The Golf Blog asks the big question today that I'm a little embarrassed not to have posited first: was Rafael Nadal - Roger Federer at Wimbledon better than Tiger Woods - Rocco Mediate at the U.S. Open?
Although, in fairness, I probably didn't think about asking it because to me (in a totally personal manner) the enjoyment of watching decent golf outweighs the enjoyment of watching good --> pretty good tennis. But it's still a very viable question, particularly when you shape it in a historical manner.
How will history rank Nadal-Federer Wimbledon 2008 against Tiger Woods-Rocco Mediate at the U.S. Open 2008? Which "major" victory will be considered as the greater victory in their respective sports? It's true Tiger was playing with a torn ACL, but it's hard to overlook the fact that Nadal v. Federer involved No.2 versus No.1 in the finals, plus the already storied rivalry Nadal and Federer have built up.In that context, the answer is simple: Nadal's win was better. He toppled the world's number one ranked player and he finally overcame the non-clay Federer demons that have plagued him for his career. (All while wearing a nifty Euro-lady-whipper!)
All Tiger Woods did was barely beat a guy he was supposed to demolish ... while playing on one ACL. And I'm not sarcastically trying to take away from Woods' win; if you read FanHouse you know I was just as much in awe as everyone else across the world at what he was doing.
But in terms of importance to sport, well, we've had tons of great golf matchups and incredible golfing moments over the last few years. Tennis? Uh, notsomuch. Andre Agassi's failed comeback and some James Blake semi-heroic moments aside, it's been Federer whipping everyone up and down the court, and it's been boring.
That's why this match -- because it was great, competitive tennis that we haven't seen in almost a decade -- is more important in the historic context of the sport. It might not have been a "better" Sunday afternoon shootout, if you're into comparing apples and oranges, but unless (punching my wooden desk here) that was Tiger's last tournament, I don't see how Nadal v. Federer doesn't go down as more historically important.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-07-2008 @ 12:27PM
Max said...
It's not even close. Tiger's win may have been a greater individual accomplishment considering his injury. But as a matchup between 2 great players, Federer vs. Nadal is historically huge. This is now the greatest individual rivalry since Evert vs. Navratilova.
Reply
7-07-2008 @ 2:48PM
Todd said...
I agree. Although I'm a bigger golf fan, the Nadal win was better b/c it was between the top 2 players in the world. Tiger's win was just one of many impressive wins on his way to historically the best ever record. This tennis match was better than some of the Agassi v. Sampras matches I remember.
Reply
7-07-2008 @ 4:03PM
shaneharrison said...
I think the question itself is absurd? Tiger/Rocco or Federer/Nadal? You do not have to be a golf or tennis fan to answer that question. However, seeing as I am both I can honestly say that Roger and Rafa's match was by far the greatest show of mental and physical prowess that I have seen between the world's top two players. Attaboy, Tiger for your win with an injury. No player has ever done THAT before against a much lesser opponent. I am a Nadal fan at heart, but even though only one winner emerged to claim the Wimbledon title ... there were two champions. That can hardly be said for the other event.
Reply
7-07-2008 @ 8:44PM
NYC10029 said...
Roger and Rafa is up there with Frazier-Ali. I just hope we continue to see them both. I know everyone has Rafa as "the man" and yes he beat "the king" but his resume is no where near Roger's. No one's is. He hasn't loss on grass for over 6 years!!! Rafa is a close second on clay but no where else until yesterday and he had to work. Roger has made it look so easy (most of the time with no couch). He is remarkable. I like Rafa hope he stays healthy and he and Roger continue the rivalry for years to come. One has to wonder what will happen to the Americans (Roddick and Blake).
Reply
7-08-2008 @ 1:52AM
George B Vieto said...
It is a no brainer. Nadal defeating his nemesis Roger Federer because the contest went five sets and if Rafael had won three straight games to zero then the Roger Federer haters would say Roger is past his prime. Rocco was just a Tiger booty kisser.
Reply