Who's a more dominant sport's figure: Federer or Woods?

Cafe Society
21

If you go by winning percentage, Federer is more dominant. But I’d still go with Woods because…

  1. There have been other tennis players (Rod Laver, for instance) who showed dominance comparable to Federer’s for short periods of time. I don’t think even Nicklaus in his prime was as dominant in golf as Tiger Woods is now.

  2. Roger Federer is a VERY versatile player, and close to unbeatable on most types of court, but has not shown an ability to win on clay. Tiger Woods has shown an ability to win on all kinds of golf courses. He can win with his driver, he can win with his irons, he can win with his putter.

To put it simply, Federer has one Achilles heel- clay. Woods has no apparent weaknesses.

22

He hasn’t won the French Open, but he can win on clay.

23

What about your opponent going coughPSYCHEcough?

24

Woo. Time to hijack this thread.

Jordan doesn’t beat out Wilt or Russell.
As far as golf goes, it’s Woods, Hogan, and Nicklaus.
For hockey, it’s Howe over Gretzky. Howe was more dominant in every way with a more potent talent pool because there were only 6 teams. If Gretzky did what he did when there were 6 teams, then it’s Gretzky, hands down. He didn’t, so it’s Gordie Howe.

I don’t follow much tennis. I do know that Federer is amazing and I recognize what he’s doing. I can’t say definitely that his accomplishments are bigger than Tiger’s.

I CAN say that Tiger helped transform the nature of the game. Federer didn’t do that (and that’s not a knock against Federer). Tiger is a cultural icon at this point.

By the way, I didn’t say anything about baseball, because if it’s not Ruth or Ted Williams, you could make a case for it being Christy Mathewson or Cy Young. Baseball’s harder to pick out because of its history. Golf has a similar problem.

25

[Further hijack, as I’ve said everything on the golf vs. tennis thing I can]

If they were having a draft of all the best baseball players ever (say in Heaven or Frank
Tipler’s Omega Point or whatever), and everyone had access to the same training techniques,
supplements, etc., I’d choose Honus Wagner, without question. Here you have a guy who
was an incredible defensive player, by all accounts, could run fast, and was a great hitter
too. And let him play with a lively ball, and I am sure he’s going to hit a lot of home runs
too, something he didn’t have an opportunity to do in the dead-ball era. Closest thing
we’ve had to him is A-Rod, when he was playing shortstop. Only knock if you compare him
to Ruth, Bonds, and Williams is that he didn’t draw a large number of walks-but again there
wasn’t that fear of the dinger back then and walk rates were much lower than they would
become.

26

Honus Wagner was an amazing player. Also, I think Nap Lajoie should be in consideration.

27

Woods will be winning tournaments long after Federer is history.

28

More a function of the length of a golf career compared to a tennis one surely? Tennis being far more of a physical game, no?

29

Considering tennis players almost always quit by the time they’re 35, and golfers don’t even qualify for the seniors tour until they’re 50, I’d say it’s obvious that Tiger will be winning longer. What’s that worth?

30

On what theory?

31

Federer. Not by a whole lot, but definitely ahead. What this guy’s doing is just freakish. Didn’t he have a total of 3 losses last year? There have been a few players who’ve been this dominant on the women’s side, most recently Steffi Graf, but never on the ATP tour. And tennis, remember, takes place on a completely even court with almost no equalizers (wind, maybe the surface).

Woods…I dunno…I’ve seen the way he wins the majority of the time, and while his tremendous ability is without question, I just don’t see the indestructible, blow-the-doors-off-of-everybody vibe I get from Federer. A lot of times the closest competition chokes or has a bizarre screwup. I actually think Mike Tyson is a more valid comparison, because a key to his success is unnerving the hell out of his opponents. He is consistently up there, though (IMO, his podium finishes…top 3, top 5, what have you…will, in the long run, be a lot more impressive than just his wins).

And forget Michael Jordan (the Joe Montana of basketball). Y’know what, screw it, I’ll say it right here: He was NOTHING without Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman, Toni Kukoc, Phil Jackson, and lots of really generous officials. I’d put even Hakeem Olajuwon above him, simply because he was more well-rounded and carried a franchise on his back for a long time.

I discount Wayne Gretzky for similar reasons. Also, does it matter that he has phenomenal personal stats but didn’t accomplish much with the Kings? How about the relatively minor status of his sport?

Right now, I know of only one man who can give Federer a run for his money…Asashoryu. 19 championships and counting. Healthy, focused, and determined. No other sumotori with even 75% of his ability. He has a very realistic shot at becoming the greatest yokozuna of all time by all metrics.

32

Again, I feel this “datapoint” that casual fans have never heard of Federer to be meaningless. The only way it could be relevant is if you want to argue that Anna Kournikova was the best women’s player. If not, then you must concede that market penetration is unrelated to talent. (Which is particularly true in tennis.)

It’s a love hate thing. I need Nadal to be great in order for Federer to have a worthy adversary. You can’t be the best ever against subpar competition.

This is an interesting side debate. I think Nicklaus was more dominant, and by a decent margin. Not being a big golf fan, I ask for a little help on these facts, but my understanding is that at this point Tiger is in the same league as Nicklaus as far as wins. (Slightly ahead even, possibly.) But Nicklaus has something like 19 second place finishes to Tiger’s almost none.

On other words, Jack crushes Tiger for top 2 finishes, while Tiger just edges Jack out in top 1 finishes. Jack was always there in the end, no matter what. Tiger is a feast or famine player.

Similar to Jack, Federer is always there at the end. This is IMO the true mark of greatness.

33

He lost five matches this year, four last year, and six in '04. He’s won nine majors in 3 1/2 years, while Tiger has won 12 in a little less than ten years.

34

Right. Which I’ve already made crystal clear favors the tennis player by a large
margin when comparing him to the golfer.

Following golf closely like I have I most certainly get that “killer” vibe from Tiger
when he is going good-during his Tiger Slam he completely blew everyone away in
the 4 tournaments which count the most (alright he had to thwart a journeyman
in the PGA), and ended up winning 7 majors in 11 opportunities. His down times
were due to his virtually unique tendency to reinvent his swing periodically-few
other athletes I can think of do that-success tends to breed complacency.

More well-rounded? I wonder if you actually watch these sports. Jordan was one
of the most versataile players of all time-he could play the point, sinks threes,
play D spectacularly, rebound and score inside, etc. Jordan had Bill Freakin’
Cartwright playing center for several of his championships. And it’s not like Hakeem
didn’t have any help either during his championships (both of which happened I’ll
point out when Jordan was out of the league). Not sure what the crack about the
officials is about-they say the same thing about Greg Maddux (“He gets all the
close calls on the corner”) but I think that’s all just bogus sour grapes by people
who don’t like a player.

Last point irrelevant. He simply dominated his sport in a way that very few have.
Yes he had talent around him, and a coach who was wise enough to build a
system around his best player-so what? I’ll point out that Ruth only won four
World Series when he was with the Yankees (tho he did have 3 more with the
Red Sox). And I certainly don’t think team championships should count for as
much as you’re implying when talking about individual athletes

35

So you’re saying it’s impossible that weather conditions, or surface conditions, can help some golfers while hurting others?

36

Um, partially based on the theory that both Wilt or Russell could do more than Jordan and influenced games more than Jordan and partially because Jordan is more recent, and therefore, the sexier pick. It’s also based on the theory where it’s my opinion.

If we’re making a top 50 list of basketball players, Jordan is AS BEST third. Also, are you going to say Magic was under Jordan? There’s an argument, there.

37

You could ask the same about Federer.

38

Both are technical masters at their respective sport, something which is absolutely critical to dominate in either sport. And both have that x factor which goes beyond mental toughness. Perhaps the secret to their dominance is that neither of them rests on their laurels. I know that Federer is still trying to improve his game and is known to have an incredible work ethic.

Or perhaps it’s far simpler than that. Perhaps they’re both dominant because they both have stable and happy home lives. Perhaps it’s because both men are fine taking time off from time to time and just enjoying their lives. Maybe it’s that balance that gives them the edge over other players.

Which one is MORE dominant? They’re both incredible athletes and fine human beings. What else do we need to know?

39

Wellllllllllllllll we don’t know that. I’m not schooled on Federer’s life, but I do know that Tiger is very secretive. He doesn’t usually do interviews, he doesn’t release many statements, etc. He seems to prefer to keep things simple, which is admirable.

And his wife is a dime.

40

I think it might be easier to dominate a sport in which your play has a direct affect on your opponent. Tiger can do nothing that will have a direct bearing on the rest of the field. Federer has a great deal of control over how his opponents fare, and often reduces them to Jello.