SPORTS
Woods dominates entire sports column
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Greg Schmitz:
- Blown away: Cyclones shock Badgers (December 3, 2007)
- Super Seniors (November 29, 2007)
- Badgers draw comparisons to 2000 finalist squad (November 27, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Tiger over Federer in best-ever debate (September 21, 2007)
- Tiger Woods: best of our time (October 3, 2006)
- Take a swing, swig like a champ (October 18, 2007)
- Women using Woods (October 23, 2002)
- PGA jungle needs its Tiger on prowl (April 8, 2005)
by Greg Schmitz
Friday, February 2, 2007
Every generation has its dominant athletes.
In the 1920s and 1930s, it was Babe Ruth. Muhammad Ali was the man in the '60s and '70s. Michael Jordan ruled the sports world in the '80s and '90s.
This generation, however, is lucky enough to have two phenomenal athletes dominating their respective sports — Tiger Woods and Roger Federer.
With Tiger Woods' come-from-behind win at the Buick Invitational and Roger Federer winning the Australian Open last weekend, the debate over which one is the more dominant athlete came to the forefront once again this week.
Both are unquestionably the best individuals in their own sport, with no one really in arm's reach of taking over the No. 1 spot anytime soon.
Woods set the record for consecutive weeks at the top spot with 264 before Vijah Sing caught him briefly in 2004. In the last week of February, Federer will have held on to the top spot for 161 consecutive weeks, breaking Jimmy Connors' old record.
Also, both Woods and Federer are in the middle of impressive streaks.
Woods' win at the Buick was his seventh consecutive PGA Tour win (yes, he finished second in a couple of off-season tournaments, but the PGA recognizes the streak, even though he does not). Federer's win in the finals of the Aussie Open was his 36th consecutive match won. Federer also did not drop a set on his way to his third Australian Open crown — the first time that has happened in a major since 1980 when Björn Borg did so at the French Open.
However, if you were to break down all the stages of both careers, you would see how Tiger Woods is the most dominant athlete in the sports world right now.
Amateur Careers
Federer was no slouch during his amateur career, as he became Switzerland's national champion at age 14 and won the junior Wimbledon title the year before turning pro, but Tiger's amateur career was just a tad bit better.
Tiger has been a national phenom since the age of two when he appeared on "The Mike Douglas Show" putting with Bob Hope, and ever since then he has been dominating the sport and its headlines.
Woods won his first of six Junior World Championships at eight years old and then went on to win three consecutive U.S. Junior Amateur and three consecutive U.S. Amateur Championships, becoming the youngest to win each event.
In his final year as an amateur — besides winning the U.S. Amateur title for the third time — Woods won the individual NCAA championship. He was also the low amateur at two majors during this stretch.
Even though Federer had a good amateur career, Woods' amateur career blows his out of the water.
Professional Career
Both Tiger's and Roger's professional careers have been pretty impressive — that is why this debate exists. Still, if you look at the entire length of both professional careers, Tiger again has been superior.
Federer turned pro in 1999. However, he did not come storming out of the gates, as it took him two years to win his first title. In comparison, Woods turned pro in August 1996 and proceeded to win six events in a one-year span. He also became the world's No. 1 player after only 47 weeks as a pro — the fastest anyone has ever reached the top spot.
It was not until 2003 that Federer's career took off, as he won 42 of his 46 career titles. Woods, on the other hand, has only gone one year in his professional career without wining at least one title (1998).
Woods has been more consistent during the course of his career, and even when he went through his two swing changes, he was still able to win titles.
Majors
Most players are defined in tennis and golf by how they play in the four major championships.
Tiger burst onto the major scene by winning the Masters — his first major as a pro — by a record 12 strokes. In 40 majors as a pro, Woods has won 12, completing the career Grand Slam twice (he was the youngest to do it in golf history the first time around) and has at least tied the scoring record in relation to par in all four majors.
Woods also holds the record for the largest margin of victory in any major when he won the 2000 U.S. Open by an astounding 15 strokes. But possibly the most impressive thing about Tiger's play in the majors is he has only missed one cut in 40 events and that one cut came last year after he did not play for over two months because of the death of his father. It doesn't matter who you are — if you take two months off from anything, you are not going to be at the top of your game.
While Federer is on pace to break, if not shatter, Pete Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam titles and seven Wimbledon titles, he was not always so dominant in the Grand Slams. It took Federer 16 Grand Slam events before he even made a final when he won his first Wimbledon.
Also, if you were to call making it to the fourth round in a Grand Slam as being equivalent to making the cut, then Federer would have "missed the cut" 10 times in his career in only 31 tournaments.
But perhaps the biggest knock on Federer so far is his inability to win the French Open and until last year he really has not come close to winning it — only making one final.
Competition
Tiger's competition is another thing that sets him apart from Federer. In just about every tournament, Woods is competing with over 150 other golfers to come out on top.
While he unquestionably has the most talent on the course any time he walks up to the tee, Tiger has no control whatsoever how anyone else on the course plays.
Federer only has to face seven opponents on his way to a Grand Slam title, and since it is a one-on-one match, he has some control over how his opponent plays. Plus, some early round upsets could pave an easier path to a title.
Tiger has batted away any challenger who has come his way. Sure Lefty, Ernie, Vijay and Goosen have all won majors since Tiger turned pro, but Tiger has won almost every head-to-head battle he has had with them.
Federer can say the same thing for most of his challengers. He disposes of Andy Roddick every time while hardly working up a sweat. However, there is one challenger who has gotten the best of Federer — Rafael Nadal — who is 3-6 against him including losing to him in the French semis and finals the last two years.
Field of Play
Field of Play is probably the thing that separates these two superior talented athletes the most. Federer only plays on four different surfaces — hard, carpet, grass and clay — and the court is the same size everywhere he goes. He has also not been able to win the big one on clay.
In the game of golf, no two courses are the same, and Tiger has been able to win on all types of courses with all different types of game. He is able to bomb it off the tee if need be or, like last year's British Open, he can keep the driver in the bag and still win. Plus, with every new course, he has to get used to the contours like the slope of the green and hazards. Federer does not have to do any of this.
Any way you look at it, Tiger is the more dominant athlete of the two, and as long as both continue to play at the incredibly high level they are playing right now, it will remain that way.
Greg is a junior majoring in communication arts and is The Badger Herald's Design Director. If you would like to debate who is the more dominant athlete, you can reach him at gschmitz@badgerherald.com.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 4:40am):
Rubbish , your arguments are totally biased in Woods favour
Federer has won 10 majors at 25 - Woods is on 12 majors at 31 , why did you not mention this
Tennis is played on four totally different surfaces and no two surfaces ever play the same.
Ask any tennis pro about the different bounces on all the various clay courts they play on (not to mention the balls)
ergo Hard , indoor , carpet etc
Tennis is a very very physically demanding sport - if Federer has one bad day he is out of the tournament
Woods can be the 10 the best golfer three days in a row and still have the opportunity to win on the 4th day .
So please research your sports more and keep your bias less.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 5:50am):
Golf CANNOT be compared with tennis. Tennis players need to be so much more athletic than golf. Even someone who is close to 50 can play gold at a reasonably good level, but tennis is a much far more demanding sport and it requires a lot of energy. Say whatever you want about Tiger being dominant, since he is an American you will always give your preference for him, I see where your bias lies on. Federer is by far, more superior athlete than Tiger, it is a pity that in America his talent is not appreciated to its full extent like in other places of the world. Who cares anyway? America is not the world. Golf is just a rich man's game for a lucky few, so the talent of competition is not so high as in tennis. I come from India and I have been living in Europe as well, Federer is more popular here than Tiger ever can be. In the world of sport Federer rules!!
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 6:17am):
very poor arguments
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 9:04am):
Federer has won 10 Grand Slam titles in 3 and 1/2 years. Not even his buddy Tiger has dominated that way.
Here's hoping the communications arts major at UW includes a course in logic or debating at some point.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 10:02am):
peice of crap...you don't seem to understand tennis. Don't compare players from different sports when you don't know about those sports.
Anonymous (February 2, 2007 @ 4:33pm):
Dude, there an expression you should consider: "it is better to have people think that you may be a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
That is one of the stupidest and most biased articles I have ever read.
There is debate as to whether golf is a sport at all. It resembles more a game or a passtime like backgammon or bowling or darts or pool or poker. Who's the best 'dartman' or 'bowler' in the world? Who cares!
Tennis is a SPORT. That means it requires ATHLETIC ability. Golf is a game that requires skill and shot selection, much like pool.
What Federer has achieved statistically in the last 3 years, blows anything Woods has ever done. Woods himself would admit that.
Your article seems quite timely and appears to be in reaction to much of the buzz coming out of Europe and Asia right now. Federer has been dubbed the best athlete ever by pretty much every magazine and award panel outside the US.
Who are you trying to convince. Yourself?
Anonymous (February 3, 2007 @ 4:41am):
that was pretty one-sided wasn't it? and you are an American aren't you? What else could one expect. First of all it's not fair to compare too different games. Second, if you do, at least try to think rationally. It looks as if you are trying to convince yourself rather than us. your arguments are poor and completely one-sided. How can woods be a better athelete when he has to only walk while Federer has to most probably run for seven days. Total rubbish.
Anonymous (February 3, 2007 @ 9:38am):
Good article, you forgot to add one thing. In golf you don't get a second chance ot replay your shots off the tee like Tennis second serves. Which makes the sport a complete sham!
Winning a slam in Tennis is quite easy. Serena proved this only playing 3 time in a year and still winning. Also 9 people have won a slam 3 times in a year. Unlike golf which has only been done twice in its history 1953 Hogan and 2000 Woods. Just goes to show Tennis is easy to dominate once you are on form
Tennis competition is a joke and quite pitiful. No wonder most people only watch it 4 times a year.
Anonymous (February 3, 2007 @ 12:33pm):
Let's just all be honest here...the world's greatest athlete cannot come from either sport. There are hundreds of better athletes than either of these guys. They are called football players.
Anonymous (February 3, 2007 @ 3:03pm):
I couldnt agree more with your article
I was recently in quaint little Europe on my vacation when I happened on a bunch of European Oiks discussing the relative merits of Woods V Federer - As usual the euros (who cant seem to make up their minds about anything )couldnt decide who was the greater, Woods or Federer - Seeing I was From Gods own Country - why is it that we Americans stand out so ? (I think it must be our tremendous sense of style)
They asked me my opinion - Why its obvious , I said.
Woods is the greater of the two
Why ? , they cried in unison
Because he's an American you Dumb Schmucks
Anonymous (February 3, 2007 @ 4:16pm):
u kidding me, what federer has done is scary, beyond the relms of this world. HE is the most DOMINANT athlete ever
Anonymous (February 3, 2007 @ 5:57pm):
I couldnt agree more with your article
I was recently in quaint little Europe on my vacation when I happened on a bunch of European Oiks discussing the relative merits of Woods V Federer - As usual the euros (who cant seem to make up their minds about anything )couldnt decide who was the greater, Woods or Federer - Seeing I was From Gods own Country - why is it that we Americans stand out so ? (I think it must be our tremendous sense of style)
They asked me my opinion - Why its obvious , I said.
Woods is the greater of the two
Why ? , they cried in unison
Because he's an American you Dumb Schmucks
Anonymous (February 4, 2007 @ 1:02am):
One correction: Under "Professional Career," you stated, "Woods, on the other hand, has only gone one year in his professional career without winning at least one title (1998)." Just for the record, in 1998 he did win the PGA Tour's Bell South Classic. And for what it's worth, I am a HUGE fan of both Woods and Federer (and Tom Brady and the New England Patriots!).
Anonymous (February 4, 2007 @ 3:40am):
good article, show to your mom.
Anonymous (February 4, 2007 @ 11:51pm):
Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Oh you Americans! This article gave me a much needed laugh. This is like George Bush giving reasons for why it was logical to invade Iraq.
Anonymous (February 8, 2007 @ 10:40am):
Tiger!!!! In the great debate of sports dominance, Tiger and Federer are by and far at the forefronts of their respective sports. But in the debate of Worlds Best, I think Tiger has to come out on top. Lets face it, Federer is going to go down as the greatest tennis player ever(I love federer on a sidenote) but Tiger is supreme. You don't win 3 Junior ams and 3 U.S ams plus 12 majors by luck. Its pure talent, Tiger has dominated for years, and so has Federer, but Tiger does it on a much bigger stage. To win a tennis tournament is one thing, but to win a Golf tournament is another. Not to down play the pressure felt at Wimbledon or the heat feeding off the court at Roland Garros, but I'd rather be serving for match point in either of those contests, before I stepped upto a 215 yard, 4Iron at Amen Corner over the water on Masters Sunday any day. The pressure golfers feel is much worse than that of a tennis player. Tiger has ice in his veins and thats why he dominates. Federer wins b/c he is by far the most talented player ever. Tiger wins b/c he's also the most dominant, but he has that competitive killer edge that everyone else lacks. Would you be able to step upto a putt of 12 feet or how bout a 4 footer that makes a mere mortal's leg tremble in fear for the us open with an entire gallery focusing in on your every move? Probally not, but Tiger can, and that's why he's the greatest.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 7:27pm):
Tiger Woods and Pete Sampras called ROGER FEDERER THE MOST DOMINANT ATHLETE ON THE PLANET. Why you ask? It took Tiger 11 years to win 13 majors and he is age 31. It took Pete Sampras 12 years to win a record 14. It took Roger Federer only 5 years to win 12 and he is only age 26. Next, Roger has a higher percentage of wins in majors than Tiger or Pete. Roger has also won more in a shorter time and a younge age he is only 26. Next, Roger in 2008 has a chance to be the all time Grand Slam Champion at the age of 26 if he win 3 more majors. Tiger can't he needs 6 more to pass Jack N. record of 18. I predict Roger will not only pass Tiger and Pete and go down as the best player to ever pick up a tennis racket, but he will also pass Jack N. record of 18 and go down as one of the most dominant athletes in sports history.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 7:28pm):
Tiger Woods and Pete Sampras called ROGER FEDERER THE MOST DOMINANT ATHLETE ON THE PLANET. Why you ask? It took Tiger 11 years to win 13 majors and he is age 31. It took Pete Sampras 12 years to win a record 14. It took Roger Federer only 5 years to win 12 and he is only age 26. Next, Roger has a higher percentage of wins in majors than Tiger or Pete. Roger has also won more in a shorter time and a younge age he is only 26. Next, Roger in 2008 has a chance to be the all time Grand Slam Champion at the age of 26 if he win 3 more majors. Tiger can't he needs 6 more to pass Jack N. record of 18. I predict Roger will not only pass Tiger and Pete and go down as the best player to ever pick up a tennis racket, but he will also pass Jack N. record of 18 and go down as one of the most dominant athletes in sports history.
andre marshall (October 19, 2007 @ 4:18pm):
People we are not talking about GREATEST ATHLETE, we are talking about MOST DOMINANT IN THEIR SPORT TODAY! UNDERSTAND? TIGER vs. ROGER - Golf and tennis have 4 majors every year. Tiger won his first major in 1997. From 1997-2007 Tiger has won 13 out of 44 majors. A wining percentage of 29.54% and Tiger is age 31. Roger won his first major in 2003. From 2003-2007 Roger has won 12 out of 20 majors. A wining percentage of 60% and Roger is only age 26. Looking at these stats, who would you bet on to win more majors in 2008? Next, in 2007 Roger won WIMBLEDON for the 5th consecutive year in a row! And you guys thought Tiger was dominant on grass? Moreover, in 2008 Roger can become the all tim GRAND SLAM CHAMPION if he wins 3 more. TIGER CAN'T he still needs 6 more to pass Jack N. record of 18. Need I say anymore?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
