Who's currently the most dominant athlete in the world in his sport?

[chuckywang]

Federer, no doubt.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Federer's game seems limited by certain surfaces but Tiger can adjust his game to any conditions and course (like this year's British Open).

Federer made the finals of the french, which pete sampras never did. Has Tiger ever won 3 majors and been 2nd in the 4th in the same year? Not sure. True, Federer doesn't have the roger slam, yet... but he has dominated men's tennis more than anyone I know of in history, whereas Tiger and Jack were about equal in dominance. We need a Graf vs Sorenstam poll too, that would be a tough one.

Tiger won all four majors in a row (Tiger Slam) three in one year and the Masters the following spring

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Tiger by far!

Comparing golf to tennis is a difficult comparison. Being able to consistently dominate individuals in a match play environment (Federer) is not nearly as difficult as consistently dominating 155 players in a stroke play environment (Woods)

I just don't buy this reasoning. In golf your opponents can't directly impact your performance. It's really just you vs the course. Tennis is sport that requires you to actually compete directly 1 on 1 with your opponent. It's a tough comparison, but I just don't see how golf is so much more difficult to dominate.

 

[spidey07]

I'll go with Tiger.

While Federer is certainly dominating, I think golf is a game that never really gets dominated the way tennis does. There's always somebody dominating tennis it seems. But to win like tiger has, not to mention he'll most certainly be playing at a winning level for longer means he gets the nod.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Federer's game seems limited by certain surfaces but Tiger can adjust his game to any conditions and course (like this year's British Open).

Are you kidding me?

I'm a huge Sampras fan, so I hate to admit this, but Federer might end up being the greatest player of all time at the rate he's going. Pete was completely dominant, but sucked it up in the french open. Federer made it to the finals! Once he beats Nadal (and he probably will), he'll win all four that year. Career grand slams are hard enough, but Federer can easily win all four in the same year. Had he beaten Nadal, he would have done it this year.

Federer cannot be stopped. Just winning a set against the man is an accomplishment. With Federer, it's almost always a straight set victory.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: mrizvi66
Tiger...cause he has to play the course as well as other players....and they keep changing the courses after he wins...its not like they can change a tennis court after Federer beats the crap outta everyone....

Duh-duh-duh?

ever heard of a hard court, clay court, or grass court?

And Federer cannot beat Nadal on a clay court

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Tiger by far!

Comparing golf to tennis is a difficult comparison. Being able to consistently dominate individuals in a match play environment (Federer) is not nearly as difficult as consistently dominating 155 players in a stroke play environment (Woods)

I just don't buy this reasoning. In golf your opponents can't directly impact your performance. It's really just you vs the course. Tennis is sport that requires you to actually compete directly 1 on 1 with your opponent. It's a tough comparison, but I just don't see how golf is so much more difficult to dominate.

Other players don't affect golfers? Whatever. Golf is the most mentally challenging game out there. In tennis if you hit the net on serve you get a "do over". In the PGA, there are no mulligans on a drive. You bet your ass that if you are in the lead by a stroke or two and somebody behind you is making a major run it IS going to weigh heavy on your mind and affect youre game.

 

[RGUN]

Everybody knows of or has heard of Tiger Woods.... Thats got to count for something, I certaintly dont know anything about Federer, but I dont watch Tennis, then again I dont watch golf either.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

there sure is a lot of ignorance about tennis on atot

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Tiger by far!

Comparing golf to tennis is a difficult comparison. Being able to consistently dominate individuals in a match play environment (Federer) is not nearly as difficult as consistently dominating 155 players in a stroke play environment (Woods)

I just don't buy this reasoning. In golf your opponents can't directly impact your performance. It's really just you vs the course. Tennis is sport that requires you to actually compete directly 1 on 1 with your opponent. It's a tough comparison, but I just don't see how golf is so much more difficult to dominate.

Pretty simple to me. In tennis your playing 1 person, and you rarely face anyone really talented until the quarter finals and up, so to win you have to beat a few sub-par players then maybe 3 very talented players individually.

In golf you have to shoot 4 consecutive rounds better than 155 guys, 25-30 of which are very talented.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: RGUN
Everybody knows of or has heard of Tiger Woods.... Thats got to count for something, I certaintly dont know anything about Federer, but I dont watch Tennis, then again I dont watch golf either.

rofl, that is one of the least logical things I've ever heard in my life. And I watch fox news regularly.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: mrizvi66
Tiger...cause he has to play the course as well as other players....and they keep changing the courses after he wins...its not like they can change a tennis court after Federer beats the crap outta everyone....

Duh-duh-duh?

ever heard of a hard court, clay court, or grass court?

The tennis court never changes. No one can Federer-proof a tennis court like they have tried to do w/ golf courses.

And I think it's dee-dee-dee

The Australian Open court changed just a few years ago. Also, he is not just dominant in majors... he's lost 4 times the whole year in, what, over a hundred matches? I am fairly certain tiger has lost more than 4 tournaments.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: sash1

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Federer's game seems limited by certain surfaces but Tiger can adjust his game to any conditions and course (like this year's British Open).

Are you kidding me?

I'm a huge Sampras fan, so I hate to admit this, but Federer might end up being the greatest player of all time at the rate he's going. Pete was completely dominant, but sucked it up in the french open. Federer made it to the finals! Once he beats Nadal (and he probably will), he'll win all four that year. Career grand slams are hard enough, but Federer can easily win all four in the same year. Had he beaten Nadal, he would have done it this year.

Federer cannot be stopped. Just winning a set against the man is an accomplishment. With Federer, it's almost always a straight set victory.

yeah i noticed federer's beastliness vs. roddick the other day. i'm no tennis conniseur and i wanted roddick to win, but federer had much better returns in terms of power, speed, and placement and also had much better endurance. you could tell towards the end that roddick was completely spent, and then federer just walked over him.

 

[wheresmybacon]

Federer is a beast and has no signs of cooling down. I love Tiger, but Federer is so far above the rest of the pack it's not even funny.

Roger

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Tiger by far!

Comparing golf to tennis is a difficult comparison. Being able to consistently dominate individuals in a match play environment (Federer) is not nearly as difficult as consistently dominating 155 players in a stroke play environment (Woods)

I just don't buy this reasoning. In golf your opponents can't directly impact your performance. It's really just you vs the course. Tennis is sport that requires you to actually compete directly 1 on 1 with your opponent. It's a tough comparison, but I just don't see how golf is so much more difficult to dominate.

Other players don't affect golfers? Whatever. Golf is the most mentally challenging game out there. In tennis if you hit the net on serve you get a "do over". In the PGA, there are no mulligans on a drive. You bet your ass that if you are in the lead by a stroke or two and somebody behind you is making a major run it IS going to weigh heavy on your mind and affect youre game.

You play 18 holes a day in a PGA tourney. You can afford to mess up a few holes and still win at the end of it all..a la Tiger Woods. He's not flawless by any means, hell he manages to hit balls on the roof of a club house.

It'd be like if tennis was competed over a serving competition, with no returner.

And even though they're not very comparable, sports where you compete directly against your competition and have to constantly adjust your play accordingly..i.e. actual team sports like football/basketball, it is much much more difficult for any one person to stand out.

Regardless though, this isn't about which sport is more difficult to be on top of, it's about who is more dominant in his respective sport, regardless of how hard it is to dominate.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Michael Schumacher.

/thread

 

[mrizvi66]

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: mrizvi66
Tiger...cause he has to play the course as well as other players....and they keep changing the courses after he wins...its not like they can change a tennis court after Federer beats the crap outta everyone....

Duh-duh-duh?

ever heard of a hard court, clay court, or grass court?

yes i have....

Federer's got 4 different types of courts to play on....Tiger has i dunno 50 or so...

They are both great...but Tiger is more dominant...in his sport...

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Federer's game seems limited by certain surfaces but Tiger can adjust his game to any conditions and course (like this year's British Open).

Federer made the finals of the french, which pete sampras never did. Has Tiger ever won 3 majors and been 2nd in the 4th in the same year? Not sure. True, Federer doesn't have the roger slam, yet... but he has dominated men's tennis more than anyone I know of in history, whereas Tiger and Jack were about equal in dominance. We need a Graf vs Sorenstam poll too, that would be a tough one.

I checked (cause I wasn't sure) and Tiger had a streak in majors during 2000-2001 finishing 3rd, 7th, win, 5th, win, win, win, win. Not too up on Federer although I don't know if he's been that dominant.

 

[ArchCenturion]

My vote would be for Sean White the snowboarder
No one can touch that guy he is so increadibly far above the competition.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Tiger by far!

Comparing golf to tennis is a difficult comparison. Being able to consistently dominate individuals in a match play environment (Federer) is not nearly as difficult as consistently dominating 155 players in a stroke play environment (Woods)

Just a quick tally of players who have successfully dominated in each sport gives you the answer.

Tennis-Conners,McEnroe,Borg,Sampras,Federer ect..,ect...

Golf-Woods,Nicklaus

Hey I can make an arbitrary list of people too!

Byron Nelson, Walter Hagen, Sam Snead, etc. etc.., etc..

 

[Vich]

Lance Armstrong.

When it comes to Aerobic performance the man cant be stopped or beaten. And he beat the biggest adversary, cancer.

 

[UNCjigga]

Up until his retirement I would've said Lance Armstrong. Nowadays I suspect Tiger's singularly dominant (what he win 4 or 5 tourneys in a row now?)

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Other players don't affect golfers? Whatever. Golf is the most mentally challenging game out there. In tennis if you hit the net on serve you get a "do over". In the PGA, there are no mulligans on a drive. You bet your ass that if you are in the lead by a stroke or two and somebody behind you is making a major run it IS going to weigh heavy on your mind and affect youre game.

Whatever. There is pressure in pretty much any sport. What I said was that the other golfer's don't directly affect you. Which is absolutely true. Yeah, there is mental pressure to hang onto a lead, but that can be found in any sport. In a sport like tennis though, your competitor can directly train for your style and attack any weaknesses they may think you have. Not so in golf.

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Other players don't affect golfers? Whatever. Golf is the most mentally challenging game out there. In tennis if you hit the net on serve you get a "do over". In the PGA, there are no mulligans on a drive. You bet your ass that if you are in the lead by a stroke or two and somebody behind you is making a major run it IS going to weigh heavy on your mind and affect youre game.

Whatever. There is pressure in pretty much any sport. What I said was that the other golfer's don't directly affect you. Which is absolutely true. Yeah, there is mental pressure to hang onto a lead, but that can be found in any sport. In a sport like tennis though, your competitor can directly train for your style and attack any weaknesses they may think you have. Not so in golf.

While I somewhat agree with you, ask all the people who have played in the final group w/ Tiger how they were affected. When paired w/ Tiger, no one comes close. That's why I like watching match play so much. It's the only time where golf is truly 1v1.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: mrizvi66
Tiger...cause he has to play the course as well as other players....and they keep changing the courses after he wins...its not like they can change a tennis court after Federer beats the crap outta everyone....

Duh-duh-duh?

ever heard of a hard court, clay court, or grass court?

The tennis court never changes. No one can Federer-proof a tennis court like they have tried to do w/ golf courses.

And I think it's dee-dee-dee

The Australian Open court changed just a few years ago. Also, he is not just dominant in majors... he's lost 4 times the whole year in, what, over a hundred matches? I am fairly certain tiger has lost more than 4 tournaments.

Yeah. He already has some ridiculous records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_players#Weeks_at_No._1

He's currently at 137 consecutive weeks at number 1 in the world. And that's not going to change any time soon. He's already beat Sampras in that regard. And only 23 more weeks till he has that record.

Also taken from Wikipedia:

"Federer is the only man in men's tennis history to have won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open for three consecutive years (2004-2006)"

"Federer won a record 26 consecutive matches against top ten ranked opponents" - so he consistently dominates the best

"In 2001, Federer ended Pete Sampras' 31 match unbeaten streak at Wimbledon in the fourth round."

And he's only 25! He has 9 majors right now. Even if he wins JUST ONE grand slam title per year over the next 6 years, he'll have broken Sampras' record of 14. And at the rate he's going, he's winning at least two, if not three grand slams per year.

And just a side-by-side with Tiger as far as major wins:

2006:
Roger: 3
Tiger: 2

2005:
Roger: 2
Tiger: 2

2004:
Roger: 3
Tiger: 0

2003:
Roger: 1
Tiger: 0

Roger is consistently dominant. I'm not saying Tiger isn't, because he certainly is. But Federer just cannot be stopped right now. The two best players behind him, Hewitt and Roddick, aren't even close to stopping him. Roddick was lucky to have won a single set against him in the US Open finals.