The Age-Old Debate

After this weekend's French Open final, I've decided to re-visit one of the most intriguing, entertaining, and even debates in sports. Each side has their arguments and it's very difficult to try and squash the other sides stance. What makes dispute even more complex and harder to tackle is the fact that it spans across two completely different sports.

So who is the more dominate athlete? Tiger Woods or Roger Federer?

As many close to me know, I have had the same position even before this weekend, and unfortunately with Federer losing in the French Open final yet again to Rafael Nadal, who has quickly become his nemesis, some could say my stance has been strengthened. However, I believed Tiger was the more dominate athlete, even before this weekends results and still do. Lets go over the numbers, which are staggering on both accounts:

Tiger Woods -

• 31-years old (age is a more significant factor after first glace which I will re-examine in a little);
• 11-year veteran (turned pro in 1996);
• 1996 ROY;
• 79 professional wins (57 Tour events);
• 12 Major Championships: 4 Masters (1997, 2001, 2002, 2005), 2 U.S. Opens (2000, 2002), 3 British Opens (2000, 2005, 2006), and 3 PGA Championships (1999, 2000, 2006) Yes he has one each major at least twice, and he will be the odds on favorite to win his 3rd U.S. Open this weekend;
  
• 4-time AP Male Athlete of the Year (1997, 1999, 2000, 2006), 7-time PGA Tour Money Winner (1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006), 8-time PGA Tour Player of the year (1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006);
• 142-consecutive cuts made;
• 7 straight PGA Tour wins at one point;
• 447 weeks as the World's #1 Ranked Golfer

Roger Federer -

• 25-years old;
• 9-year veteran (Turned Pro in 1998 at the age of 17);
• 513-130 career record;
• 48 career titles;
• 10 Grand Slam titles: 3 Australian Opens (2004, 2006, 2007), 4 (straight) Wimbledon's (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006), 3 (straight) U.S. Opens (2004, 2005, 2006);
• 8-consecutive Grand Slam finals
• 12-consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals
• 41-consecutive match win streak
• 7-straight tournament title streak
• 3-time Laureus World Sportsman of the Year
• World's #1 ranked player since February 2, 2004
• 176-consecutive weeks as the World's #1 ranked player

*Please keep in mind that I'm sure I'm leaving some numbers and records out, but I am just trying to quickly display the most important and dominating statistics for each athlete.

Both athletes already own numerous records in each of there respective sports (see above), but when we look at the most prestigious records each are chasing: Jack Nicklaus 18 Major Championships and Pete Sampras 14 Grand Slam titles, we should assume each will break both of their respective records.

So how do you separate the two? One could make the argument that neither has much competition. But how do we really know? Are each really so dominate that the competition within the sport just seems extremely sub-par? Or is each era in each sport just plain weak? What about Vijay and Phil or Federer's recent struggles against Nadal?

What about the difference in the sport itself? Federer is playing each opponent one on one, whereas Tiger is playing against a field of around 80 other golfers. If Federer has a bad day or two, he has to hope his one competitor doesn't have the match of his career. If Tiger has a bad day or two, he has to hope no one in the entire rest of the field is dominating.

Two things stick out to me when evaluating the two, and both happen to hamper the argument for Federer:

• 0 French Open titles
• 4-8 career record against Nadal

Now, Sampras never even made a French Open final and even though I already consider Federer better than Sampras and the greatest men's singles player of all-time, I do not consider Tiger the greatest male golfer of all-time (yet). However, for Federer to lose to Nadal 8 out of 12 times and have not won a French Open, is what, in my mind, puts him slightly behind Tiger when it comes to being a more dominate athlete.

Katz, clay is a much different surface than grass and hard court, and puts power players at a disadvantage in the tennis world. Bullshit argument. I do agree that clay is much more different and a power player must adjust his game, but Tiger has won every major in every condition. The British Open is known for its tremendous winds, Augusta is know for its clever and difficult design (not to mention it has been "Tiger-proofed", I don't see the ATP changing the grass and hard courts around to make things more difficult for Federer), and the U.S. Open has its deep rough and rock-hard greens. Tiger has defied all of his obstacles. Federer, not quite yet.

In addition, in golf, Tiger could conceivably have a good 15-20 competitive years left, while Roger's career will most likely be over in his early 30's, as is the career lifespan of the typical tennis star. Of course everything is relative to each sport, but they are on such similar career tracks that it only seems realistic that Tiger will ended up being that much more dominate.

This is obviously a very touchy topic, as I have engaged in many an argument with friends and colleagues about who is the more dominate athlete. But as of today (and even before Federer was over matched by Nadal this weekend), I believe Tiger is the more dominate athlete between the two. And when all is said and done, Tiger will end up being the most dominate athlete of all-time.