Had to post this link, it's too fitting for the thread. Tiger can't grow a beard?????? http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/6440936
i would like to add two more peeps to the "most dominant in their sport" argument: 1. michael phelps, he is absolutely hammering every other swimmer in the universe, he recently cleaned up the world championships with a zillion wins and world records in every type of swimming you can imagine. 2. takeru kobayashi, who is unstoppable and will not be challenged at the july 4th hot dog eating competition. i wouldnt be suprised if he doubles up the closest male american. only that tiny asian woman in even close to his league.
yes but how long can swimmers maintain it to be considered dominant nowadays. i suspect the dominance of a swimmer is very short-lived. as far as kobayashi, the only threat is that dude who looks like slingblade but hes no real threat. he just pushes the kamakazee eater further than needed. i seriously wonder how the human body doesnt implode or something during those contests. 20 lbs or whatever in a few minutes doesnt seem possible. then add on all that water. thats probably another 10 or so. pretty mind-boggling to me. but its clear, koby is the most dominant of anyone in any field.
has th world gone crazy? we were way off on our opinions about kobayashi dominance. an american knocked down 59 hot dogs! http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/06/02/hot.dog.record.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories 59! i could maybe eat 5.9. mercy! 59! edit: is that the sling blade guy you were talkin about? haha....mmmhhhhm i luv me dem french fried taters and hot dawgms mmmmhhhhhmmm
I think it's close. Right now, Woods is the best ever in his sport, and Federer may be the best ever. However, while Federer may go down as one of the best rather then The Best, on a day-to-day basis he's dominating men's tennis in such a way that when he enters a tourney, it's basically over, and you can't say the same about Woods. And that has to do with two things: the state of men's tennis now, and the differences in the sports. To address the latter, as others have commented, it's just harder to dominate golf given the nature of the sport and number of competitors. To address the first, men's tennis isn't filled with the number of quality players that fill golf. Federer has almost no competition (none, other than Nadal), and I don't just think it's because Federer is THAT good that there's all of these otherwise great players who can't stay on the court with him. If Federer weren't on the tour, you'd probably see four different winners for each of the slams, with any of the top ten seeds having a basically even chance to win. However, to really be what Woods is to golf or MJ is to basketball, Federer has to win the French open, and he has to beat Sampras's grand slam record by a fair margin. I also think he has to compete against a real rival (say, win a couple of five set championship matches against someone who occasionally beats him in a four/five set match) for all questions about his dominance to be put to rest. Unless he does that, I think writers/fans will always wonder if his dominance has as much to do with a lack of challenge as it does with his talent. Plus, if Federer had real competition for Wimbledon or the US Open, I might actually learn to like watching the guy play...he seems likeable enough, but his matches are boring as **** to watch. To sum it up: Woods is on an entire other level than Federer, but Federer is able to dominate his sport in a way that Woods can't due to a variety of circumstances. Yeah, that's a cop out answer :grin: .
I have to go with Woods for many of the reasons given. He is a true phenomenon, having gained his skills long before he was an adult. He established himself before turning pro by winning three U.S. Amateur championships. No one has ever done that before.
woods wins. he has completed his career grand slam twice. until roger wins on clay, he is not the best player ever in his sport.
what if he wins every tournament every year in straight sets and the only match he loses is the french final? he would have the most titles in history. all that matters is the french final? incorrect.
I agree. Federer would have completed the career Slam by now if it weren't for Nadal, who is emerging as one of the best clay court specialist ever.
