Revisited: More dominant, Federer or Tiger?

And again, I think that's wrong. "Worse than average" for Federer, "over par" for him, is still good enough to beat well over half the opponents he faces.

 

Tiger shooting 75 in the first round does not keep him from winning the tournament, even if half the field is ahead of him.
Such an off day is still more likely to knock Federe out.

 

I think both players have benefited greatly from having lack of competition around them...

The presence of both of them have made both of their sports incredibly boring to watch...

 

So you're saying that Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, Retied Goosen, Luke Donald, Phil Mickelson or Rafael Nadal, Nikolai Davydenko, Fernando Gonzalez, Andy Roddick, James Blake and Marat Safin are all bums?

The depth of ablity in both sports has never been higher. And the way Woods and Federer both play their sports make them compelling viewing.

 

Tiger's more dominant because people who didn't follow golf or play golf, pay attention to Woods. Federer doesn't. And it's not Tiger's personality that does it, because frankly, I haven't seen a personality for Woods. He has all the public charisma of boiled chicken.

 

But abbott, that's because of the media hype that his father helped create before he ever turned pro.
People pay attention to Tiger because has been marketed much more than Federer. That has nothing to do with dominance over the sport.

 

It would just be nice for either one of them to actually have a rival. Mickelson is the closest Tiger has to one and nobody in tennis is even close enough to Federer is be considered a rival, unless it's on clay...

 

wfw

 

Dominance has nothing to do with whether the public pays attention; dominance is judged solely by what happens between the ropes/lines/etc. Ole Einar Bjorndalen might be the most dominant athlete in any sport over the last decade; the fact that he competes in an obscure sport (biathlon) doesn't alter that fact.

 

And who created just as much buzz for his kids as Earl did for Tiger? Richard Williams. What do those two fathers have in common? OK, probably several things, but they're Americans -- as are their kids.

If Federer were American, we'd likely be talking about the current boom in men's tennis. If Tiger wasn't an American, we'd be talking about the dearth of American talent in golf right now.

 

In the past, I kinda hoped Tiger would fail because of all the hype, but now I have grown to appreciate just how dominant he is. Like Nicklaus in his prime, Tiger never misses a putt he has to make, and has a flair for the dramatic. That said, if you offer me Tiger or the field each week for $50, I'll take the field. If you offer me federer or the field, I'll take federer.
What does that mean? I guess it means that I think it's harder for Tiger to dominate than Federer.

 

Some say lack of competition. Others say these guys are in another stratosphere.

Some say their sports are boring to watch. Others say these guys are playing their respective sports better and with more artistry than almost anyone in history.

Arnold Palmer won seven majors, the last one in 1964. Nicklaus won his first in 1962, when he won the U.S. Open. It's a big thing that they were rivals, but looking at it, from the moment Nicklaus won his first major, (U.S. Open 1962) Palmer only won two (British Open 1962, Masters 1964) after that.