports that the public give a crap about.
Complain about this comment
The sports of tennis and golf hold much in common.
1) Both are truly global sports; played, watched and loved in every county of the world. What other sports can boast a global power to such an extent?
2) They support highly successful tours for both men and women. Again, where else is this duplicated?
3) They share the quintessential system of 4 slam / major events per year, which ultimately define careers but also the history and future of these sports.
4) As Iain Carter writes, golf and tennis share the privilege of having the two top sportsmen, and possibly the top two sportsmen of all time, playing these games right now!
Comparing these sports is the product of an active, inquiring and sophisticated mind - possibly a case of apples and oranges, but who cares, I love comparing apples with oranges.
And why not? There is so much to enjoy about Tiger's golf and the tennis of Federer. The fact they are friends and also competitive rivals in major championships totals demands they, and therefore their respective sports, be compared.
To those that think this debate pointless, some advice. Open your minds for once, stop being so anal and for your own sake, enjoy a cross sport rivalry that has never been so enthralling. Because in 100's years time, history will consider us the most fortunate spectators in the history of sport. Largely because of these two amazing men.
For a definitive answer we must wait. But until then, as much as I admire Woods, no-one has ever made me feel as honoured to watch a sport as Roger Federer does, when he steps onto court.
Complain about this comment
Two words Manny Pacquiao.... the man has beaten the best in several different weight classes you want an elite athlete I don't think you can even question it, the man is a monster!
Complain about this comment
i agree with london barnes about all the miserable so and so's....
now to settle who is the greatest..simple really.
in ireland he is known as god...to you he is bo'd
Complain about this comment
128 & 129 : Those were kind of shots created by ONE kind of position using different golf clubs, whereas in tennis can you hit a ball between legs while your back is facing the net or hit the ball while running and give it a top spin forehand or back hand or smash it sideways frontways, drop it, volley it, chop it, etc... by different Kinds of Positions and with just ONE RACKET?
Complain about this comment
There is no Rafa Nadal in Golf. There are many Andy Roddicks, Tommy Haas, Ferraros, Safins, James Blakes, but no Rafa. So imagine the ATP tour without Nadal. Roger would have a grandslam in 2004, 2006, 2007, and going for one in 2009.
Rafa started beating Roger ever since he became #1 in early 2004. Since then Rafa has an equal or better head to head against Roger in each of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. During the same time Roger won 14 slams compared to 6 for Rafa and stayed #1 for 237 straight weeks. Rafa was a close second for over 150 weeks.
When Tiger was winning 14 majors no one could beat him let alone with any consistency. He did not have to run into another Tiger on Sunday who beat beat him more often than not. That's exactly what Roger had to deal with. Another Roger on the tour. Tiger does not have another Tiger to contend with.
Complain about this comment
"When Tiger was winning 14 majors no one could beat him let alone with any consistency. He did not have to run into another Tiger on Sunday who beat beat him more often than not."
Because the gap in quality between Tiger and everyone else in golf is far greater than the gap in quality between Federer and everyone else in tennis. Which is why I'd say Tiger Woods is the greatest sportsman in the world.
Complain about this comment
As tennis and golf cannot be compared on a technical level, it only makes sense to compare both athletes in the way they compose themselves as the dominant factor in their game.
And in that area, Federer wins by about a mile (you people here a beep-beep sea-mile). He speaks of his opponents with more respect than Woods, who always seems to look for an excuse when someone else wins a tournament. Federer has also commented that he plays for the love of the game, whereas Woods looks to be chasing records for the sake of chasing records. It takes a special man to surpass the level of "only" playing and trying to win, and Federer has just done that.
Complain about this comment
To all the people who say tennis and golf are not similar,get a life!!The motion you use for both swings is very similar,as anyone who plays both games will tell you.As for whose the greatest i agree that tiger transcends his sport and has done more for his sport than proably any other sportsman has done for theirs.And to say golf is not a sport is just moronic and infintile!!
Complain about this comment
does federer have to judge the trajectory of his shot to such an extent as woods on every shot?
Does Tiger have to run to take his shot.
The sports are different. Tennis is athletic and fast, one bad shot and the oponent kills it.
In golf, one bad shot and you can still recover, no big deal.
They are both great champions and each arguably the best ever in their sport. Federer's record proves it, Tiger's will in the future.
Complain about this comment
Tiger is better, the reason is he turns out against 125 golfers every week at the same time any one of those golfers can have a good four days and beat him, Roger only has to beat the person in front of him.
Complain about this comment
Dont get me wrong Roger is a great Tennis player but there is only one thing wrong with that statement! The word Tennis! I mean is this really a world class sport............! The money is not great! Roger got £700,000 for 2 weeks work and Tiger would get £1,000,000 for 4 days work! Only 3 players can win tennis slams nowadays and one of them is injured! This means it is so much easier to win a tennis slam as you only need to beat 1 or 2 people instead of 140 in a golf major. Face is guys Roger is a shake and Tiger is sick! p.s have you seen his inches (guns)
Complain about this comment
What a stupid comparison.
Do you like cheese more than chalk?
Complain about this comment
What else doe Iain Carter do all day?
Complain about this comment
"whereas in tennis can you hit a ball"
Does it mean to you that he has to run in GOLF just to get a shot? can you read that again please.
They should revise the Rules/regulations/bylaws whatever of Golf, anyone falters - you're OUT, only then you'll know who's the Greatest. They should set a standard number of strokes per course if that is what you call that, if you were not able to beat that - better luck next time! who knows they'll adopt my suggestion hahaha
Complain about this comment
I read a comment talking about making the cut being on par (excuse the pun) with making a grandslam semi-final? Clearly there is no comparison as the semi-final of a GS consists of 4 players, how many make the cut? RFs consistency in making the last four 21 times in a row is far superior (and more consistent) than TW. Also, another comment about "beating the entire field" in golf as apposed to winning a GS in a draw format - I think that if you have one bad day in tennis you're out, if you have one bad day on the course (as woods has many times) you can make up for it with a better round the next day (4 days for a major).
I do believe that there is an immense amount of skill involved with golf but I think to be the best SPORTSMAN i.e. sport, there must be a certain amount of athleticism involved. There is little or no athleticism involved with golf and that is why we will see woods winning slams even in his 40s so even if he wins more slams than federer, I think Fed will always be the better sportsman (his consistency already proves this).
Complain about this comment
the guy above me (who says some good things by the way) says that if you have a bad day in golf, it is not as bad as a bad day in tennis.
In golf, if you have a bad hole, you're in big trouble, let alone a bad 18 holes. In tennis you can fall asleep for 15 minutes and you can get away with it. Whatsmore, federer can have a bad day and still win (take the wimbledon final where, if you ask me, he played pretty crap for his standard aprt from hos serving).
Thats what makes winning a major much more trickier, along with the fact you only have to beat 7 guys in tennis compared to the whole field in golf
Complain about this comment
For all of you who think Woods is better, in golf you don't "fight" against 140 opponents, you only "fight" against the golf course, yes it requires skill golf but there is no opponent to put you off balance. There is no change of tactics, speed, dirty behaviour or whatsoever "thrown" at a golf-player, he is just taking his time and hitting balls. Is there anyone who has ever seen Tiger Woods running around while practising his so-called sport? No because there is simply no athleticism required and that's why there is simply no comparison.
Complain about this comment
oh dear, this remains journalistic claptrap - whatever you think, mr moderator. take it on the chin like a man, old boy.
Complain about this comment
Something doesn't add up, Tiger is a bigger brand than Fed-for a reason, Tiger won a Major on one leg, Fed would not beat even an injured Nadal, even if the Spanish muscleman closed one eye! Yes he has the record for slams, but how many of those has he picked when Nadal was across the net...one, two?
Fed thrives on a weak opposition, ballooned by the British media (I hear chants of Andy Murray there!), while Tiger outwits 120,lads. Age in golf doesn't count, coz it's a thinking sport, not about running from one edge of the court to another. If i should put a tennis player alongside Tiger, it's still Sampras-atleast he had the likes of Agassi, Rafter and their kind. Fed's bunch is just poor, send him Serena Williams-Duh!
Complain about this comment
It is not about who is better, that is pointless, it is all about the competition between them that is interesting. One wins, the other wants to repeat in his sport.
The same as the Annika and Tiger competition (I know they were in the same sport, but in different levels), that was interesting, but not as an individual comparison.
Complain about this comment
#149 check #122
He might have slipped while walking down the course - so clumsy, now i know why you hate Fed, he's not an American and he has dethroned an American by beating an American - Strike 3.
Complain about this comment
They're both obviously great sports men, but Tiger must have the edge given the format of golf tournaments where he has to play against 150 at the same time followed by the 70 odd who make the cut. I truely believe that if golf were a head-to-head sport, Tiger would probably have already beaten Jack's record. Imagine what such a briliant player like Seve would have won... Even so, this does not take anything away from Fed - atruely great champion.
Complain about this comment
Instead wasting time debating 'who is the greatest?' perhaps we should just marvel in the fact that we have two of the most dominant sportsmen within our generation. Comparing the two is futile as their chosen sports are completely different.
Complain about this comment
Interesting discussion in many ways... But let's think from the purely financial point of view.
Nike sponsors both of these guys... Tiger is the richest sportsman in the world... Which to me says that Nike give him a much bigger bite of the apple (maybe not the case but I know he gets a cut of every Nike golf product sold... Can the same be said for Fed?)
On that basis, and his value as a global brand for Nike, Tiger has to come out on top.
Complain about this comment
Tiger will not win The Open.I hope Padraig Harrington makes the cut.Possible winners could be Kaymer,Poulter even Casey.I trust that Darren Clarke has a return to form and like P.H. makes the cut.There is time for Rory McIlroy to achieve greatness.How's that for an exiled Irishman?
Complain about this comment
golf is not a sport, hobby? maybe, so please don't compare a real athelete with a golfer.
Complain about this comment
20 - steviehullyyy - Tennis needs racquets, golf needs clubs and both need balls. So they too are silly sports? As much as it hurts to admit and say, Schumacher was one of the greatest (with flaws in character, however).
12 - Kyri1966 - Great shout for Jahangir Khan; truly awsome domination!
Of the two in question in this blog, I rate Federer higher due to the fact that he has to face his opponents and match their shots. He defeats his opponents by his skill and mental strenght. That's nothing to take away from Tiger Woods, who also is great.
Complain about this comment
This debate reminds me of an eternal question:
" Is my dog better than your horse?"
Complain about this comment
if all of the majors in golf were matchplay i can assure you tiger would have a lot more than 14!!As for federer, yes maybe he is the best of all time but at this moment i believe he is not the best in the world. And finally im stunned that whoever threw the words 'lance amstrong' into this blog hasnt been removed for breaking the house rules.
Complain about this comment
roger of course...what a great sportsman, and a gentleman...brings real nobility to the sportsworld...
Complain about this comment
cleetness wrote i would say that federer was the best of a bad bunch of tennis playersover the last few years until nadal evan murry as won his fair shareagainst federer as for tiger woods his record speaks for itselfhe is very good at what he does
Complain about this comment
One thing is for sure....Carter must be smiling sheepishly..At the number of comments he got for this blog post. To get 161 comments is cool.
And why are we comparing Tiger with Roger. I think Sachin Tendulkar has to be the best sportsman in the history. For all his records, and the number of years he has sustained himself playing cricket. In fact, he is one of the most humble sportsmen, the history of sports has seen. After all his achievements, more than a billion fans across the world, revering him like a God, and all the money he makes, he is still humble enough.
And if not Sachin, I think to be called the greatest in any category, one must have done something extraordinarily extraordinary..something superhuman. And going by that count, Donald Bradman seems to fit the bill. His average of 99.99 is simply breath taking and jaw dropping. It's simply impossible and only this guy has done that.
Complain about this comment
My comment is a general one about sports media accuracy. We kept hearing that Federer was going for a record 15th Grand Slam title, but that should have read 15th Grand Slam SINGLES title. The all time list of Grand slam titles is headed by Roy Emerson with 28; followed by John Newcombe with 25. There are also significant others ahead of Federer, such as Laver, McEnroe, Stolle and others.
Federer cannot be compared with Rod Laver until he wins the Grand Slam of all 4 titles in one season; Laver did this twice. If Federer does the Grand Slam twice then I will say he has to be considered as good as Laver but I cannot see him doing it even once but time will tell.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know about surfing's Kelly Slater? I think he has to warrant consideration in 'the worlds greatest sportsman' debate. He first won the world title in 1992, won an unprecidented 6 world titles in the mid 1990s, retired only to return in and win 3 more in the next decade - the last in 2008 - which is five more than anyone else has won. Any surfer who also plays enough golf and tennis to know how good TW and RF are will tell you KS is right up there. Shame more of the world don't know more about him really.
Complain about this comment
Add Schumacher to the mix! He might be better than both...
Add Jahangir Khan (Squash) in the mix - He might outshine all three, Jahangir won 555 matches in row and was un beaten for 5 years!!!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS