[Mulletsoldier]

Both are incredibly gifted athletes, and the most dominant players in their sport in quite some time. Both are on a path for unparalleled achievement in their respective field, and could be anointed the 'best ever' before the end of their careers; I think, though, this begs the question of who is relatively more dominant. Some will say this is apples to oranges, but I think certain legitimate comparisons can be drawn.

Mark Philippoussis - 0 Grand Slams
Marat Safin - 2 Grand Slams
Andy Roddick (3) - 1 Grand Slam
Lleyton Hewitt - 2 Grand Slams
Andre Agassi - 8 Grand Slams
Marcos Baghdatis - 0 Grand Slams
Nadal (2) - 3 Grand Slams
Fernando González - 0 Grand Slams
Novak Đoković - 1 Grand Slam

Total number of major wins by opponents: 17

Woods:

Tom Kite - 1 Major
Sergio Garcia - 0 Majors
Ernie Els (2) - 3 Majors/ Miguel Ángel Jiménez - 0 Majors
Thomas Bjorn - 0 Majors
Bob May - 0 Majors
David Duval - 1 Major
Reteif Goosen - 2 Majors
Phil Mickelson - 3 Majors
Chris DiMarco (2) - 0 Majors
Colin Montgomerie - 0 Majors
Shaun Michael - 1 Major
Woody Austin - 0 Majors

Total number of major wins by Runner-Up: 10

Seems like an easy case, does it not? Tiger's Runners-Up only had 10 major wins, whilst Roger's had 17. Except for one issue - the amount of players in the field. At most Federer played 6 matches for his Grand Slams (at times he had a bye) against a total field of a maximum of 60 athletes; while Tiger, on the other hand, plays 4 rounds, regardless, against a field of up to 140 players.

Furthermore, if the top competition is in a particular tournament, he plays against them regardless. They play the same holes, in the same conditions, in real time. Federer, on the other hand, may play very low-ranked players and/or receive a bye into later rounds. If you were to examine the amount of major wins for the entire field for each (obviously make it relative based on total particpants), Tiger faces far tougher competition.

Next, is the issue of Career Grand Slams; Roger is yet to have one. Woods' first round of professional golf was in 1996. In 2001 he won the U.S. Open to hold all four major championships at the same time, no less at age 24. Roger Federer is 26.

The last point, which may be the most important, is the greater degree of relativity in golf vs. tennis. It is harder to compare Federer to a Macenroe, or Bjorg, or Sampras because of their competition; the fields in their day could have been greater or weaker as compared to Roger's. A 61 in golf however, is a 61. It is much easier to look at Tiger's scoring statistics relative to Palmer's and Nicklaus' scoring statistics and see his greatness.

When you examine Tiger's scoring stats., to Roger's, in relative fashion compared to the all-time greats, there is no question.

In my eye's there is no comparison. But, I am not a Tennis expert. Any alternate opinions?

[Alexander]

I'll add much more later, but over the last 4 years their is really no question that Federer has been much more dominant. Tiger will tell you that himself and he's not bullsh*tting either. Tiger has been dominant for the last 10 years, while Federer's only been dominant for about 4-5. I'll be back with more.

[Mulletsoldier]

Nice cop out, Alex. Kind of like your DL cop-out.



Either way, mathematically, there is no comparison. I'm pretty skeptical you will find anything I can't counter.

He said that out of humility, he's not going to be a ****. He isn't Jas.

[VolcomX311]

Damn, it took me a minute to figure out this was about tennis. I thought the title said FEDOR vs WOODS.

I was like, Grand slams? wtf?!?

I was a click away from searching YouTube for Woods fights... sorry about the retardation.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

Nice cop out, Alex. Kind of like your DL cop-out.



Either way, mathematically, there is no comparison. I'm pretty skeptical you will find anything I can't counter.

He said that out of humility, he's not going to be a ****. He isn't Jas.

Yeah, I figured their was a possibility that I wouldn't hit 650+, so I said **** it and jumped from 25 feet onto concrete with my eyes closed.

Anything you can't counter? Does that mean that you think Woods has been more dominant over the last 5 years? I really don't think he said that out of humility. He said that he would have to place top 10 in every tourny he entered to be in the same league with Federer, and that aint happening. This was Federer's biggest letdown for some time, losing in the semi's of the Aussie.

Did you watch the final? I was rooting for Tsonga. Storkavic bothers me. I know that's not his name, but that's what I call him because he looks like a retarded stork, him and his little mini stork brothers. I'll be back in 5 to destroy you Mullet.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by VolcomX311

Damn, it took me a minute to figure out this was about tennis. I thought the title said FEDOR vs WOODS.

I was like, Grand slams? wtf?!?

I was a click away from searching YouTube for Woods fights... sorry about the retardation.

Retardation, happens to the best of us, except the almighty pretentious one, Sir Mullet!

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by Alexander

Yeah, I figured their was a possibility that I wouldn't hit 650+, so I said **** it and jumped from 25 feet onto concrete with my eyes closed.

Anything you can't counter? Does that mean that you think Woods has been more dominant over the last 5 years? I really don't think he said that out of humility. He said that he would have to place top 10 in every tourny he entered to be in the same league with Federer, and that aint happening. This was Federer's biggest letdown for some time, losing in the semi's of the Aussie.

Did you watch the final? I was rooting for Tsonga. Storkavic bothers me. I know that's not his name, but that's what I call him because he looks like a retarded stork, him and his little mini stork brothers. I'll be back in 5 to destroy you Mullet.

You're right, I can't relate to the injury thing. A sprained/broken ankle is pretty serious.



I'm looking career wise. Woods has done things in his first 7-8 years that Federer has not yet accomplished.

Tell me, how many times has Federer won each of the four Grand Slam titles? Wait, that's right, he hasn't won all of them, let alone all in the same calendar year.

Btw, Federer has been a pro almost as long as Tiger. He turned when he was 18. Fact is, there is absolutely no comparison to Tiger's immediate dominance. He won the Masters within the first 9 months on the tour

EDIT:

Fixed his age. I was wrong.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

You're right, I can't relate to the injury thing. A sprained/broken ankle is pretty serious.



I'm looking career wise. Woods has done things in his first 7-8 years that Federer has not yet accomplished.

Tell me, how many times has Federer won each of the four Grand Slam titles? Wait, that's right, he hasn't won all of them, let alone all in the same calendar year.

Btw, Federer has been a pro almost as long as Tiger. He turned when he was 18. Fact is, there is absolutely no comparison to Tiger's immediate dominance. He won the Masters within the first 9 months on the tour

EDIT:

Fixed his age. I was wrong.

I am a tremendous b*tch, I'll give you that. I've really never been injured so it's a big deal to me. It's not sprained it's broken, not only broken but completely seperated. It's not like I'm in a walking cast and only have a few weeks of mild annoyances. I go tomorrow to see if I will have to have a bolt put in there and that will put me out for quite some time. I really am not even supposed to get out of bed during this time, but I pogo around like a retard. Crutches are pointless unless I'm going somewhere far. I know your sh*t was 100x more serious, but I'm still gonna *****. I would like to know what you went through during re-hab and what not, mentally more than anything.

I like the setup of Federer losing in the semi's at the aussie. Look for him to capture his first French in a few months.

Federer was a head case when he first became a pro. That's his fault and he should suffer for it. It really is amazing how calm and level headed he is now. He used to throw his racket and get very frustrated. Then, I think in 02 he completely changed, to the ice cold assassin that he is now. Do I never lose if I keep saying I'll be back in 5 min?

[Mulletsoldier]

Here is a quick, summation of why Tiger is more dominant:

1) Courses change and adapt as players get better. Wimbeldon is Wimbeldon, Roland-Garros is Roland-Garros. Plain and simple.

2) Federer, at most, plays 6 matches to win a tournament. I.e., he only ever has to directly compete against 6 other comparable athletes, which, for his first matches are incredibly low-ranked or unranked players. Tiger, from the first hole, plays the best.

3) Repeat the above point, because the comparison should end there. Directly playing 140 opponents, or 6 opponents, which poses more threat to lose?

3) What Federer is doing now Tiger already did in 2000.

4) Competition. Tiger plays against other golfers who have the ability to dominate the rest of the field on a given tournament as well; Roger does not. Can you name, with any believability, Tennis players that Roger faces who are relatively as good as Vijay, Phil, Reteif and Ernie (pre-knee surgery [Nadal not included])?

5) As I said, it is mathematics (this is for the Prick). In the U.S. Tennis Open, there are 144 players to begin the Tournament. In order to win, Roger must defeat 7 opponents directly. He did not face a ranked opponent until the Quarter Finals. From the opening shot of the tournament, Tiger Woods is directly competing with every person in the field.

6) Rivalry. The one decent competition Federer has is Rafael Nadal. Nadal owned Federer in 2006, holding a 4-2 edge. The same simply cannot be stated for Vijay and Phil. This point displays perfectly how, while impressive, Federer's accomplishment are much more resultant of horribly competition (the state of the Men's game is pathetic, and you know that) than his sheer dominance; the same is not true for Tiger.

In words which are not mine, I found a few Mathematic formulas which I found interesting:

The average tennis star has a 1 in 2 chance of winning a match. The average golfer has a 1 in 156 chance of winning a golf tournament. So which is more improbable, a tennis player winning 36 straight matches, or a golfer winning 7 straight golf tournaments?

Which is less, 1/2 raised to the 36th power, or 1/156 raised to the 7th power. Most people couldn’t estimate either one of those in their head.

The mathematical answer is that it is 10,320 times more difficult for the average golfer to win 7 straight golf tourneys than it is for the average tennis player to win 36 straight. (1 in 2.2 Quadrillion to 1 in 69 Billion). Federer would have to extend his streak to 51 matches to equal the improbability of Tiger Woods’ feat.

If Tiger wins again, then Federer would have to extend to 58 matches. If Tiger matches Byron Nelson’s 11 tourneys in a row, then 80 matches for Federer would be comparable.

Thanks.

The Match to Tournament comparison is too underwhelming, I will admit that. Even extending the chances to 1/7, it is absolutely no comparison to what Tiger faces, even with the cut line.

1 Introduction

In this article, we set to resolve the issue of who is more dominant, Tiger Woods or Roger Federer. The article is broken up into 3 sections. In section 2, we will come up with a universal quantifiable definition of ”dominant” regardless of sport. Then we will show that Woods’s dominant number is higher than Federer’s. Then we will conclude.

2 What does it mean to be dominant?

Every sports competition has a number of competitors. Every sports competitor has opponents. The relationship between the ratio of victories to attempts and the number of competitors determines a dominance factor:

Notation: Given Athlete A,
1. Let O be the number of opponents that A needs to defeat in order to win a competition in that particular sport.

2. Let V be the number of victories by A.

3. Let C be the total number of competitions A entered.

Finally, let WA represent the winning percentage of A, in other words,
WA = V/C

Definition: The Dominance Factor for A, denoted by DA, is
DA = (WA) 1/0

2.1 Example:

Suppose athlete A wins 70 percent of her competitions when facing three opponents in order to win. The Dominance Factor of this athlete is a measure of how often she beats her competitors on average. Let’s label how often she beats her opponents as x. If A faces
her opponents independently, then the chance of her beating them consecutively is x^3. But since we know that she wins 70 percent of her contests on average, then we know that she beats three of her opponents consecutively 70 percent of the time. This means that x
should solve x3 = .70 or x = .70 (1/3) ≈ . 8879

This means that player A defeats her opponents roughly 89 percent of the time on average. That is her Dominance Factor.

1. It is important to note that the calculation of the dominance factor is independent of sport.

2. We can view Tiger Woods facing his competition individually as independent events given that he has to beat every single person’s score to win and he has no direct calculable effect on his opponents’ score.

Definition: Player A is more dominant than player B if and only if DA > DB

3 Tiger Woods is More Dominant than Roger Federer

To make the point clearer, we will take Roger Federer’s most successful years (2004-2006) and compare its dominance to Tiger Woods’ success over his entire ten year career.

Let DT be Tiger Woods’ Dominance Factor and let DR be Roger Federer’s Dominance Factor.


From 2004-2006, Roger Federer won 70.8 (34/48) percent of the tournaments he played defeating at most 6 opponents each time (sometimes he gets a bye). (Source: ATPtennis.com, The official site for men's professional tennis!)

From 1996-2006 Tiger Woods has won 26 percent (52/200) of the stroke play tournaments he has played defeating an average at least 100 players each time (full fields have 140, exclusive fields (like Word Golf Championships Events have 70). (Source: PGATOUR.com - The Official Site of the PGA TOUR)

Thus, DT = (.26)1/100 ≈ . 9866 and DF = (.708)1/6 ≈ . 9441.

Honourable Judge, esteemed Jury, the Defense rests.

[Alexander]

Thank god those words aren't yours, in the first quote. I don't like how that person states his comparisons as if they are the end all be all, what a joke. Does he even know that in Tennis at a grandslam their are 128 participants, and that to win the tournament you have to win 7 times in head to head matches 4 of which you are likely to be playing top 20 guys in the world. Imagine if Tiger had to play head to head 7 times against Ernie, Vijay, Phil, Sergio, and 3 other bamas. Good chance he would lose every once in awhile.

Their is no way to truely settle this, but I think it's safe to say that Tiger has had a more dominant career thus far, and Federer has been more dominant over the last 4 years. Agree, Disagree?

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by Alexander

Thank god those words aren't yours, in the first quote. I don't like how that person states his comparisons as if they are the end all be all, what a joke. Does he even know that in Tennis at a grandslam their are 128 participants, and that to win the tournament you have to win 7 times in head to head matches 4 of which you are likely to be playing top 20 guys in the world. Imagine if Tiger had to play head to head 7 times against Ernie, Vijay, Phil, Sergio, and 3 other bamas. Good chance he would lose every once in awhile.

Their is no way to truely settle this, but I think it's safe to say that Tiger has had a more dominant career thus far, and Federer has been more dominant over the last 4 years. Agree, Disagree?

There are 128 participants, but that's not what the person said. Roger faces at most 7 opponents directly; Tiger faces 140 directly. So, Tiger's chances of winning are 1/140 and Roger's are 1/7; an equation based off the amount of opponents who they directly face.

EDIT: Can you imagine if Tiger didn't have to play a ranked golfer until a Friday or Saturday?

That's a brutal point on your part though, as I said. Look above, in the 2007 U.S. Open Federer didn't face a ranked opponent until the Quarter Finals!!! And Vijay, Phil, Ernie do face Tiger head-to-head, every tournament they play in. That's the point.

But yeah, I could agree to that comparison.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

There are 128 participants, but that's not what the person said. Roger faces at most 7 opponents directly; Tiger faces 140 directly. So, Tiger's chances of winning are 1/140 and Roger's are 1/7; an equation based off the amount of opponents who they directly face.

EDIT: Can you imagine if Tiger didn't have to play a ranked golfer until a Friday or Saturday?

That's a brutal point on your part though, as I said. Look above, in the 2007 U.S. Open Federer didn't face a ranked opponent until the Quarter Finals!!! And Vijay, Phil, Ernie do face Tiger head-to-head, every tournament they play in. That's the point.

But yeah, I could agree to that comparison.

Then comes the argument of how "directly" they're facing their opponents. Tiger is facing a golf course, but no one in a head to head match-up. It's just impossible to draw up a fair comparison. Try comparing a boxer/fighter to a golf player as far as dominance in a career. It becomes even more impossible to create a fair comparison.