Federer or Tiger

[rcrook]

Who is more dominant in their sport?

[we are cured]

Tough to say because tennis is more of an adversarial sport, while golf is usually a personal battle against the course. I'd have to go with Tiger though, just because he's raised the bar in just about every aspect of the game - fitness, shotmaking, and professionalism...but Federer is close behind.

[StuGrimson]

If there is 1 man I hate its Tiger Woods and I am a huge golf fan. I dont like ahtletes who dominate sports, its a lot less fun to watch. The main reason I dislike the guy really has nothing to do with him, its the goddamn announcers who suck his dick all the time and refuse to show anyone elses shots but show everyone of Tigers even if he is 10 shots out of the lead. I despise most golf announcers, the only ones who dont penetrate Tiger are David Feherty and Nick Faldo. Johnny Miller fucking pisses me off

I feel that Federer dominates more just because an off day for him means he is out of the tournament. Tiger (as he does quite a bit) has off days and battles back. Federer always has to be on his game and always is. Although props can be given to Tiger because instead of having to be better than 1 person each day, you have to better than 150 over 4 days.

[1Roth4]

tiger. for sure

[preppyak]

We've had this argument a while back...and I'm fairly sure I remember voting for Tiger then.

1. Federer has not won every major in his sport, which in my opinion is comparable to golf majors. Each major has its distinct feel and style, and Tiger has mastered every one...in a one year span at that. Federer on the other hand has shown he is not THE best on clay...which is like saying Tiger is great everywhere but the British Open where the courses are different.

They've both dominated majors, set records in them, and had long winning streaks...but Federer has not won them all...so that is -1 for him.

2. I'm not sure their is a discernible difference between their fields...I think the PGA players could be compared to the Tennis bests, and that you can't say that one field is significantly better. With that in mind, I think Tiger's ability to play 1/4 of the events on tour and still lead the tour is impressive. It skews the % of tour victories each year, so it makes those stats hard to compare, but it shows his ability to have his game so good that he can turn it on and off for vacations. For example, he goes from missing a cut in the major for the first time ever (due to emotions from his father's death) to later in the year starting, potentially, the longest winning streak ever.

[Scott Weber]

I think it's Federer.

[fire on my lips]

We've had this argument a while back...and I'm fairly sure I remember voting for Tiger then.

1. Federer has not won every major in his sport, which in my opinion is comparable to golf majors. Each major has its distinct feel and style, and Tiger has mastered every one...in a one year span at that. Federer on the other hand has shown he is not THE best on clay...which is like saying Tiger is great everywhere but the British Open where the courses are different.

They've both dominated majors, set records in them, and had long winning streaks...but Federer has not won them all...so that is -1 for him.

2. I'm not sure their is a discernible difference between their fields...I think the PGA players could be compared to the Tennis bests, and that you can't say that one field is significantly better. With that in mind, I think Tiger's ability to play 1/4 of the events on tour and still lead the tour is impressive. It skews the % of tour victories each year, so it makes those stats hard to compare, but it shows his ability to have his game so good that he can turn it on and off for vacations. For example, he goes from missing a cut in the major for the first time ever (due to emotions from his father's death) to later in the year starting, potentially, the longest winning streak ever.

I fully agree with point number 1, but not number 2. If Federer wanted to, he could, and on some levels has, do/done the same thing that Tiger has done. Top tennis players take off/enter tournaments to prepare for majors, just like golfers do. Tiger Woods makes enough money from sponsers that he can pick and choose where and when he plays in a tournament, and still be the richest athlete in the world. In tennis, there isn't as much money, and arguably, you can't on top for as long as in golf.

Also, Tiger can go out when ever he wants and play the toughest courses in the world (with some exceptions), because golf is a (mainly) personal game agianst the course/nature. With tennis, there are only so many times when Federer can face a player who is close to his level. I'm pretty sure that Federer's training partner isn't one of the top 5 best tennis players in the world.

EDIT: Just to say this about Tiger, they've changed the game to try to beat him. They only change the rules/limits for the greats.
I haven't voted. I'm not really sure who to vote for. If in ten years, there is another 'Tiger-like' young golfer and is close to Tiger's success, Tiger's success could be just because of his workout regimen, combined with his skill. Also, before Tiger and a few others, few golfers really lifted weights like they do now.

With Federer, he'll go down as the greatest tennis player ever, without much of an arguement. He's once in a lifetime .

[nfggc10]

I think it's Federer.and the winning percentages back that up.

I'm as big a Tiger fan as any but Federer dominates matches more than Tiger dominates tourneys. And Federer is getting closer to winning the French and will do it soon. Anyone who knows tennis can attest to how different the clay court game is to the other surfaces the experience/shots/movement you need to master it. To see how far he's come in those events is incredible.

[petey536]

as much as I love Tiger, Federer dominates Tennis much more than Tiger. He just swept Roddick, who was playing well this tourney.

[nfggc10]

If there is 1 man I hate its Tiger Woods and I am a huge golf fan. I dont like ahtletes who dominate sports, its a lot less fun to watch. The main reason I dislike the guy really has nothing to do with him, its the goddamn announcers who suck his dick all the time and refuse to show anyone elses shots but show everyone of Tigers even if he is 10 shots out of the lead. I despise most golf announcers, the only ones who dont penetrate Tiger are David Feherty and Nick Faldo. Johnny Miller fucking pisses me off

I feel that Federer dominates more just because an off day for him means he is out of the tournament. Tiger (as he does quite a bit) has off days and battles back. Federer always has to be on his game and always is. Although props can be given to Tiger because instead of having to be better than 1 person each day, you have to better than 150 over 4 days.Well the announcers have good reason to compliment him as often as they do though regardless of whether you think it happens too often. And the only reason they show his shots whether he's in contention or not is because it draws in viewers obviously.

And I agree with your second paragraph except that Federer's off days still amount to wins. You can look at the first set against Roddick from last night and he had a bunch of unforced errors and mishit alot yet still won the set.

[Smithers]

and the winning percentages back that up.

I'm as big a Tiger fan as any but Federer dominates matches more than Tiger dominates tourneys.

the winning percentages are pretty irrelevant IMO. tiger has to beat everyone at once, while federer faces them 1 by 1, starting with much inferior competition.

[nfggc10]

the winning percentages are pretty irrelevant IMO. tiger has to beat everyone at once, while federer faces them 1 by 1, starting with much inferior competition.
hardly irrelevant and the best measurement for dominance in the respective sport. hell, even Tiger has said Federer is easily the most dominant athlete in the world.

[preppyak]

hardly irrelevant and the best measurement for dominance in the respective sport. hell, even Tiger has said Federer is easily the most dominant athlete in the world.
Interesting...

I fully agree with point number 1, but not number 2. If Federer wanted to, he could, and on some levels has, do/done the same thing that Tiger has done. Top tennis players take off/enter tournaments to prepare for majors, just like golfers do. Tiger Woods makes enough money from sponsers that he can pick and choose where and when he plays in a tournament, and still be the richest athlete in the world. In tennis, there isn't as much money, and arguably, you can't on top for as long as in golf.
And I see that too...

I think after seeing Federer dismantle this field at the Australian I might be changing my mind though...also because I didn't respond to the direct question.

Now I am thinking Federer is more dominant in Tennis than Tiger is in Golf because when Federer enters a tournament that isn't the French, he's already won it...literally. In golf, at least percentage wise, their is just a greater gap in play and its harder to win EVERY tournament like it is in Tennis, and so by the play inherent to the game, Federer has an easier time dominating the field.

I still find tiger to be the more impressive athlete though, because he is battling things he cannot control, like weather/nature/etc...and he cannot directly influence all of his opponents while they play.

[xearlynovemberx]

tough call. i have a huge mancrush on tiger woods but federer's fucking great too

[bduke13]

After watching Federer destory Roddick this morning with what seemed like ease I don't really know who I'd pick

[we are cured]

hardly irrelevant and the best measurement for dominance in the respective sport. hell, even Tiger has said Federer is easily the most dominant athlete in the world.

tiger's pretty humble and professional though.

i don't know - i guess this is a question we're going to have to resolve in 10 years, when we have more of their careers to judge.

[looksthatkillbn]

the thing i measure it by is who can take it to the next level more. i think a player like retief goosen or vijay singh or phil mickelson, when at the next level, could legitimately play with tiger.

last night, roddick is on his best run and playing his best tennis in two years, had in his last match with federer beaten him (although it was an exhibition) and was predicted by many tennis writers to win the austrailian. last night's match was arguably the most important match of roddick's career up to this point. what happened? federer decided that he wanted to win. four, love, two.

gonzalez is playing the best tennis of his life right now, obviously, taking down blake (playing some of the best tennis in his life) and nadal in straight fucking sets, he will destroy tommy haas, and he'll be lucky to get a fourth set with federer.

[bigmike]

I watched that Federer/Roddick match live the other nigth when I was in bed and couldn't sleep and that was the most dominating performance i've seen from an individual in an individual sport in a long, long time. Addmittedly, I'm no tennis buff, but if there's a better tennis player in the history of tennis, I haven't seen him/her. I voted Federer but they're so close that either one is interchangeable and with his match against roddick fresh in my mind, I voted for him.

I mean, roddick played, in the first set, about as well as he could have played and all throughout the match made perfect shots that Federer looked like he jogged to and just rifled an even better one. I give Andy Roddick props for holding his composure because I would've rifled a serve at Federer's head out of frustration. And also, when Dick Enberg says that in his entire broadcasting career federer is at the top of the list right now for dominance, I think that's saying something considering he's covered sports for almost 50 years.

[preppyak]

I watched that Federer/Roddick match live the other nigth when I was in bed and couldn't sleep and that was the most dominating performance i've seen from an individual in an individual sport in a long, long time. Addmittedly, I'm no tennis buff, but if there's a better tennis player in the history of tennis, I haven't seen him/her. I voted Federer but they're so close that either one is interchangeable and with his match against roddick fresh in my mind, I voted for him.
Yeah...i watched that game because I couldn't really sleep at the time either, for completely separate issues, but to see Roddick, who was playing great tennis to that point, just get dismantled, I was thrown off...Federer is such a force that I think psychologically, players assume the loss before they play him in the early rounds.

[bigmike]

at one point in the match against Roddick, Federer had 8 winners and 5 unforced errors.

He finished the match with 45 winners and 12 unforced errors. Un-fucking-real.

With Roddick's battle in the first set to get back to 2-2, i thought he was playing well enough that he could make a match of it and then Federer seemingly was like "well, he actually came to play. maybe i'll try now." and steam rolled him. And Roddick's play didn't really diminish much during the match, federer just plain beat him. It was nuts.

Another question: Who's more vital to their tour (in terms of drawing interest and what not)? Federer or Tiger?

I know that I'll be watching the finals, if possible, simply to watch Federer again.

[The Get Up Kid]

The question is most dominate, not most succesful. Both of them will become the greatest winning player in their respective sports. But Federer is dominating right now. 12 successive Grand Slam Semi-Finals. He was 4-3 down against Roddick in the first set and went on an 11 game rampage until Roddick somehow won a game and then Federer finished home off without a sweat!

Federer is a FREAK!

Gonzalez could beat him in the final but it's a huge doubt which I'm saying he has about a 5% chance. Of course if he gets past Haas.

Federer's going for 4 Wimbledon's in a row. Tiger hasn't had the chance from my memory.

Feder WILL win the French Open this year and you wont be able to talk about not winning them all again.

Sampras never won French so therefore Agassi was better than him? I was more of an Agassi fan but I think Sampras was better.

[shOcktreAtmEnt]

It's almost too close to call.
I guess I would go with Federer

[nfggc10]

Another question: Who's more vital to their tour (in terms of drawing interest and what not)? Federer or Tiger?

I know that I'll be watching the finals, if possible, simply to watch Federer again.
I would say Tiger is definitely more vital to the PGA Tour then Federer is to ATP. The difference is clearly in the amount of casual viewers they draw and more people tune in just to see Tiger play than Federer. Now much of that is because only a few selected tennis tournaments besides the majors are on major networks while the PGA Tour is on a major network each week. And Tiger is the most famous athlete in the world now so the PGA has definitely benefited from that including bigger purses, increased publicity, and better players overall due to them having to elevate their games.

But I'll be watching the Australian final also just to see Federer because he's incredible. Anyone who thinks watching Tiger and Federer play is boring obviously can't appreciate their skill levels. One of the most exciting tourneys I've ever seen still is the 2000 US Open when Tiger won by 15. It was over half way through the second round but to see a guy playing that well and dominating a course setup that difficult was a once in a lifetime thing.

[StuGrimson]

Some people (like myself) dont find it exciting watching people dominate. I can handle a guy dominating team sports, like Gretzky, because they only dominate 1 game and 1 team at a time. I dont enjoy individual domination because it takes the fun out of it for the non casual fan.

[nfggc10]

Some people (like myself) dont find it exciting watching people dominate. I can handle a guy dominating team sports, like Gretzky, because they only dominate 1 game and 1 team at a time. I dont enjoy individual domination because it takes the fun out of it for the non casual fan.Yeah I can see it being harder for casual fans but it's still impressive to see the greatest ever in their sport playing at such high levels. I've always been a huge Tiger fan so seeing him win by 10 is better than seeing him win by 1. I love watching Federer play just because he hits shots that no one can even dream of pulling off. However, I like Roddick a little more so he's the only guy that makes me pull against Federer in matches.

[we are cured]

I love watching people dominate. It's great watching the second-tier players almost admit defeat and sulk around complimenting the dominator.

[Smithers]

i think i'd pick tiger because it's harder to dominate golf than it is tennis. you can't impose your will on your opponent in golf. in tennis you can do that.

[fluke182]

Personally, due to the fact it's one on one rather than one vs. the field, I have to go with Federer. The fact he can make the best in his sport look absolutely stupid most of the time cannot be overlooked, while Tiger doesn't really get a chance to do that because of the type of sport he plays. Maybe that's a cop out, but I still feel like it at least gives Federer the appearance of being more dominant. Look at the 6-0 set against Roddick for good proof. Roddick looked helpless, and he's a very good tennis player.

[StuGrimson]

Its hard to compare really, Tigers match play record (since college where he was dominant) is not overly impressive (Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup) and has won the Match Play tournament 2 times, which is good for anybody but he is far less dominant in that event than the other world championships. Basically Tiger excels at what golf is, him against the course but also outlasting 150 other individuals. Tiger is not the best 1 day player in the world, which you have to be in tennis, but by far Tiger is the best 4 day player in golf, which is what you have to be to excel at golf. It really is too hard to compare them, both being individual sports yet so hard to compare.