Revisited: More dominant, Federer or Tiger?

Meaning his power is greater hence he has more of an affect over how his opponents play their games. I will admit I know very little about tennis but I know a great deal about golf and how hard it is not only to maintain your swing but how you have to adjust to the playing surface as you go along. It is mentally draining in a way that tennis can never be. The mind is the hardest thing to understand and control and tiger has the power to control his and other golfs games. It is much easier to control how some one plays when you can see them but it is much more difficult when all you see is a leader board and how much more intimating just his presence on the golf course is. Their has been few that have done what Tiger has but many more who have done similar things to what Federer has.

 

Many more that who have done similar things to what Federer has?
Please, idiot, start naming the many!

 

That argument breaks down inasmuch as if Tiger does shoot over par on that first day, he has to be that much better in the next three to come back and win.

And I daresay that Roger Federer can probably have "over-par" types of days on the tennis court and still make it through early-round opponents.

 

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but sorry guy. You got no idea.

 

How many no-names have come up to win tennis majors in the past 10 years?

 

Rod Laver. Steffi Graf ,Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg, Martina Navratilova, Margaret Smith Court, Chris Evert
I would all say these players dominated tennis for some time and were just as intimidating as Federer is now. As for golf only Jack Nicklaus, Ben Hogan and Arnold Palmer were dominate but not as dominate as Tiger has been.

 

Nope. Sorry. Try again. And (pet peeve) ... it is not "they were dominate." It is "they were dominant."

 

Well obviously Tiger uses the Jedi mind trick to make the rest of the field forget how to play.

The critical argument here is that in any tournament, Tiger can have off days and still win. Federer doesn't have that luxury. This is going to sound like a broken record but forget the sets and wins streak for a moment. In the final of a major tournament, Federer's opponent only won four points against Federer's serve for two sets.

That is utter domination of the only player who in any way tested him.

 

I believe Federer is more dominant right now than Tiger is, but it's a real stretch to say he's the most dominant athlete in history. He has yet to win the Grand Slam like Rod Laver (who did it twice) or the Golden Slam like Steffi Graf in 1988. He has yet to hold all the four Slam titles at once, as Tiger has at least done. Athletes like Wayne Gretzky between 1980-88, Wilt Chamberlain in the early '60s and Mike Tyson from 1986 to 1989 were all able to do pretty much whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted to do it.

 

Again, I say that's an argument that sounds good, but isn't the no-brainer you think it is.

There's every possibility that Federer CAN have an off-day and still win. It's just a matter of one (1) guy across the net playing a little worse.

 

The unforced errors and winners diferential is usually a good indicator of how well someone's playing. Pre-final Federer was over a +200 in six games. That's about 33 more winners than unforced errors per game

Didn't seem to have a set off here, as is usually the case.

 

Well, that's a better indicator than was presented before, I'll give you that.

But let's say, then, that he has 10 more winners than unforced errors. That could certainly be considered an off-day for him. It's also probably good enough to win.