Revisited: More dominant, Federer or Tiger?

I say the men's game has never been deeper.

And I don't just mean the top dozen or so guys who can challenge the top dog.

I mean the top 100, the top 500.

In the 80s you didn't have the Argentines, Chileans, Spaniards kicking butt. In the USSR you had Volkov and Chesnokov and Cherkasov . . . all journeymen. Now you have Safin and Davydenko and Tursunov. All capable of beating anyone not named Federer.

No contest.

The reason there are so few Americans on the horizon is because they are being swallowed by the depth around the world.

 

You could look at each of the four rounds as four "matches." Only against the field as opposed to one opponent.

It's just amazing that in two different sports these days, I would be more than willing to bet on one man against the entire field when it comes to the major tournaments.

 

And the reason to enjoy the dominance of Woods and Federer is because you are watching two very special players, two very special athletes.

 

While both are clearly the best in their sports, and quite possibly the best ever, Federer is more dominant right now. To go through a Grand Slam event in 2007 without dropping a set is all the proof I need.

Federer has 10 Slams and is the first person ever to win three different Slams three times. Also, don't forget that he's done all this in a pretty short period. He turned pro in 1998 and didn't win his first Slam until Wimbledon in 2003.

Comparing golf to tennis is tough, as others have noticed, but Federer never plays the equivalent of an over-par round. He lost in the second round to Andy Murray in Cincy in August, but he was worn out after playing and winning the previous two or three weeks.

 

Guess that's what some are going to stick with.

Let me try this another way. What would be the equivalent of an over-par round in tennis? Don't say a loss; that's not right or fair.

 

Since par is supposed to be average (for pros), I guess the only description I can think of for over par is "worse than average".

Thus, Federer can be said to have an "over par" day when it can be argued that more than half the field in the tournament would have beaten him on said day.

And I think it has been about 3 years since that argument could be made.

 

Tiger beats, what, 156 other guys every time he enters a tournament? And he's won seven straight. Federer only has to go through 4, 5, maybe 6 guys? Tiger is the most dominant. It's far more difficult to be that dominant in golf, a fickle game by nature, than tennis or any other sport.

 

Tiger is an apple. Roger is an orange. Both may be very tasty, but you can't really say one is better than the other.

If you want to look at career accomplishments, then I'd say Tiger has a slight edge because he's won all his sport's majors and won with varying styles of play. Federer has yet to win the French (though I think he will this year) and has not redeveloped his game like Woods has. Maybe the need's not there to redevelop the game, but still, it's incredible for Woods to tear down what was so dominant, start over and become even more dominant.

 

Let's start this debate once Federer has won every Grand Slam and not until then.

 

So, deadline, we'll resume the argument in June after he wins the French?
Or should we wait til he completes the Grand Slam this year in September?

 

My point is that Federer never has won the French Open. Tiger Woods has shown he can excel on many different sorts of golf courses. Federer hasn't shown that he can win the only Grand Slam on clay. Once he's won the French Open, it is a much more valid debate.

 

Seven straight tour events, yes. He's lost three times on non-tour events sprinkled in there, don't forget.