Golf or Tennis: Which Game Has More Strategy?

[Phil Benedict]

The concepts of strategy are very different because tennis is against an opponent whereas golf is against the course.  Even in match play golf you can't really affect the other player in a direct way.

Andre Agassi said Pete Samprass would drive him crazy by playing poorly for long stretches of a match, but hold serve, then hit a chip return at 0-15 to Andre's background, who would suddenly realize he hadn't hit a backhand in a half hour and was unprepared for the shot he needed to hit.

I'm inclined to think tennis is more strategic because you are always devising ways to gain an edge on your opponent and adjusting to what he or she is doing.

[Jason Topp]

I am very much a novice tennis player but because my father and my son are avid participants, I have learned much about the sport in the last year. 

I would consider golf more strategic because of the time one takes between shots to decide on the best shot to hit next.  Tennis involves significant strategic choices by my experience is that those decisions are mostly made in reaction to physical action rather than by advance contemplation.  In my experience, playing the game feels similar to basketball in that way.

[David_Tepper]

Phil B. -

I played high school and intercollegiate tennis and have been watching the game for almost 50 years.

Tennis is very much a game of match-ups in regards to the playing style of the two competitors. Some players base their games on power. Others are great retrievers and base their game on defending. Clearly the surface on which the game is played (grass, clay, paved, carpet, etc.) can also have a significant impact on how a match is played.

I have seen situations where Player A handles Player B and Player B handles Player C. While it is logical to assume that Player A should be able to then handle Player C easily, that is not always the case, as the style of Player C may be different from the style of Player B and may be more difficult for Player A to handle.

DT       

[John Nixon]

Before we get too deep into "strategy", let's make sure we remember the difference between "strategy" and "tactics".  If part of Sampras' strategy was to lull Agassi into forgetting about a specific shot in Sampras' repertoire, then his playing that specific shot at the proper moment is a tactic to implement the strategy.

[Emil Weber]

to be honest, its tennis

[Peter Pallotta]

DT - then you must remember those long rallies (from the wooden-head era) when players used to plan their strokes and jockey for position so as to finally be able to have a good (and sharp) angle for a passing shot. Now they hit that shot on a return of serve, and with both players on the baseline!  (I still watch the game, and Federer is as good as has ever been -- but it is not the same game).  

Peter

[Phil Benedict]

John,

That's a fair point about mistaking tactics for strategy, which happens all the time here  Any specific shot in either sport is almiost by definition tactical, isn't it?

One thing I find when I watch tennis on TV is how much the announcers - particularly the ex-players - emphasize what the players are thinking and the choices they have to make in serving and returning for example.  In golf they talk more about the players' emotions and execution or at least it seems that way to me.

[SL_Solow]

Peter,  I too am an old tournament tennis player who turned to golf.  I played with wood and was around when Wilson brought out the T2000.  Our memories sometimes deceive us.  On clay the rallies may have been longer.  However technology has really changed that game as much or more than golf.  The bigger, lighter and better balance rackets have aided returns more than serves.  It is why the western grip, universally rejected afte Little Bill used it in the late teens and early 20's is now the grip of choice coupled with the 2 handed backhand.  The mew rackets allow a western grip player to handle low balls, hit hem hard and with top spin.  As a result, almost no one serves and volleys any more on hard courts and rarely on grass.  There is less all court play then there was when Kramer was the best.  It is because serve returns are harder and lower.  So now most points are a collection of blasts from behind the baseline.As to who is the best, it is always difficult to compare eras.  Federer is certainly in the upper echelons.  Of those I saw in their primes,  I think Laver could do the most for a very long time.  Of course the money wasn't as good so there was a reason to stick around.

As to which is more strategic, the strategies are so different it is hard to say.  In golf, one must plan in advance based on one's ability, the nature of the hole/course and the weather.  Then, after every shot one must adjust the strategy to the result of the prior shot and the conditions.  The opponent; the course , remains relatively static but the situation changes.

In tennis one must react to the opponent and the conditions and one must do so instantaneously.  However,  the skilled player has drilled incessantly on how to react to various shots.  Thus faced with a cross court approach shot one usually responds down the line while the same shot where the opponent stays back will often result in a cross court return to take advantage of the lower part of the net.  Recognizing the situation and responding with the appropriate shot is often the extent of the strategy unless the opponents particular strengths and weaknesses alter the planned responses.  The best playeras either out-execute their opponents or upset these rote strategies with unconventional shots (think McEnroe).

[Peter Pallotta]

SL - thanks. I was thinking strategy (or the lack thereof) in the modern era; as I don't remember ever seeing with the frequency I do today the kind of passing shots (hit from the baseline, past opponents on the baseline) enabled by the enormous amount of topspin and power the new rackets generate.  I remember like it was yesterdaty the 1980 Wimbledon and US Open finals between Borg and McEnroe.  No one has ever entertained me as much as McEnroe, for exactly the reason you mention.  Hard to believe that such a volatile personality could have such good/clever and strategic sense on the court.

Peter

[Anton]

Interesting topic.  I always go back to the fact that golf is a battle with so many elements and yet there you are all alone.  No team. No coach. No one else to blame.  Just you alone against the elements: weather, hazards, your emotions, adrenaline, body limits, etc.  Tennis is primarily against a singular opponent.  Sure emotions and conditions play a factor but from a standpoint as to which game involves more strategy.....I have to go with golf.  Golf is more of a mind game than tennis and messes with your senses more.  Just my opinion.  I was never a champion tennis player but played quite often enough to get pretty good.  

[David_Tepper]

Peter & SL -

I agree with you both on a number of points.  The biggest difference the new rackets have made is that they enable players to generate pace & topspin (and create angles) on shots from the back court that would have been unthinkable with wood rackets.
Players are now often taking full swings when returning serve, rather than blocking the ball to get it in a play as they usually did with wood rackets.

The other difference is that very little pro tennis is now played on grass courts (just as little pro golf is played on links courses). Playing on clay or paved/carpeted surfaces provides players with a much more consistent bounce than playing on grass. Since players know they will get a consistent bounce, they can take a more aggressive swing at the ball.  

Both of these factors are making serve & volley tennis obsolete.

That being said, Roger Federer is one of the few current players I think could adapt to playing with a wood racket without much bother.

DT

[Thomas McQuillan]

I propose that anyone who thinks tennis is a more strategic game should immediately join www.tennisclubatlas.com

[Michael Moore]

Considering that tennis is played against a human and golf is played against a pile of dirt, I'm going with tennis.

[SL_Solow]

Michael;  I don't know.  That "dirt" can be pretty tricky see e.g. the Old Course, Crystal Downs etc.  Those humans, skilled though they may be, can be pretty predictable, see e.g. Ivan Lendl, Andy Roddick

[A.G._Crockett]

Yet another tennis player turned golfer here; played college tennis in the early 70's, then turned to golf when I blew out my shoulder at age 30.

Tennis is easily the more strategic, for two simple reasons.  First, there are vastly more shots played and thereby more opportunity for both strategy and tactics.  Secondly, there is constant interaction between you and your opponent and HIS strategy and tactics.

[Dan King]

Here is what the late Dinah Shore said about the two sports:
"Tennis is like a wonderful, longstanding relationship with a husband. Golf is a tempestuous, lousy lover; it's totally unpredictable, a constant surprise."

While perhaps not totally about strategy, Ellsworth Vine -- a No. 1 tennis player in the 30s and good enough golfer to win a couple PGA events in the 1940s said comparing the two sports:
"That little white ball just sits there. A man can beat himself before he ever swings at it."

In my humble opinion golf has slowly become less strategic, so the contest has become much closer than in Vine's day.

Cheers,
Dan King

The world's No. 1 tennis player spends 90 percent of his time winning, while the world's No. 1 golfer spends 90 percent of his time losing. Golfer's are great losers.
 --David Feherty

[Mike Sweeney]

Surprised that match play golf vs stroke play golf vs tennis has been mentioned. My ranking would be:

1. Match Play Golf

2. Tennis

3. Stroke Play Golf.

David Tepper (aka Captain of 1970 Cornell Tennis and I think Squash),

Where does squash fit in?

[David_Tepper]

Mike Sweeney -

Squash is similar to tennis in that you are playing an opponent and how your game matches up with his in terms of "style" can greatly effect the outcome of the match. Since the variations in playing conditions are much, much more narrow in squash than in tennis, the variations in playing styles are also more narrow. Some squash courts play"faster" than others (mostly due to temperature on the court), but there is nothing in squash like the difference between grass and clay tennis courts.

DT     

[Lynn_Shackelford]

The discussion on the amount of strategy is debatable, but I think we can all agree that equipment has eliminated the finesse from each game.  Remember Harold Solomon?  Once I saw Charles Pasarell the day after playing a late night match against Solomon.  I asked him how he did and he said he lost.  He said I might have won if I had had the patience to play a long late night match but I didn't want that and kept coming to the net to shorten the length of the points.  Baseline players and short hitters in golf who could chip and putt had a chance 25 years ago, today none.  It still amazes me that Corey Pavin makes a cut occasionally on the PGA Tour.

There are fewer styles of play today due to equipment in each game.

SL, good point on the grip, I am going to talk to Billy Martin, UCLA coach about that someday.

[SL_Solow]

Good to hear from you Lynn.  Small world.  Billy was a prodigy back in the early 70's in Illinois.  I called lines in the state high school championship when he was a freshman (I think).  A relatively early proponent of the 2 handed backhand.  I think he started after watching Mike Belkin.

[David_Tepper]

"Baseline players and short hitters in golf who could chip and putt had a chance 25 years ago, today none.  It still amazes me that Corey Pavin makes a cut occasionally on the PGA Tour."

Lynn Shackelford -

Not only is Corey Pavin still making cuts on the PGA Tour, he came within a stroke or two of winning a PGA Tour event last year, despite being old enough to play on the Champions Tour.

Mark Wilson has won twice on the PGA Tour. Aaron Baddely won last week at Riviera. Neither is above average in driving distance. There are still a good number of courses where a shorter hitter can compete, and compete very well, on the PGA Tour.

DT   

[Lynn_Shackelford]

"Baseline players and short hitters in golf who could chip and putt had a chance 25 years ago, today none.  It still amazes me that Corey Pavin makes a cut occasionally on the PGA Tour."

Lynn Shackelford -

Not only is Corey Pavin still making cuts on the PGA Tour, he came within a stroke or two of winning a PGA Tour event last year, despite being old enough to play on the Champions Tour.

Mark Wilson has won twice on the PGA Tour. Aaron Baddely won last week at Riviera. Neither is above average in driving distance. There are still a good number of courses where a shorter hitter can compete, and compete very well, on the PGA Tour.

DT   

What about tennis?

As for golf, yes the Luke Donald's of the world can pop up there from time to time on the right course, but as the tour lengthens courses they make it easier for the long hitters and harder for the short ones.