They're the best, but who's more dominant?

By John Gottlieb

We are in an era right now of two of the most dominating athletes in the entire world and surprisingly enough they don't play in the NFL, MLB, NHL, or NBA.

Eldrick "Tiger" Woods and Roger Federer are so superior to everyone else in their respective sports that we are ready to just hand them the Green Jacket or the Wimbledon Trophy.

With Tiger winning his seventh straight PGA Tour event at the Buick Invitational and Federer becoming the first man since Bjorn Borg in 1980 to win a major without dropping a set in a 7-6 (7-2), 6-4, 6-4 win in the Australian Open final against Fernando Gonzalez, the debate is raging on as to which is more supreme.

Since 2004, Federer has won nine majors, and made it to the semis in three of the four Grand Slams he didn't win. He is 254-15 with 35 tournament wins in that span, including 99-5 with 13 titles since 2006 and 36 straight matches, which is 10 shy of Guillermo Vilas for the Open Era record .

Federer is also the only player in the Open era to win three consecutive majors twice in a career.

He's going to pass Jimmy Connors' record of 160 straight weeks as the World No. 1 ranking on February 26, and unless he succumbs to injury it's only a matter of time before he wins the five more majors he needs to surpass Pete Sampras (14) for the most all-time.

There is only one shortcoming to Federer's game, and that's the French Open championship that has eluded his career. This may be the year that Federer becomes the first men's player to win the Grand Slam since Rod Laver did it in 1969, which is something Tiger's never done in a single season.

However, Tiger has won all four majors twice in his career and has to do it against 145 golfers in each tournament with stiffer competition. Woods not only plays against himself and the challengers, but he plays on different courses.

Federer only has to play the five or seven opponents depending on the luck of the draw, and while the surfaces may changes, the dimensions of the tennis court do not. Also, Federer has no control over the outcome of a Rafael Nadal-Paradorn Srichaphan match with the winner facing the top-ranked Swiss, while the only circumstance limiting the field against Tiger is who makes the cut.

Woods has to go up against Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen and Ernie Els, who can all tackle Tiger week-in and week-out.

Tiger has 12 majors under his belt, including four Masters titles, and is six behind his idol, Jack Nicklaus.

Ever since he was two and made an appearance on The Mike Douglas Show, the world has known about Tiger Woods. The prodigy has certainly lived up to expectations, as the only player to win three straight amateur titles and becoming the only amateur to make the cut at the Masters in 1995.

Each golf course is different, and while the surfaces may changes, the dimensions of the tennis court do not.

Woods is four PGA tournament wins shy of tying Byron Nelson's consecutive victories mark (11 in 1945) for the all-time record, two Green Jackets away from matching the Golden Bear and 27 PGA victories from equalling the record set by Sam Snead.

The consecutive wins streak is phenomenal, but let's not forget that he lost once in Europe and twice in Asia during that span.

We are in the presence of greatness with these two icons demolishing the competition, but I'll give the nod to Federer, who at 25 is younger than Tiger (31), and plays a more physically demanding sport.

I was truly torn as to which is better until I thought of Rich Beem, Ben Curtis, Shaun Micheel, and Michael Campbell, all of whom have won major golf tournaments since 2002. Meanwhile, if you take guys with similar talent and put them against Federer they would get destroyed.

When Roger Federer is in the draw, tournaments are over before they start.


Click here for copyright permissions!
Copyright 2007
The Phanatic