Woods vs Federer

Woods vs Federer

An argument that I was having with a co-worker (and one that I have heard a few times)- is that of just who is more dominant in their respective sport- Tiger Woods or Roger Federer. I really can't make up my mind as to what side of the argument I am on, and can see extremely valid points from both sides. But in my honest opinion, I reallydon't think that the two players/sports can be compared.

Both are the very best in their chosen sports. Play safe - a Score draw!

Yeah that is my call too- but if forced  to decide between the two... 

This is actually not an uncommon argument, ESPN comes up with a feature every time there's golf/tennis major on.

Tiger usually wins on the ESPN, but I reckon it's mainly because they think Federer is boring. Personally, I think you could easily switch sides in the argument depending on who's doing better or featuring more prominently at any given time, and when both of them end up being recognised as the best ever in their respective sports in X number of years from now, we'll still be debating the same question...

toby youve heard my opinion on this before. woods because in reality he has better competition than federer. apart from nadal on clay it seems to me that there isnt much else around, give djokovic a year or two maybe. while woods has els, singh, mikelson and som other quality he has had to compete with. and federer still has tht one problem, he cant win on clay. so woods for me. and i think federer is boring

Seems to me this arguement has to come down to marketability, dollars on the table. I'm not 100% sure who earns more a year but I'd say it'd be Woods?

Kinda ironic these two champions are close personal friends and also sponsored by Nike

s2art2008-01-19 13:04:05

Interesting argument as literally, Federer is dominating mens tennis by almost winning every major not played on clay whereas Tiger doesn't win every golf tournament he enters.