« Colin Montgomerie will win 2007 U.S. OpenMichelle Wie simply pulled a Billy Casper at Ginn Tribute »

5 comments

Comment from: maria s [Visitor] Email
Athletes got to do what they do best...I don't think they get to where they are in the world relying on support or depending on who is on the sidelines watching them. Each got a fight to prepare and win. If there is friendship between them - they both understand that support does not always mean being present physically specially when travel with a pregnant wife is difficult if not impossible...think it's a shallow commentary - it's better to say 'pass' when you really have nothing to say.
2007-06-11 @ 01:22
Comment from: Dave [Visitor] Email
You can't compare the difficulty of winning on clay in it's variance to anything in golf. It is essentially a different game, being played by players who are specialized for that sport. It would be like having a golfer going against people who only putt, and play miniature golf. The difficulty of winning all four in golf is the quantity, in tennis there is a qualitative difference between surfaces.
2007-06-11 @ 02:22
Comment from: Borg Fan [Visitor] Email
Achieving the grand slam in either tennis
or golf is an achievement of a lifetime
or career. With respect to Dave, there's
a reason why the grand slam in golf hasn't
been achieved in decades (as it hasn't in
men's tennis). While not played on
unique surfaces, each of golf's majors
present contendors with a unique challenge. B
Be it length, rough, greens ... only one
who hasn't played the game could come up
with something as idiotic as the slam in
golf is about quantity. Roger and Tiger
are in the same league - they're on a
level far above their closest peers.
There's a reason why the Grand Slam is the
ultimate goal in both tennis and golf - it''s
the hardest, amost impossible to achieve for mere mortals. If I were a betting man, I would bet that both will achieve those goals within their careers.
2007-06-11 @ 03:02
Comment from: Brandon [Member] Email
Dave,

Golf and tennis are essentially different games?
2007-06-11 @ 07:57
Comment from: andre [Visitor] Email
TIGER vs. ROGER - Both are great athletes with a lot of class. But if your talking about who is the more dominant RIGHT NOW? I would have to say Roger. Why? Golf and Tennis have 4 majors every year. Tiger won his first major in 1997. From 1997-2007 he has won 13 out of 44 majors. A wining percentage of 29.54% and Tiger is age 31. Roger won his first major in 2003. From 2003-2007 Roger has won 12 out of 20 majors a wining percentage of 60% and Roger is only age 26. Looking at the stats who would you bet on to win more majors in 2008? Tiger is more popular and better recognized in the U.S. because he is American and who else has a name like Tiger. Finally Tiger himself and Pete Sampras called Roger Federer the most dominant athlete on the planet. Who is gonna argue with those 2 athletes?
2007-10-25 @ 09:46

Comments are closed for this post.