Revisited: More dominant, Federer or Tiger?

A lot of the time, unless you completely kill yourself, you can hover around even, or even be positive and lose. Gonzo was a +3 in the final, and as badly as she played, Sharapova was only a -1.

When your opponent (Federer) is a +26, it does become a lot harder.

 

Remember, too, that not all "winners" are created equal. A rally-ending shot against Joey Wannaserve from Murfreesboro, Tenn., might not be a winner against James Blake.

 

Which brings us back to the original man-vs-man concept. If he is on his game, no-one can touch Federer right now. Woods is remarkable in his accomplishments, but for day-in-day out brilliance, Federer is just ahead.

 

Here is an intriguing article on Federer.
http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=reu-openfedererrivalrydc&prov=reuters&type=lgns

 

I'm with you on this one ... Tiger is incredible ... he's winning at a crazy pace ... but I think other golfers have a chance to beat him. It may be a small chance, but it's there. With Federer, the guy doesn't seem to even drop a game or a set ... that's dominance.

Edit: Remember, too, that while Tiger got his seventh straight tour win, he did lose, I think, three out-of-country tournaments through that streak. And in regards to Federer facing a lone competitor and Tiger vs. The Field ... I agree to a point, but Tiger has also shown himself to be vulnerable in match play which would be, I believe, the equivalent. Federer has not been vulnerable. At all.

 

Yes, Woods plays against "the field" and Federer plays seven opponents, one at a time.

However . . .

How come, in the few times Woods is asked to play a match-play event, he doesn't come close to winning the 90 percent of the time that Federer does?

Maybe beating "the field" is really easier.

Seems to be for Tiger.

 

And BTE beats me to the point.

(match play in golf is a sprint ... fall behind early and you're likely hosed. Tiger is obviously a distance ace)

 

Both athletes put the fear into their opponents. Federer is more dominant, but only slightly. I do think, however, if Tiger played week in, week out that he wouldn't win nearly as many tournaments as he does. It's a luxury he has that Federer does not.

 

Let's lose the week-in, week-out argument. Federer takes time off as well. He does not have to play every week.

But winning a tennis Grand Slam ... 7 matches each on four different surfaces (yes, there is a major difference between the rubberized hardcourt in Australia and the hardcourt in Flushing) is an incredibly difficuly feat, just as a golf slam is difficult.

 

There were times in 1987-89 where it looked like nobody could get a point off Graf, let alone a set or a match. I don't think Federer's quite there yet. So Tiger gets my vote at the moment.

 

The depth in the women's game used to be abysmal.

The depth in the men's game is staggering . . . even if Federer's genius makes us forget that sometimes.

 

Not at the period we're talking about and the depth on the men's side isn't anywhere near where it was from 1979-89, but Federer would've kicked ass then, too.