Who is better? I’ve basically narrowed the two most dominant athletes in the world down to Tiger Woods and Roger Federer respectively. No other sport has anyone that so obviously stands out, perhaps because most other sports involve teams. Ladanian Tomlinson comes the closest. I apologize to football fans in advance, but I didn’t think that he deserved to be included. If you disagree, say so in the comments.
As for Woods v Federer, most Americans would probably tell you Tiger Woods is better. Why? Because they are simply bigger fans of golf, and play and watch more of the sport. They play the sport, and understand how difficult it is to master. Non-Americans and tennis players would say Roger Federer. The way he dominates a game and makes his opponent try and play desperate and afraid is simply astounding. He combines finesse, strength, and knowledge to decimate his competition.
I really don’t even remember the last time Federer lost. Thing is, Tiger has also won his past 7 tournaments. They’re both godsends to their sports. These guys dominate and still make it fun to watch for the viewers. Some might say it’s MORE fun to watch because of this fact.
Then there is the age factor. Federer is 25 and started playing professionally when he was 18. Woods is 31 and started on the pro circuit whe he was 21. Woods shot out of the gate with a HUGE victory at the Masters, and would go on to win 12 more majors and 55 more tournaments in the next ten years. Federer has had a similar record, winning 10 grand slam events and 46 tournaments. He’s also been runner up in 13 events. Their numbers are eerily similar for sports that both have deep and talented fields.
So what say you? I say that Federer is better, simply because he hasn’t even lost a set in god knows how long. He’s utterly dominant in a sport where upsets can be ripe depending on and infinite number of things. And yes, this is almost a coin flip situation. One could say that the sport of golf itself makes it tough for Woods to continually win because of how varied the courses are, and any number of other factors. But tennis has multiple surfaces, and the only surface Federer has had any ‘trouble’ on is clay. And ‘trouble’ means he finishes second instead of first.
I have to give the edge to Federer because of how many titles he’s won in a shorter amount of time. Yes he will retire before Woods will, but that is simply how the sport of tennis works. Athletes can’t stay in winning condition at 40 years old like they can in golf. You can’t take away from Federer because the sport has different demands.