Revisited: More dominant, Federer or Tiger?

No power over the field?

Federer has not lost in his last 36 matches. He has won 6 of the last 7 majors. When he walks on the court, opponents know they have no chance. This is why he rarely even loses a set.

 

Boise State was unbeaten last season. Tiger and Federer have both lost in the last year.

Boise State: most dominant.

</can't resist>

 

LOL, Boise State deserved a shot at the National Championship.

 

And as to the question: Federer can keep opponents from winning. Tiger can't. So in the sense of "dominating", Federer is a better example of it.

Both obviously are exquisite athletes.

They're just not Boise State.

</still can't resist>

 

Idiotsnetwork, do you not think that Federer affects the people he plays against. Did you pay attention to what he did to Andy Roddick, a very, very good player?

Do you think that Federer has no affect on the crowds that come to watch him? Have you ever bothered to really watch him play? I hate how DOMINANT he is, but he's been far more overpowering in majors lately than Tiger has.

 

I didn't say Federer had no power over the field just that Tiger has more. It is a really close match up but I take Tiger because golf is so much harder to dominate.

 

Actually you said that he has a power over the field and crowd that Federer doesn't have, which makes it obvious that you don't know WTF you're talking about b/c it's obvious that you know NOTHING about tennis.

 

There is one difference cited by the late Arthur Ashe comparing golf and tennis. Tiger Woods can go out and shoot a 74 in the first round of the Masters, and still have a good (not as good as before, obviously) chance to win. Or shoot a 64 the first day and a 74 the second with no harm done.
Federer plays the tennis equivalent of a 74 in a major, he's outtathere an upset loser.
There's no choosing. Woods is winning at an unheard of pace in his sport against a very strong field. But Federer is DOMINATING in the true sense of the term. The other guys can't give him a game.
If Mickelson shoots a 64 the last day at Augusta to swipe the Masters from Woods, it'll be news, and something of an upset. If Roddick beats Federer in the French or at Wimbledon, it'll be shocking news and an upset in the Buster Douglas category.

 

Isn't Federer still a little vulnerable on the clay, particularly to Nadal? Or is he past that now?

 

Tiger, because he's playing against the field every time. Federer whips the select few opponents he sees.

 

The mere fact that idiotsnetwork thinks it's tougher to dominate in golf than tennis proves how little he knows.

Consider:
Tiger has shot over par in the first round of a major a few times and still comeback to win. If he has one bad day, he has three days to catch up.
If Federer has one bad day, he loses, he goes home.

To win a major, Federer has to win 7 rounds of match-play in a 10-12 day period, often in oppressive heat, in a sport that is far more physically taxing than golf.

Who's more dominant? I'd say they are equal with Tiger's only edge that he's been doing it longer.

But to say it's more difficult to dominate in golf is flat out stupidity.

 

I realize this is a subjective discussion, and there is no right or wrong answer ... but why is golf that much harder to dominate? Is there proof of this?

I don't think it's a stretch to say that right now, Federer could make a case that he's the most dominant athlete in his sport in the history of sports. He has OWNED tennis for the last four years ... so basically at 21 he began dominating the sport ... and hasn't stopped. He's been injury-free and there seems to be no end in sight.