Tiger or Fed: Who Dominates More According to SI
Thought the below excerpt from today's Sports Illustrated online gave an interesting perspective and makes for a compelling arguement:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Roger Federer and Tiger Woods both notching impressive victories over the weekend, the natural question arises -- Who is more dominant? My answer: It depends. If we rely on the straightforward, dictionary definition of "dominant," Federer is your man. After winning six of the past seven Grand Slams, you'd have to give Federer at least an 85-90 percent chance of winning any non-French Open major that started tomorrow. Even the mighty Tiger would be, perhaps, a 50/50 choice. By that measure, Federer's iron grip over his sport (including a 36-match winning streak) is clearly greater than Woods'.
Yet when placed against the context of their sports, Tiger's triumphs are slightly more incredible. Tennis is a one-on-one contest, like boxing, in which a competitor can directly affect (and dominate) his opponent. If Federer is on his game, he can hit the ball where his opponent can do nothing with it. If Federer plays well, his opponent's chance to perform well is directly diminished. There's a reason why tennis (and boxing) lend themselves to long winning streaks and stretches of sheer dominance. Five tennis players, two men and three women, have won the Grand Slam a total of six times, as recently as Steffi Graf in 1988. In addition, nine men have won three of the four Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year a total of 11 times; eight women have turned that trick a total of 17 times.
In golf, on the other hand, all players compete against the course. If Tiger hits a terrific shot, for example, it doesn't simultaneously knock his nearest pursuer's ball into the rough. It might not seem it from the way his rivals often shrink when he's on the leaderboard, but Tiger can't directly impact his competitors' performance. There's a reason that golf's Grand Slam has been won just once, in 1930 by Bobby Jones, and that included two amateur titles. Only twice has a golfer won three of the four professional majors in the same calendar year -- Ben Hogan in 1953 and Woods in 2000. Golf, unlike tennis, simply does not lend itself to dominance. Against this context, the fact that Woods has won 11 of the past 29 majors (37.9 percent) he has played trumps Federer's admittedly awe-inspiring run of 10 majors in his last 15 tries (66.7 percent).
Thought the below excerpt from today's Sports Illustrated online gave an interesting perspective and makes for a compelling arguement:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Roger Federer and Tiger Woods both notching impressive victories over the weekend, the natural question arises -- Who is more dominant? My answer: It depends. If we rely on the straightforward, dictionary definition of "dominant," Federer is your man. After winning six of the past seven Grand Slams, you'd have to give Federer at least an 85-90 percent chance of winning any non-French Open major that started tomorrow. Even the mighty Tiger would be, perhaps, a 50/50 choice. By that measure, Federer's iron grip over his sport (including a 36-match winning streak) is clearly greater than Woods'.
Yet when placed against the context of their sports, Tiger's triumphs are slightly more incredible. Tennis is a one-on-one contest, like boxing, in which a competitor can directly affect (and dominate) his opponent. If Federer is on his game, he can hit the ball where his opponent can do nothing with it. If Federer plays well, his opponent's chance to perform well is directly diminished. There's a reason why tennis (and boxing) lend themselves to long winning streaks and stretches of sheer dominance. Five tennis players, two men and three women, have won the Grand Slam a total of six times, as recently as Steffi Graf in 1988. In addition, nine men have won three of the four Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year a total of 11 times; eight women have turned that trick a total of 17 times.
In golf, on the other hand, all players compete against the course. If Tiger hits a terrific shot, for example, it doesn't simultaneously knock his nearest pursuer's ball into the rough. It might not seem it from the way his rivals often shrink when he's on the leaderboard, but Tiger can't directly impact his competitors' performance. There's a reason that golf's Grand Slam has been won just once, in 1930 by Bobby Jones, and that included two amateur titles. Only twice has a golfer won three of the four professional majors in the same calendar year -- Ben Hogan in 1953 and Woods in 2000. Golf, unlike tennis, simply does not lend itself to dominance. Against this context, the fact that Woods has won 11 of the past 29 majors (37.9 percent) he has played trumps Federer's admittedly awe-inspiring run of 10 majors in his last 15 tries (66.7 percent).
Last edited:
