Being asked to pick between Tiger Woods and Roger Federer is akin to picking between KFC and Taco Bell -- you can't go wrong. That being said, when debating the world's most dominant athlete, it's Tiger by a few strokes. Though Tiger fell short in his quest for his thirteenth major, nothing this past weekend at Augusta has made me reevaluate this opinion. In fact, Zach Johnson's brilliance only reaffirms my belief that Tiger Woods is more dominant than Roger Federer, which I will illustrate shortly.
Sir Eldrick excels on the biggest of stages, much the way A-Rod did Saturday in the Bronx, smacking a walk-off grand slam into the black at Yankee Stadium. Tiger entered the final round one back of Stuart Appleby, and everyone this side of the Australian outback was betting on Woods. That's Tiger's dominance. But golf is full of doglegs, and sometimes this fickle sport throws us for a loop.
Federer can make a fairly compelling case for this prized distinction, but he loses for a few simple reasons. First, it's harder to be a dominant golfer than a dominant tennis player. Tiger has to beat an entire field of competitors in order to win an event. Federer only has to beat the player across the court from him, seven in total to win a slam.
And not only does a tennis title require beating fewer opponents, but a tennis player can adversely impact his opponents. The better tennis player should win more often than not because of this effect. Golfers, on the other hand, need to play the course and beat the field -- despite Tiger's greatness, Sunday's outcome was largely out of his control.
Second, Tiger is dominant in all aspects of the game. Federer has merely mastered two surfaces, as he has been outclassed by Rafael Nadal on clay.
Third, compare their girlfriends -- it's not even close.
Last of all, but perhaps most importantly, the competition is better in golf than tennis. Dominance is relative to the next best player.
Today, there are more great golfers than great tennis players. The fact that Tiger trumps better competition makes him all the more dominant.
Federer might surpass Sampras's records, but he'll have done it against very few quality foes. And unless Andy Roddick finds his mojo or Jeff Schechtman '08 goes pro, that won't change anytime soon. Tiger, on the other hand, has had a number of great players both try and fail to dethrone him as the world's greatest golfer. Zach Johnson was forced to perform at an incredible level to snag his first major championship. His victory should serve to demonstrate how impressive Tiger's extended dominance in the sport has been.
Fortunately, we live in a world big enough for both Batman and Superman, shrub and ship, Jessica Alba and Jessica Simpson, the Yankees and the Mets (even though the world would be better off without the latter) and even Scrubs and Grey's Anatomy.
And in a scientific study conducted by Dr. John Dorian, the world is even large enough for two dominant athletes. In fact, from what I've heard, Tiger's yacht is even up to the task, as the friends recently enjoyed a night out on the water together. Naturally, all this leads to Toe-to-Toe's next debate: what's bigger, Tiger's yacht or the world?
