Who dominated their sport more at their peak?

[ZMovieman]

With Federer winning the US Open, I got to wondering which athlete has dominated their sport more: Roger or Tiger?

[J.R.]

Who? What?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Why isn't, "who cares" an option?

[wolf stansson]

I go Tiger because Federe only has to take it one opponent at a time. Tiger enters tournaments against dozens of opponents.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Everyone repeatedly takes their best shot against Federer and it's not good enough. Much more dominating than Tiger IMO, although Golf and Tennis don't make for good comparisons.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Who says either has reached their peak yet? I don't think Roger has. That's the scariest thing to me. And put me down for Roger.

[Omar]

No Jose Macias so Im not voting [-(

[Transmogrified Tiger]

No Jose Macias so Im not voting [-(

 

So in other words, you have no idea who Roger Federer is. :P

[CuseCubFan69]

No Jose Macias so Im not voting [-(

 

So in other words, you have no idea who Roger Federer is. :P

 

Didn't he used to play for the Red Wings and date Anna Kornakova?

[circlechange]

Federer has won 23 straight Finals matches. That is incredible domination. I agree that it's probably too early to accurately judge, but ever since Roger peaked he has absolutely owned men's tennis.

[BigbadB]

Where's the Lance Armstrong button?

[Careless]

While federer is dominating more, Tiger was more dominant compared to the other most dominant players in his sport

[Transmogrified Tiger]

While federer is dominating more, Tiger was more dominant compared to the other most dominant players in his sport

 

While that may be true, is it Federer's fault? There's not much more he can do, since he wins just about every tournament he plays.

[biittner77]

It's really difficult to compare tennis and golf. If a golfer does poorly in the first round he has already in most cases lost any chance of winning that tournament. In tennis if a player barely wins it doesn't count against him in his next match. There are also a lot of factors that are beyond the player's control in golf such as weather, course conditions, tee times and plain old bad luck.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

It's really difficult to compare tennis and golf. If a golfer does poorly in the first round he has already in most cases lost any chance of winning that tournament. In tennis if a player barely wins it doesn't count against him in his next match. There are also a lot of factors that are beyond the player's control in golf such as weather, course conditions, tee times and plain old bad luck.

No, if a tennis player has a bad day they don't have another match because they are out of the tournament. Ask Andy Roddick and his mojo. At least golfers have a chance to make up for a bad day. I know Tiger has in the past. Also, those same weather conditions effect tennis players as well. They may not make as big of an impact but they do change matches at times.

[Tim]

Mens tennis is an easier sport to dominate. Look at when Sampras was at his peak, he was as dominant as Federer. Same with others. For a tennis tournament to begin and be able to say, "this guy is going to win" is not unusual at all.

 

The only male golfer in the last 50 years who is close to as dominant as Tiger is Jack. The feeling he had at his peak of, "Tiger is a lock" was nearly unique in golf history.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Mens tennis is an easier sport to dominate. Look at when Sampras was at his peak, he was as dominant as Federer. Same with others. For a tennis tournament to begin and be able to say, "this guy is going to win" is not unusual at all.

 

The only male golfer in the last 50 years who is close to as dominant as Tiger is Jack. The feeling he had at his peak of, "Tiger is a lock" was nearly unique in golf history.

 

Again though, since they are such different sports, it's hard to compare. All Federer can do is go out there and win tournament after tournament.

[Careless]

While federer is dominating more, Tiger was more dominant compared to the other most dominant players in his sport

 

While that may be true, is it Federer's fault? There's not much more he can do, since he wins just about every tournament he plays.

Well, if he wins 20 slams in the next 6 years, then he's shown he's more dominant. but I'll agree with you that it's rough on him (as if he cared) to penalize him because his career isn't over yet

[burnt out cubbie fan]

While federer is dominating more, Tiger was more dominant compared to the other most dominant players in his sport

 

While that may be true, is it Federer's fault? There's not much more he can do, since he wins just about every tournament he plays.

Well, if he wins 20 slams in the next 6 years, then he's shown he's more dominant. but I'll agree with you that it's rough on him (as if he cared) to penalize him because his career isn't over yet

He just turned 24 last month, his career is much closer to the beginning than to the end. Saying that he has reached his peak in performance is a little like saying that Carlos Zambrano has. Granted, tennis players can be great at a younger age normally but they still develop as players after the age of 24. You have to look no further than Andre Agassi for evidence.

[Careless]

While federer is dominating more, Tiger was more dominant compared to the other most dominant players in his sport

 

While that may be true, is it Federer's fault? There's not much more he can do, since he wins just about every tournament he plays.

Well, if he wins 20 slams in the next 6 years, then he's shown he's more dominant. but I'll agree with you that it's rough on him (as if he cared) to penalize him because his career isn't over yet

He just turned 24 last month, his career is much closer to the beginning than to the end. Saying that he has reached his peak in performance is a little like saying that Carlos Zambrano has. Granted, tennis players can be great at a younger age normally but they still develop as players after the age of 24. You have to look no further than Andre Agassi for evidence.

Huh? agassi isn't an example, he's a freak. If federer has agassi type longetivity and doesn't have a series of injuries, he'll easily wind up the best tennis player in history.

[Marco4]

Are we taking Federer's current level as his peak? Cos I think he'll get better over the next couple of years.