Tiger.... Tiger has to beat one-hundred fifty other golfers (typically) to win a tournament. His winning percentage is unprecedented for the modern era. I don't think he'll match Nelson's streak of 11, but what he has done so far is amazing. Federer has to win seven matches.
Tough, but I have to go with Roger. I grew up with a tennic court in my back yard, so I have to go with the tennis guy. Plus, the agility.... amazing!
It really is a tough one, picking one over the other. Arguments can be made on both sides as we've seen here.
What's more interesting is thinking about the "best of all time" in their sport discussion...both seem headed down that road but both have work left to do to eclipse their predecessors. During the telecast of the Aussie Open final the announcers were saying that Federer shys away from the "greatest ever" moniker at this point and lists all the achievements he needs to complete to be deserving of that kind of talk.
Another thing to ponder with these comparisons is the competition of the two. Is there really anybody else in tennis or golf right now who is even close to these guys? Not really. Seems like in past eras there was always rivalries that athletes like Jack Nicklaus, Bjorn Borg, etc...had to contend with.
If Tiger and Federer are on their game you can hand them the trophy in any event.
Lance Armstrong kicks both their butts.
(ducks)
Who cares? They both are at the top of their games, they are both fun to watch, and they will never have to play each other. I like them both, and I have no need to make one "better" than the other!
Both are the tops in their game...and both may prove to be the best ever in their sport. Neither can make that claim....yet. I would say Tiger is more dominant because it is much more difficult to win a golf tournament on a weekly basis than tennis. Whoever is 'the best' at tennis in a particular period wins a lot of grand slams. A dominant player can win 2-3 a year for a period of years consecutively like he is. Golf it happens once every 30 years or so.
I think Federer when it is all said and done will likely prove to be the best ever. Same with Tiger. Both are young and have a lot of playing time left in their primes. Can't take anything away from either.
God bless him.................
Not at all. From a strictly sports standpoint Federer has it all over Woods. Woods couldn't last ten minutes against any 5.0 player whereas even I can eventually get the ball in the hole.
Winning successive tournaments in golf (medal play) is in my estimation more difficult. A single bad swing can cause two to three stroke swings. This happened at the Buick Open on Sunday. Also the match is played against at least 72 competitors, any one of which can get hot and shoot low numbers.
In tennis, a bad swing costs a point and unless it is match point, there will be numerous opportunities to overcome the mistake. Also, you play matches against one competitor at a time so the risk of a hot player is reduced.
They are both great athletes. Make no mistake, Tiger is a world class athlete.