Who is more dominant - Roger or Tiger?

The question of current ‘Dominance’ in sport that is often raised (that is, whether Roger Federer or Tiger Woods is the more dominant player), depends a bit on the exact form of the question. One often posed is - "Which is the more dominant athlete of the day?" – which has to go hands down to Roger Federer, since the athletic demands of golf are simply no match for those of pro tennis.

However, if it is the wider question, "Who is more dominant in their game?" - that is, athleticism aside, just who dominates their chosen endeavour more - then it is much closer.

The oft-made point about direct competition in a typical golf field being larger is a valid point in Tiger's favour - but balancing that is the fact that he does not usually have to go face-to-face with any of those competitors - a golfer is really only competing against the course. You can practice your tennis strokes to perfection - but if the opponent on the other side of the net finds a way to nullify your preferred shot you are in trouble. Basically the level of interaction, and therefore competition, in a tennis match is an order of magnitude above that of a game like golf.

Also, as often noted, there are vastly more tennis players worldwide than golf players, meaning it is harder to rise above the whole competitive field. The other top tennis players are actually great exponents - the gap to Federer is created by his level of excellence, not by the other players' short-comings. Though this is balanced somewhat in Tiger's favour by golf being a considerably easier game - making golf harder to dominate since the field will tend to be naturally more level. (Anyone who thinks Tiger would fare better than Roger if they swapped sports obviously has little idea just how enormously difficult top-level tennis is, compared to even relatively difficult pursuits like golf!)

Yet, the bottom line in a 'dominance' question really depends on how their peers view them. Top golfers seeing Tiger in a draw probably think something like, "Well he's the favourite, but if I play well I've still got a reasonable chance of winning the tournament..." While many tennis players these days probably think along the lines of, "Oh, Federer's in my part of the draw. If I play the match of my life I might get a set off him. If he sprains an ankle I might even have a chance in the tournament..." :-)

So the nod goes to Roger for the wider question too...

But if we are talking 'anyone' for dominance then these two do not even come close - as do not many of the other greats typically suggested, such as Jordon and Gretzky – talented as they all are. Since in terms of total domination of their chosen sport there is only one real contender – Heather McKay for squash. I don’t care much for squash, but anyone who really knows their sporting history should know that for totally dominating your peers, Heather is untouchable. Records come and go – some of the current sporting records will be broken soon, some will last for many years – but few will have the lasting power of Heather’s career (in fact since she was basically unbeatable, her record may possibly never be bettered in any competitive sport…)

Cheers,
David C.