Nicklaus vs Federer

[cardoustie]

Who would you say dominated their sport the most or is the top sportsman?

 

So far Jack has a few points in his favour

- more combined grand slams as Fed only has 1 French Open

- massive span in years for victories with his last win at 46

 

I will say Roger has 20 vs 18 and there is a lot more stamina in tennis. I do recall TW and RF has a friendly major total comp going at one time

 

Interestingly, Jack is a massive tennis guy as well

 

Sorry for the silly cross sport post, it is Monday

[raynorfan1]

I lean with Federer.

 

The other thing worth considering (though I can argue it two different ways) is that Federer won 20 WHILE playing as a contemporary to the #2 and #4 guys on the all time list.

 

One side of the argument is that he was not as “dominant” - there were two (or three) other great players.

 

OTOH you’ve got three of the best players in history, playing against each other, and Federer is clearly the best.

[Texas1]

Head to head suggests that rafa is far superior to Federer

 

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-rafael-nadal/F324/N409

 

Federer has caught up recently, mainly due to Rafas long list of injuries etc. However Federers game and style will outlast Rafa as it’s so fluid and easy. Great one to debate

 

However just goes to show how bad men’s tennis is when Rafa and Federer are beating all before them at their age.

 

Shocking really

[thug the bunny]

Maybe not how bad men's tennis these days is, but how good these old warriors are.

 

I gotta go with Feds on this one. Tennis is a much more physical sport and keeping a step ahead at his age is unbelievable. Also, his demeanor and manners is unrivaled. Jack back in the day could be a bit snooty with fans and press.

[raynorfan1]

Head to head suggests that rafa is far superior to Federer

http://www.atpworldt...nadal/F324/N409

 

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

By surface, head to head:

Hard Court: 11 - 9 (Federer)

Grass: 2 - 1 (Federer)

Clay: 13 - 2 (Nadal)

 

What you see is that Federer plays well enough on clay to end up in the finals on Nadal's best surface...only to lose to a player (Nadal) who is transcendent on that surface. In contrast, Nadal only made it to the finals on a grass surface (Federer's best) 3 times, losing twice. The head-to-head numbers would look very different if Nadal made it far enough in the draw of grass court events to play Federer.

 

Nadal, without the 10 French Open wins, is a really really good player, with 6 slams (and seven finals losses). You could take any one of the events away from Federer, and he's still in the conversation for best of all time.

[PZero]

Jack has a signed photo from Fed at his house. That says a lot.

[NV825]

IMO Federer mainly because the physical demands of elite level tennis is insane.

[Texas1]

Really good player, what utter contempt

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2018/01/12/roger-federer-vs-rafael-nadal-five-ages-tenniss-greatest-rivalry1/

 

At their heyday Rafa demolished Federer on pretty much every surface. Me it’s too hard to call, probably Federer but to suggest that Rafa is only a good player on other surfaces when he’s also won a ton of masters 1000 events, only matched by Novak.

 

Barring injuries to both, Rafa out for a few seasons all in, might be a different conversation

 

Both the greatest players of their generation, one silky smooth and agile and a dream backhand and serve, the other relentless, powerful with unbelievable forehand and shot making

 

Both phenomenal

 

And we can also infer that Rafa could easily compete and beat Federer on Rogers favourite surfaces, however when the tables were turned, Roger was in the minor leagues whilst Rafa was feasting at king arthurs table, no ?

[cardoustie]

Nobody on wrx yet picking Jack, interesting

 

Maybe Jack wins longevity ...

 

I think if you toss in JWN's second and third place numbers at majors ... he has more dog in this fight

[raynorfan1]

At their heyday Rafa demolished Federer on pretty much every surface.

 

He beat Federer once on grass. In five plus sets, in maybe the best tennis match of all time (in a down year for Federer while he was recovering from mono). Nadal has been bounced out of Wimbledon before the Quarterfinals 7 out of the 12 times he's played there. Comparatively, Federer has lost before the QF in 6 of 16 Roland Garros.

 

I have a lot of respect for Nadal as a tennis player - especially as a clay court specialist - but so much of his success is built on the French Open. He simply has not had the diversity of success that Federer has had.

 

I mean, just look at the Grand Slam results from 2004 - 2007. Over a four year period, Federer won 11 of the 16 events, lost in the Finals in another 2; and made the semi's in another 2. Granted, 3 of those losses were to Nadal. But can you imagine a golfer winning 11 of 16 majors over four years, and finishing top 4 in the others?

[raynorfan1]

Nobody on wrx yet picking Jack, interesting

 

Maybe Jack wins longevity ...

 

I think if you toss in JWN's second and third place numbers at majors ... he has more dog in this fight

 

Doubt it. Federer has the longest gap between Grand Slam wins. In addition to winning 20 times, he's finished 2nd 10 times, Top 4 (SF) 13 times, and Top 8 (QF) 9 times. So in 72 Grand Slam starts, he's won 20; finished Top 2 30 times, finished Top 4 43 times, and top 8 52 out of 72 times.

 

Nicklaus finished Top 10 in a major an astonishing 73 times...in 164 events. At the same time, if you cut Jack's career off at 1982, it'spretty comparable. 66 top 10 finishes in 92 events - but you lose one victory.

[deadsolid...shank]

I’ll say Jack. Only because I haven’t followed tennis since Connors-McEnroe (and Chrissy)! And no one else has voted for him!

 

I will say this though. I think it’s a little bit easier to overcome your game being a little bit “off”in tennis. You can use adrenaline and physicality because it is a much more explosive and athletic sport. And you don’t have to beat the entire field in tennis. What is a major in tennis, eight matches? I really don’t know.

 

In a major golf tournament you have to cover everyone who tees it up.

 

In all actuality, I really don’t know enough about Federer to make a judgment, but it’s a fun question to talk about.

[cdnglf]

My pick is Federer, but I think the strongest argument for Jack is how far ahead of his contemporaries he is.

 

Jack had 18 majors to Gary's 9, Watson's 8 and Arnie's 7. Twice as many as his nearest contemporary, and more than the next two combined.

Federer has 20 slams, but Nadal and Djoker aren't too far behind at 16 and 12. Those two are quite a bit younger than Fed, so the gap may ultimately end up even smaller.

[raynorfan1]

My pick is Federer, but I think the strongest argument for Jack is how far ahead of his contemporaries he is.

 

Jack had 18 majors to Gary's 9, Watson's 8 and Arnie's 7. Twice as many as his nearest contemporary, and more than the next two combined.

Federer has 20 slams, but Nadal and Djoker aren't too far behind at 16 and 12. Those two are quite a bit younger than Fed, so the gap may ultimately end up even smaller.

 

Agree that this is the question to wrestle with.

 

Is it more impressive for Federer, because he had more legitimate competition?

 

Or more impressive for Jack, because he was more dominant?

 

How would we feel about Tiger if Phil (or Sergio) was sitting there with 12 majors?

[Man_O_War]

My pick is Federer, but I think the strongest argument for Jack is how far ahead of his contemporaries he is.

 

Jack had 18 majors to Gary's 9, Watson's 8 and Arnie's 7. Twice as many as his nearest contemporary, and more than the next two combined.

Federer has 20 slams, but Nadal and Djoker aren't too far behind at 16 and 12. Those two are quite a bit younger than Fed, so the gap may ultimately end up even smaller.

 

Federer won most of his majors in the Roddick era...been a little more modest since Nadal and Novak got their teeth into it...both with winning records..

 

BUT..both are great...leave it at that

[raynorfan1]

My pick is Federer, but I think the strongest argument for Jack is how far ahead of his contemporaries he is.

 

Jack had 18 majors to Gary's 9, Watson's 8 and Arnie's 7. Twice as many as his nearest contemporary, and more than the next two combined.

Federer has 20 slams, but Nadal and Djoker aren't too far behind at 16 and 12. Those two are quite a bit younger than Fed, so the gap may ultimately end up even smaller.

 

Federer won most of his majors in the Roddick era...been a little more modest since Nadal and Novak got their teeth into it...both with winning records..

 

BUT..both are great...leave it at that

 

Federer and Nadal have both won 16 slams since Nadal won his first - RF just had a 4 win head start.

[thug the bunny]

My pick is Federer, but I think the strongest argument for Jack is how far ahead of his contemporaries he is.

 

Jack had 18 majors to Gary's 9, Watson's 8 and Arnie's 7. Twice as many as his nearest contemporary, and more than the next two combined.

Federer has 20 slams, but Nadal and Djoker aren't too far behind at 16 and 12. Those two are quite a bit younger than Fed, so the gap may ultimately end up even smaller.

 

Federer won most of his majors in the Roddick era...been a little more modest since Nadal and Novak got their teeth into it...both with winning records..

 

BUT..both are great...leave it at that

 

True, Fed started out during the gap between the Agassi Sampras era and then later competitors. However he beat the likes of an aging Sampras and other upstarts like young Rafa and Nole and was able to ride that wave for ever..

[jackzhang]

Federer

[Schley]

Haven't read the other posts, but Federer has been winning in essence match play tournaments his entire career. This isn't to discount his accomplishment which is extremely impressive and best in the history of tennis, however he doesn't have to beat the entire field to win the tournament, only beat 5-8 players that week. This fundamentally pushes the accomplishment to Nicklaus who beat the entire field 18 times, not to mention the 19 other times he finished 2nd and 11 times 3rd! Those are the greatest individual accomplishments in an individual sport.

[Schley]

Jack has a signed photo from Fed at his house. That says a lot.

 

Tell me you aren't serious please, and you are from Ohio? haha tongue in cheek I'm sure.

[raynorfan1]

Haven't read the other posts, but Federer has been winning in essence match play tournaments his entire career. This isn't to discount his accomplishment which is extremely impressive and best in the history of tennis, however he doesn't have to beat the entire field to win the tournament, only beat 5-8 players that week. This fundamentally pushes the accomplishment to Nicklaus who beat the entire field 18 times, not to mention the 19 other times he finished 2nd and 11 times 3rd! Those are the greatest individual accomplishments in an individual sport.

 

I thought about this and concluded that it cuts both ways. Sure, you've only got to beat your draw in tennis. But one "hot" day from a decent player can toss you out of the event. Against the whole field, a guy might put up a low number one day, but that doesn't knock you out of the tournament.

 

At the same time, if you're the player with the great outing, you can drop a 64 in the first round (Spieth at the Masters) and play no better than the rest of the field for the remaining three days, and win the whole thing.

 

I can see the argument both ways, but it's not conclusive to me which format is "easier" to win.

[thug the bunny]

Haven't read the other posts, but Federer has been winning in essence match play tournaments his entire career. This isn't to discount his accomplishment which is extremely impressive and best in the history of tennis, however he doesn't have to beat the entire field to win the tournament, only beat 5-8 players that week. This fundamentally pushes the accomplishment to Nicklaus who beat the entire field 18 times, not to mention the 19 other times he finished 2nd and 11 times 3rd! Those are the greatest individual accomplishments in an individual sport.

 

I thought about this and concluded that it cuts both ways. Sure, you've only got to beat your draw in tennis. But one "hot" day from a decent player can toss you out of the event. Against the whole field, a guy might put up a low number one day, but that doesn't knock you out of the tournament.

 

At the same time, if you're the player with the great outing, you can drop a 64 in the first round (Spieth at the Masters) and play no better than the rest of the field for the remaining three days, and win the whole thing.

 

I can see the argument both ways, but it's not conclusive to me which format is "easier" to win.

 

I'm trying to think, is golf the only sport where each player is playing against the entire field. Maybe the judged sports or racing (speed skating, skiing, etc), but they're not pop sports. You're right, the standard draw system for all the major sports tournaments or playoffs means most teams/players will never face each other.

 

Just another unique aspect of golf.

[cdnglf]

Haven't read the other posts, but Federer has been winning in essence match play tournaments his entire career. This isn't to discount his accomplishment which is extremely impressive and best in the history of tennis, however he doesn't have to beat the entire field to win the tournament, only beat 5-8 players that week. This fundamentally pushes the accomplishment to Nicklaus who beat the entire field 18 times, not to mention the 19 other times he finished 2nd and 11 times 3rd! Those are the greatest individual accomplishments in an individual sport.

 

I thought about this and concluded that it cuts both ways. Sure, you've only got to beat your draw in tennis. But one "hot" day from a decent player can toss you out of the event. Against the whole field, a guy might put up a low number one day, but that doesn't knock you out of the tournament.

 

At the same time, if you're the player with the great outing, you can drop a 64 in the first round (Spieth at the Masters) and play no better than the rest of the field for the remaining three days, and win the whole thing.

 

I can see the argument both ways, but it's not conclusive to me which format is "easier" to win.

 

I'm trying to think, is golf the only sport where each player is playing against the entire field. Maybe the judged sports or racing (speed skating, skiing, etc), but they're not pop sports. You're right, the standard draw system for all the major sports tournaments or playoffs means most teams/players will never face each other.

 

Just another unique aspect of golf.

 

Royal Rumble!

[raynorfan1]

Haven't read the other posts, but Federer has been winning in essence match play tournaments his entire career. This isn't to discount his accomplishment which is extremely impressive and best in the history of tennis, however he doesn't have to beat the entire field to win the tournament, only beat 5-8 players that week. This fundamentally pushes the accomplishment to Nicklaus who beat the entire field 18 times, not to mention the 19 other times he finished 2nd and 11 times 3rd! Those are the greatest individual accomplishments in an individual sport.

 

I thought about this and concluded that it cuts both ways. Sure, you've only got to beat your draw in tennis. But one "hot" day from a decent player can toss you out of the event. Against the whole field, a guy might put up a low number one day, but that doesn't knock you out of the tournament.

 

At the same time, if you're the player with the great outing, you can drop a 64 in the first round (Spieth at the Masters) and play no better than the rest of the field for the remaining three days, and win the whole thing.

 

I can see the argument both ways, but it's not conclusive to me which format is "easier" to win.

 

I'm trying to think, is golf the only sport where each player is playing against the entire field. Maybe the judged sports or racing (speed skating, skiing, etc), but they're not pop sports. You're right, the standard draw system for all the major sports tournaments or playoffs means most teams/players will never face each other.

 

Just another unique aspect of golf.

 

Some of the racing sports - marathon; cycling; etc. are against the whole field. But it requires an element of competitor vs venue as opposed to pure competitor vs competitor.

 

And let’s not forget that match play is also a common golf format.

[thug the bunny]

Haven't read the other posts, but Federer has been winning in essence match play tournaments his entire career. This isn't to discount his accomplishment which is extremely impressive and best in the history of tennis, however he doesn't have to beat the entire field to win the tournament, only beat 5-8 players that week. This fundamentally pushes the accomplishment to Nicklaus who beat the entire field 18 times, not to mention the 19 other times he finished 2nd and 11 times 3rd! Those are the greatest individual accomplishments in an individual sport.

 

I thought about this and concluded that it cuts both ways. Sure, you've only got to beat your draw in tennis. But one "hot" day from a decent player can toss you out of the event. Against the whole field, a guy might put up a low number one day, but that doesn't knock you out of the tournament.

 

At the same time, if you're the player with the great outing, you can drop a 64 in the first round (Spieth at the Masters) and play no better than the rest of the field for the remaining three days, and win the whole thing.

 

I can see the argument both ways, but it's not conclusive to me which format is "easier" to win.

 

I'm trying to think, is golf the only sport where each player is playing against the entire field. Maybe the judged sports or racing (speed skating, skiing, etc), but they're not pop sports. You're right, the standard draw system for all the major sports tournaments or playoffs means most teams/players will never face each other.

 

Just another unique aspect of golf.

 

Some of the racing sports - marathon; cycling; etc. are against the whole field. But it requires an element of competitor vs venue as opposed to pure competitor vs competitor.

 

And let's not forget that match play is also a common golf format.

 

That is what makes match play golf tournaments so engaging, that they play one on one in a draw or points system. Luck of the draw has always been a drama multiplier in sports.

[Texas1]

Jack by a long way.

 

[Schley]

swimming/track and field are against the whole field.

 

Jack by a mile

 

matter of fact i would put Tiger above federer

[cdnglf]

swimming/track and field are against the whole field.

 

You sure about that? I have yet to see a pool with 30+ lanes.

[Schley]

swimming/track and field are against the whole field.

 

You sure about that? I have yet to see a pool with 30+ lanes.

 

You have prelims to get to the finals........not to mention it is the top times overall, not heat winners so yes it is against the entire field.

[cdnglf]

swimming/track and field are against the whole field.

 

You sure about that? I have yet to see a pool with 30+ lanes.

 

You have prelims to get to the finals........not to mention it is the top times overall, not heat winners so yes it is against the entire field.

 

Point taken on swimming, but sprinting isn't the same.