Who's more dominate...Tiger or Federer?

[CuseCubFan69]

These guys are just flat out dominating their sports. I suppose we could ask which one is the harder sport to dominate, tennis or golf?

[TruffleShuffle]

I refuse to answer the question, on the grounds that it contains a grammatical error that is a pet peeve of mine.

[CuseCubFan69]

I refuse to answer the question, on the grounds that it contains a grammatical error that is a pet peeve of mine.

 

Good...next.

[Derwood]

Federline

[Derwood]

btw, I refuse to answer this question on the grounds that the games these men represent should only be watched by old men and women

[David]

I refuse to answer the question, on the grounds that it contains a grammatical error that is a pet peeve of mine.

 

+1

[ZMovieman]

I think it's clearly Federer. But if someone told me a few years ago that there would be a man who dominates his sport more than Tiger, I'd have thought you were crazy.

[Butterscup1679666578]

I'd say Tiger. He has to face weather conditions such as wind, water, sand, high grass, etc., along with a much larger field than Federer faces. Federer plays one match a day, then is done until the next round. Tiger has to play against a large field for about four hours a day, four days in a row. I think Tiger dominates more.

 

That said, neither of these two are human.

[XZero771679666304]

I refuse to answer the question, on the grounds that it contains a grammatical error that is a pet peeve of mine.

 

+1

 

+2

[Northsider]

Tiger cannot be beaten when he's on his game; Federer does have an opponent who can beat him in Marat Safin(provided he's not on the DL, he's had more injury time than Wood or Prior so far). Point goes to Tiger.

[soccer10k]

btw, I refuse to answer this question on the grounds that the games these men represent should only be watched by old men and women

 

With all due respect, you're wrong about tennis.

[soccer10k]

Tiger cannot be beaten when he's on his game; Federer does have an opponent who can beat him in Marat Safin(provided he's not on the DL, he's had more injury time than Wood or Prior so far). Point goes to Tiger.

 

When both are on their games, neither can be beaten. In the Federer-Safin match you are referring to (2005 Australian Open I believe), Federer was off his game and Safin played the match of his life and he still barely won. Rafael Nadal can beat Federer routinely on clay but there have been clay court specialists for years in tennis (Gustavo Kuerton a few years ago). As far as somebody challenging Tiger, in the last 3 years (12 majors 04-06), Tiger has won 4 majors. Second to him? Phil Mickelson with 3. In tennis the last 3 years (13 majors 04-06 and this years Aussie Open), Federer has won 9. Second to him is Nadal with 2. Federer has made the final in his last 7 majors (tied for the most all time). He went 92-5 last year and only lost to 2 players (Nadal 4 times and Andy Murray once). He's the first player in the Open Era to win three of the four majors in a year twice. Don't get me wrong, Tiger is very good and very dominant, but the answer is Federer and it's not close.

[soccer10k]

I'd say Tiger. He has to face weather conditions such as wind, water, sand, high grass, etc., along with a much larger field than Federer faces. Federer plays one match a day, then is done until the next round. Tiger has to play against a large field for about four hours a day, four days in a row. I think Tiger dominates more.

 

That said, neither of these two are human.

 

Federer plays on different surfaces like hardcourt, grass, and clay. There are even divisions among the hardcourts. He also has to, you know, run around. Playing four days in a row for four hours? All Tiger does is walk and then swing a club. The athletic requirements for tennis are far more demanding than those in golf and the main reason why they don't play every single day in tennis. As for weather, it's not like they play tennis matches in a controlled environment inside. He still has to deal with the wind as well as the heat (in some tournaments).

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Federer by far. Tiger is good, and probably could go down as the best all time in golf, but I don't think he's as dominating as Roger Federer right now.

[tkenm356]

Federererer by far. Tiger wins a lot, but he doesn't win all the time. Rodge is what... 36-1 his last 37 matches? Maybe 37-1 now? That's like a 98% Winning Percentage. I don't care what sport you play, that's not human.

 

But Tiger will easily go down as the best all-time. Federer, assuming he keeps this up, will also do the same it seems.

 

Plus I hate Pete Sampras and hope he gets de-throned as the best Tennis player of the last 2 decades.

[TB_11]

Until Federer can win the French Open, it's Tiger by a hair.

 

Saying Federer has won 7 out of the last 9 majors while Tiger has won 4 out of the last 8 doesn't fully back up the argument that Federer is more dominant. Different sports require different winning percentages to be great: Win 62% of a season's baseball games and you have 100 wins, which should give a team the division. Win 62% of a season's basketball games and you have 50 wins, which should give you a 4 seed in the playoffs.

[wolf stansson]

I don't care. I only opened this thread because I wanted to see how many people would complain about the dominate/dominant error.

[Guest]

Tiger is more dominate, and it isn't close.

 

Federer only deals with ONE opponent per rd, whereas Tiger has to deal with at least 30 opponents per rd. Not to mention as a whole, there are quite abit more TALENTED golfers (Singh/Mickelson/Weir/Garcia/ and anybody not name Wie) who can at times challenge Woods, where as outside of Safin and/or Nadal, and/or Roddick, there isn't a viable rival to Federer. In other words...Tiger Woods is dominating the DEEP END of the pool, whereas Federer is dominating the SHALLOW END of the pool. So, again, there is no comparasion, Tiger Woods is by far more dominated in a more crowded field then Federer. And until guys like Nadal/Roddick/Safin/Blake ever learns how to be Federer, Roger will never be in Tiger's class.

[soccer10k]

Tiger is more dominate, and it isn't close.

 

Federer only deals with ONE opponent per rd, whereas Tiger has to deal with at least 30 opponents per rd. Not to mention as a whole, there are quite abit more TALENTED golfers (Singh/Mickelson/Weir/Garcia/ and anybody not name Wie) who can at times challenge Woods, where as outside of Safin and/or Nadal, and/or Roddick, there isn't a viable rival to Federer. In other words...Tiger Woods is dominating the DEEP END of the pool, whereas Federer is dominating the SHALLOW END of the pool. So, again, there is no comparasion, Tiger Woods is by far more dominated in a more crowded field then Federer. And until guys like Nadal/Roddick/Safin/Blake ever learns how to be Federer, Roger will never be in Tiger's class.

 

There are two sides to that argument though. You say that Tiger's opponents are more talented and there isn't as big of a gap between Tiger and the field and use that to say Tiger is better. You say that until an opponent beats Federer that he will never be in Tiger's class. But isn't the definition of dominant being far superior to your opponents? Federer is far and away the best player in tennis (and it's not even close) so he would actually be more dominant than Tiger is. The way I see it, if you have guys who can routinely beat you, than you aren't as dominant. Tiger has a few players who can beat him (as you stated). Federer has one. Federer mad the final of every tournament he played last year except for one.

 

By the way the statement of your that I bolded above actually says Tiger gets beat down far more than Federer does which, I believe, contradicts your argument.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm definitely in the "golf is a hobby, not a sport" philosophy.

 

I respect Tiger and realize it takes a LOT of skill to be as great as he's been, but he's ultimately dominating a professional leisure activity a la fishing or bowling. Tiger can be beaten by literally the man on the street on any given day. It doesn't work out like that nearly as often in tennis, if ever. And all the talk of Federer only dealing with one opponent at a time...well, yeah, he's dealing with him directly across the court in every single play. Unless the other golfers are chipping at Tiger or tackling him on the green, that's a pretty moot comparison. Federer wins by a huge mile.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Tiger is more dominate, and it isn't close.

 

Federer only deals with ONE opponent per rd, whereas Tiger has to deal with at least 30 opponents per rd. Not to mention as a whole, there are quite abit more TALENTED golfers (Singh/Mickelson/Weir/Garcia/ and anybody not name Wie) who can at times challenge Woods, where as outside of Safin and/or Nadal, and/or Roddick, there isn't a viable rival to Federer. In other words...Tiger Woods is dominating the DEEP END of the pool, whereas Federer is dominating the SHALLOW END of the pool. So, again, there is no comparasion, Tiger Woods is by far more dominated in a more crowded field then Federer. And until guys like Nadal/Roddick/Safin/Blake ever learns how to be Federer, Roger will never be in Tiger's class.

 

There are two sides to that argument though. You say that Tiger's opponents are more talented and there isn't as big of a gap between Tiger and the field and use that to say Tiger is better. You say that until an opponent beats Federer that he will never be in Tiger's class. But isn't the definition of dominant being far superior to your opponents? Federer is far and away the best player in tennis (and it's not even close) so he would actually be more dominant than Tiger is. The way I see it, if you have guys who can routinely beat you, than you aren't as dominant. Tiger has a few players who can beat him (as you stated). Federer has one. Federer mad the final of every tournament he played last year except for one.

 

By the way the statement of your that I bolded above actually says Tiger gets beat down far more than Federer does which, I believe, contradicts your argument.

 

You beat me to it. By saying Federer doesn't have the competition that Tiger does pretty much proves Federer is more dominant.

[imb]

No whammys no whammys no whammys

 

Tiger is more dominate

 

Aww damn.

[tkenm356]

Tiger Woods doesn't lose to anybody. Nobody is responsible for him losing other than himself. He doesn't play one on one or one against 35 or whatever. He plays by himself to achieve a score for himself to try and be better than someone else. If Tiger has a higher score than someone else, he got outplayed, not beat.

 

Tennis is one on one, if you don't win a match it's because you got your ass handed to you. Tiger hands his own ass to himself if he can't win. Tiger making a par instead of a birdie has no correlation to how someone like Phil Mickelson is doing two holes over. It's directly related to Tiger beating himself (insert pre-teen joke here)

 

At least thats how i see it

[CubFanPhilly]

Tiger can be beaten by literally the man on the street on any given day. It doesn't work out like that nearly as often in tennis, if ever.

 

This just isn't true.

 

A single hole? Maybe. Over eighteen holes? Highly unlikely. Over a tournament? Never.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Tiger Woods doesn't lose to anybody. Nobody is responsible for him losing other than himself. He doesn't play one on one or one against 35 or whatever. He plays by himself to achieve a score for himself to try and be better than someone else. If Tiger has a higher score than someone else, he got outplayed, not beat.

 

Tennis is one on one, if you don't win a match it's because you got your ass handed to you. Tiger hands his own ass to himself if he can't win. Tiger making a par instead of a birdie has no correlation to how someone like Phil Mickelson is doing two holes over. It's directly related to Tiger beating himself (insert pre-teen joke here)

 

At least thats how i see it

I see your point, but you can beat yourself in tennis as well. If Federer is hitting the ball into the net, or is long on his shots, he's beating himself. The difference in the two sports is that in tennis, someone can force you to make errors. Golf, it's all on you.