Federer plays the same size court every time he steps on one. The surface may be different but the size is the same. Woods plays a different course in every tournament he enters. The depth of contenders who can compete with Tiger is far greater on the PGA Tour than it is in professional tennis. It's a no brainer. Woods is more dominant.
in a golf tournament, on any given week, a wildcard, No. 200 in the world can win. find me a tennis tournament that a seeded player doesn't win. and that doesn't include serena or agassi when they're returning from injuries. Woods faces 100+ people each week. Federer faces 5.
maybe he is better than jordan as well, after all, the basketball court is always the same size. also, the surface makes a big difference. woods doesn't face anyone directly, except for match play, and even then it isnt like tennis where you have to actually beat another guy directly.
i just said i dont understand your point, i was hoping you would explain it. golf is harder because tiger cannot win every week, because a no-name might win? you are saying golf is more random? fine. how does that make tiger better? you made the point earlier that without winning the french title, federer can never be the best ever in his sport. you might reconsider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_held_by_Roger_Federer
all I was saying is that the gap between best to worst is naturally smaller in golf than in tennis. it's nothing against Tiger, Jack, Floyd, Palmer, or whoever you consider the best. They all can and will be beaten by no-name guys on occasion. Tennis is more of a sport of reigns where the best player at the time can and will win almost every time out. edit: I don't have the time to do this,but I bet if you research and find all the winners on the PGA since 70, compared to all of the WTA winners since 70, the number of guys who will have won on the PGA tour is sooooo much higher, maybe even double, which means there is great parity, which means dynasties are harder to accomplish on the PGA.
maybe that is a good point. also of note is that golf is a sport where it is easier to stay at the top of your game for longer, because of the lesser physical demands. so you have more time to rack up titles. in tennis you can pack it in when your early 30's roll around, but in golf you still have 10 good years left. i am biased, because i play both sports and i think that personally alot more effort goes into beating people at tennis. they make you run around and tire you out and force you to be patient or aggressive and every player has a style you need to adjust to and you can beat them all different ways. whereas in gold you play against a static course. so i have more respect for a guy who is smoking everyone on the tennis court. of course my personal bias is not relevant to the question. i kinda see it this way: if i am any top tier tennis player, i am aware that i have zero chance to beat federer, unless i am nadal, and even then i cant beat him unless we are on clay. but phil mickelson, he know he can beat tiger, he is sure that on any weekend he could beat tiger. and we already discussed this, how that may be a function of the nature of the sports, and it is very hard to compare, that is why it an interesting thing to consider.
Federer adds another to the list. That's FIVE STRAIGHT if you're counting... Not unlike Tiger winning The Masters five straight... I STILL think that Fed's better, tennis is MUCH more physically demanding...
the gap is closing, though. Federer used to dominate nadal on every surface but clay. today went 5 sets. i don't think Roger is getting any worse. I just think Nadal is getting way better.
