In sports, people debate about the "best ever." Will A-Rod pass Bonds, who passed Aaron, who passed Ruth? Is LT the best running back of all time? Will LeBron one day surpass Michael? No matter your take on each of these questions, each is a valid debate. However, two current athletes' legacies contain no more gray area. The question marks have been erased, and their names have been etched in stone. In their respective sports, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer are the best. Ever.
As Tiger chases Jack Nicklaus' career majors record and Federer gains on Pete Sampras's same mark, I find myself cheering for one and not the other. But why?
As a general rule of thumb, if I have no vested interest in a given sports matchup, I tend to root for the underdog. It's fun to watch teams that aren't supposed to win pull off the unthinkable. It was exciting when Appalachian St. knocked off fifth-ranked Michigan, whether you're a Wolverine hater or not. On any given day, any team can beat any other team. That's what makes sports great; that's why they play the game. With that said, it would only make sense that I would root against Tiger. I root against whoever stands opposite Federer, for surely he is an underdog. But I just can't do it; I can't root against Tiger. He's just too much fun to watch.
The point of this is not to debate who's more dominant: Tiger or Federer. For argument's sake, let's call that a wash. Both have an arsenal of shots that leave you speechless and begging for more. The question is: Why is Tiger so likeable and Federer's just not?
Maybe it's that Tiger hits his 9-iron as far as most people hit their 3-irons. Or maybe it's the red on Sundays, the utter ferocity each time he swings his driver, or his patented fist pump after sinking a long birdie putt. Maybe it's all of the above, plus more.
I'm not sure. All I know is, each time I watch Tiger Woods on Sunday afternoon, my eyes stay riveted to the television in hopes of another shot like the chip-in on 16 in the 2005 Masters, which resulted in the back-bending double-fist pump, something that puts chills down the spine of every golf fan in America. The fact is, Tiger plays with emotion, with passion. He's flat-out fun and entertaining. Roger should take notes.
Although Federer and his devastating one-handed backhand are cause for countless jaw-dropping reactions, there's just something about him that makes me want him to lose. John McEnroe and Andre Agassi were fun to watch, not only because they were amazing tennis players, but because they were characters on and off the court; they added excitement to the game. Ernie Els and Vijay Singh are great golfers, but no matter how many 8-irons they knock pin-high, watching them will never equate to watching Tiger.
I wish I could say the same about Federer, but I can't. He's an emotionless robot until just after the match point of a major, when each time he flops to the ground looking like a ten-year-old girl who just found her lost puppy. That celebration (for lack of a better term) would be OK once, but after the 11th and 12th times, it's getting a little old. Roger, stop acting so surprised, and either get a little creative or stop with the shenanigans. Sampras didn't have much of a personality either, but he never pretended to have one. Grab your trophy, and keep your knees off the court.
Federer may even be more dominant in his sport than Tiger is in his (I'm aware that's very debatable). But at this point, no matter how many majors Federer wins — even if Tiger wins no more — there's nothing he can do; Tiger is the No. 1 competitor in my book, hands down.
If you didn't realize it by this point, then wake up. We as current sports fans are spoiled. We are witnessing two individuals dominate their respective sports like no one else ever has. Golf and tennis fans alike know this already, but those of you who think individual sports are boring to watch, think again. I challenge you to watch these two phenoms on a Sunday afternoon. You won't regret it.
Derek Zetlin ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in economics.
