This has been discussed to some degree in recent days, and in light of the tremendous performances this past weekend by both men it's time to take a vote. My vote is for Tiger Woods. My reasoning is pretty simple. While Federer basically has to claim victory over 6 players (5 in smaller tournaments) to win a title, Tiger Woods must face upwards of 80-120 other golfers in any one tounament. While Federer has control over his opponents outcome, Tiger does not. Tiger gets in the heads of his fellow competitors the likes I have never witnessed. It happened again today. Given a lead, he just simply will not relinquish it. Roger Federer must also win the French to become a "complete" player. Until he does that, I don't see how he is more dominant than Tiger is. That's the equivalent to Tiger not winning the British Open because he can't play Links courses. Tiger has won every major at least twice. What say you?
I'm going with Federer, but not by much. I give him the edge because he is directly competing with his opponents and absolutely demolishing them from start to finish. This vote is subject to change.
I would say Woods is more dominant because he has more legitimate challengers in his sport. Yet he still manages to find a way to win more often than not.
It's a tough call. Federer didn't lose a single set this past weekend. You can relate that to Tiger winning a tournament by 14-16 strokes, something Tiger has done in the past at a major and is likely to do again. I am not in total agreement with the Tiger has to play 80-120 guys. He does not face them individually like Federer. Tiger does have to face weather conditions and things of that sort and does it better than anyone else. It's a tossup. I think more of the dominant players in golf pick and choose what tournaments they are going to play in more than tennis players do. Tiger does this as well. So, in essence, Tiger isn't playing the best competition every week, while Federer typically has to go through Nadal or someone of that stature every time he wins. Edge: Federer.
Not even close......Tiger Woods. I never thought I would ever see an athlete come close to Michael Jordan, but I have. What Tiger can do on a golf course is sickening. Almost like he can make the ball do whatever he wants it to do. But what seperates Tiger from everyone else is his heart and will to win, like MJ. Tiger wills himself to victory. Take last years British Open for example, there was no way in he!l he was gonna lose that tournament. With the passing of his best friend, no one was gonna take it away from him. That's what makes him so special. Im just glad he came around in my lifetime.
when federer enters an event, that event is over. that is not quite true with woods. it is a foregone conclusion that federer will win wimbledon. tiger isa favorite to win the british open, but not the same way federer is a favorite. fed is a shoo in.
he must win the French, otherwise he isn't the complete tennis player that's the one big difference for me
