Who is more dominant : Federrer or Woods

[JDSilk]

Seems to be the popular question on ESPN this week after Roger won his 10th Grand Slam.
Just wondering what the Mall thinks.

Who do you guys think is more dominant in their sport?
Roger Federrer or Tiger Woods

Also, why do you think they are?

[Dr. Jack]

I do not follow tennis or golf all to much but with that being said it has to be Tiger.

In tennis – it seems a new champion comes and is dominant for years. Maybe I am wrong but is Federer more dominant than Sampras was?

In golf – It’s Tiger every year and for a long time it seems

[revnecro1273]

i would say tiger woods...tiger has larger fields to weed through to win...fed is a dominating player and nobody is even close to the abilities that fed has on tour, but in golf anyone that makes the cut has a chance to do some damage, but this guy just manages to whack them off and capture the crown

[Keith]

have to disagree here. While I think the two are comparable, Federer has literally DESTROYED every other male tennis player out there. His stats over the past couple of years have been incredible. He must play a grueling sport, sometimes in significant heat, and must play in a situation where EVERYONE is gunning for him.

Now, no disrespect to Tiger. he will go down as the greatest golfer of all time. But, even though he has won 7 tourneys in a row, he does not win EVERY tournament. Heck, just last year people were talking about how great Mickelson was, and how he had broken through. And not to demean golf, but it is not nearly as physically demanding as professional tennis. Not even close.

Tiger is the best---no doubt about it. But the gap between him and some of the others (Mickelson, Singh, Goosen, just to name a few) is not as great as between Federer and everyone else.

[Windy City Irish]

Originally Posted by Keith

have to disagree here. While I think the two are comparable, Federer has literally DESTROYED every other male tennis player out there. His stats over the past couple of years have been incredible. He must play a grueling sport, sometimes in significant heat, and must play in a situation where EVERYONE is gunning for him.
Now, no disrespect to Tiger. he will go down as the greatest golfer of all time. But, even though he has won 7 tourneys in a row, he does not win EVERY tournament. Heck, just last year people were talking about how great Mickelson was, and how he had broken through. And not to demean golf, but it is not nearly as physically demanding as professional tennis. Not even close.

Tiger is the best---no doubt about it. But the gap between him and some of the others (Mickelson, Singh, Goosen, just to name a few) is not as great as between Federer and everyone else.

I think its Federer. Totally dominant, beats people BAD, and there is nobody even close to him right now in talent.

Tiger is the best golfer in the world hands down, but even he doesnt win 1/2 the tourneys he is in, while federer is winning every one

[domafia]

Tiger will go down as best golfer ever. Federer will go down as best tennis player ever. The slight difference is I see Federer as more dominant in his game than Tiger is in his.

Really not a rub on either guy. We're lucky to be living in a time with such great stars in these two sports. Also remember that if Federer was American he'd be getting nearly as much hype and love as we give Tiger now.

[WildKat]

Tigers in a sport that cannot be dominated like that of Tennis......To many varibles in golf....Not taking anything away from Federer....plus I really enjoy the Federer ESPN commercial..............

[skippy]

Federer is more dominant.....

Because in tennis, its the "Kill or be killed" mentality.
You lose one match, you are OUT!!!

In golf, all you have to do is make the cut and you have a shot at the title.

If Tiger has an off day, no big deal as long as he makes the cut.
If Federer has an off day, he is out.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by skippy

Federer is more dominant.....

Because in tennis, its the "Kill or be killed" mentality.
You lose one match, you are OUT!!!

In golf, all you have to do is make the cut and you have a shot at the title.

If Tiger has an off day, no big deal as long as he makes the cut.
If Federer has an off day, he is out.

good point.

The thing is, Federer does not have an off day. Ever.

[skippy]

Originally Posted by Keith

good point.

The thing is, Federer does not have an off day. Ever.

A truer comparison would be if each golf tournament is only 18 holes.
Leader after 18 holes will be declared the champion (if there is a tie, then it goes to a playoff).
That way, it would have the same perils as a tennis tournament.

[Gerk]

Tiger, all day

Not taking anything away from Federer who is most likely the greatest tennis player of all time, but the competition in golf is much tougher IMO and the disparity between the top players is alot less than in tennis

While Tiger doesn't win every tournament, there are alot of first timers that win every year on the PGA tour. In tennis, you can basically narrow every field down to about 5 or 6 guys who even have a chance

Also think the penalty for having an off day is much more stringent in golf. In tennis, you can control your own destiny when your opponent is across the net from you. You can't in golf where someone can shoot a 62 and you shoot a 65 and lose the tourney

[skippy]

Originally Posted by Gerk

Tiger, all day

Not taking anything away from Federer who is most likely the greatest tennis player of all time, but the competition in golf is much tougher IMO and the disparity between the top players is alot less than in tennis

While Tiger doesn't win every tournament, there are alot of first timers that win every year on the PGA tour. In tennis, you can basically narrow every field down to about 5 or 6 guys who even have a chance

Also think the penalty for having an off day is much more stringent in golf. In tennis, you can control your own destiny when your opponent is across the net from you. You can't in golf where someone can shoot a 62 and you shoot a 65 and lose the tourney

If someone shoots a 59 and Tiger shoots a 72 on the first day, Tiger still gets to play on day 2.

If someone wins 13 more games (hence more sets) than Federer, he is out, there is no day 2.

[Gerk]

Originally Posted by skippy

If someone shoots a 59 and Tiger shoots a 72 on the first day, Tiger still gets to play on day 2.

If someone wins 13 more games (hence more sets) than Federer, he is out, there is no day 2.

And Tiger has no control over the guy who shoots a 59 and Federer again has his opponent across the net from him where he has no one but himself to blame if he loses.

Tiger may get to play on Day 2, but if he is down 13 strokes, and likely has 60 players above him, What chance does he have to win?

[skippy]

Originally Posted by Gerk

And Tiger has no control over the guy who shoots a 59 and Federer again has his opponent across the net from him where he has no one but himself to blame if he loses.

Tiger may get to play on Day 2, but if he is down 13 strokes, and likely has 60 players above him, What chance does he have to win?

Tiger does not have control over the others in the field, but he sure can control his own actions.

In other words.....Don't Beat Yourself.

All he has to do is his best, shoot a 60.
If he loses to someone that shot a 59.....then the guy who shot a 59 deserves to be declared the champion.

A golf event can't be that difficult or demanding if WOMEN are allowed to play in a MEN'S tournament.

[TCD619]

fed because he's actually competing against someone, not a field.