Question: Whose 14 major titles are more impressive, Tiger Woods' or Roger Federer's?

Fred Robledo! Where are all the TIGER CHEERLEADERS?

Tom Watson Leads the British Open! Roger Federer would never lose to guys that are eligible for SOCAIL-SECURITY! Tiger you should be ashamed of yourself! WHAT A JOKE!

Here is a story that should be in the sports pages! THE REALITY OF ROGER vs. THE PATRIOTIC HYPE OF TIGER! Golfers! Imagine Tiger wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th major! How dominant would that be? It's true, but it's not Tiger who did it but his buddy ROGER FEDERER! Former ATP record holder PETE SAMPRAS won his first major at age 19 and 49 majors later at the age of 31 had his record 14th major. So Pete = 14/49 majors since he won his first. Mr. Roger Federer won his first major at age 21 and 25 majors later had a A NEW ATP RECORD 15 majors at the age of 27! So Roger = 15/25 majors ever since he won his first! That's like Tiger wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack to win his record 18th! You ask how about Tiger? Tiger also like Roger won his first major at the age of 21 and 50 majors later at the age of 33 has 14 majors. So Tiger = 14/50, Pete = 14/49, and Roger = 15/25 majors ever since they won there first major and is - THE ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER IN HIS SPORT! Can any of you TIGER CHEERLEADERS spot the person who STANDS OUT? NO! Roger doesn't have a unique first name that the sportsworld recognizes like Tiger or a golf last name like Woods. NO! Roger is not African American and doesn't stick out like a Black Sheep, but SO WHAT! Now Sportswriters don't you think a sports article like THE REALITY OF ROGER vs. THE PATRIOTIC HYPE OF TIGER would be great for the sportsworld to read THE TRUTH about who is really THE KING OF MAJORS? Finally, Tiger will never win his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th, because that time has come and gone and as far as you TIGER CHEERLEADERS that say Tiger will eventually pass Jack and get 19 majors! I say to all those PATRIOTIC TIGER CHEERLEADERS how many majors do you think Mr. ROGER FEDERER will have by then?

TIGER CHEERLEADERS! Tiger vs. Roger is not Apples & Oranges, but for the TIGER CHEERLEADERS it's SOUR GRAPES! You Golfers say you have to play the ENTIRE FIELD? All you guys can't even take on 1 tennis player and defend your hero Tiger. FEDERERE #1 AND IS THE ALL TIME MAJORS LEADERS IN HIS SPORT! NO! Can't say that about Tiger.

Like the Caveman from Geico insurance said WHAT? That makes as much sense as saying how much time did you waste by reading this! Finally, TIGER CHEERLEADERS remember this Wherever you go! There you are! WHAT?

Andre do you ever have conversations where the original theme or subject morphs into other topics thereby expanding your knowledge of said topic. Dude you're a little overboard. Comparative analysis and critical thinking skills would allow for other subjects to be introduced to highlight and illustrate commonality and nuances that would help the discussion along. Don't practice myopia with a mirror, you could lose your mind. I'll just say you been right from the beginning and all the other comments were a waste of your time and ours. Satisfied?

TIGER CHEERLEADERS! I thought this was a TIGER vs. Roger Debate? Why are we trying to change the subject to a Magic vs. MJ debate? I don't think I know enough to comment about Magic vs. jordan, but I will say this! Both are great players and when you have a guy like Scottie Pippin on your team and a coach like Phil Jackson that is a hard combination to beat! I would have to go with Michael Jordan and the Bulls! Although Magic & Michael never had to play the whole field like Tiger, they only had to play against a team of 5! Does that mean that Tiger is more dominant than Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson? Furthermore, Boxer Sugar Ray Robinson, and Muhamad Ali only like Roger Federer had to take on one guy at a time does that mean that Tiger is more dominant than those 2 boxers because Tiger has to play against the whole field or is it because Tiger only has to worry about 1 thing which is the best score over the 4 rounds? Finally Poker Texas Hold em on the World Poker Tour has a lot bigger field than PGA Golf! Does that mean that Poker Athletes like Doyle Brunson, Scotty Nguyen, and Phil Hellmouth are better because there are more people on that tour? Finally, I will say this! Tiger Woods has something that Roger Federer doesn't. Tiger has ALL OF YOU! THE PATRIOTIC TIGER CHEERLEADERS! Oh Ya! Since Phil Mickelson is not playing in the British Open, if Tiger wins should it count?

Andre name Roger's top six competitors and their accomplishments.

Now name Tiger's top six competitors and their accomplishments.

Just to put a spin on things Andre I still believe Roger is better and his record is more impressive but like Jordan's Championship vs Magic's it's hard to remember any dominant center the Bulls had to contend with while Magic's teams faced complete teams with deep benches. During Jordan's run most teams didn't have a good center much less a pretty good center and as we all know big men dominate.

So Andre who's run is more impressive...Magic's 9 finals in 13 years or Jordan's six Championships in six tries?

TIGER vs. ROGER = APPLES vs. ORANGES? OK! This is for those who can't talk about Tiger like I can talk about Roger so now they are trying to make some FRUIT SALAD! 1st, let's talk about the 2 biggest Appples in Tennis which would be (Sampras vs. Federer). Sampras won his first major at the age of 19 and 49 majors later at the age of 31 he got his record 14th but with no career grand slam. Federer won his first major at the age of 21 and 25 majors later got his record 15th major at the age of 27. So comparing (Apples to apples) (Sampras = 14/49 & Federer = 15/25) in majors. So ever since they won there first major to the last the wining percentage for majors for Sampras = 28.5% & Federer = 60%. and Federer does have the career grand slam. So Federer has a wining percentage in major which right now is 2X better than Sampras and won his 15th major in 1/2 the time it took Sampras to win his 14th. Now tell me which is the BETTER APPLE? Now let's talk abou the 2 biggest Oranges! (Woods vs. Nicklaus) Tiger won his first major like at age 21 like Federer and 50 majors later at the age of 33 has 14 majors! So Tiger = 14/49 majors from his first major win to his last. That's a wining percentage for woods = 28%. So as you can see Sampras and Woods are wining majors almost at the exact percentage and pace. So if you take the Big apple roger relevant to the next biggest apple Pete, Roger won his record 15 majors with the career grand slam in 1/2 the time that apple Pete won his previous record of 14 and Pete had no career grand Slam. That's like Orange woods wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Big orange jack to win his record 18th! So as you can see, whether you compare Apples to apples or Apples to Oranges or how much more dominant Roger was over Pete compared to Tiger might be over Jack, Tiger is not gonna get his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack to get his record 18th. That time has come and GONE already. Finally, Roger is the ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER in his sport and has more majors than TIGER! even though Roger won his first major 6 years and 25 majors after Tiger won his first! You TIGER CHEERLEADERS need to accept the FACT that Roger DOMINATES his sport of tennis MORE THAN Tiger dominates his sport of Golf. Instead of giving Roger his due credit you PUT DOWN his competition. I can tell you that Tiger's closest competition Phil mickelson is no where close to the competitor that Roger's closest competition Rafael Nadel is. Furthermore, the only thing golfer's play against is the TOP SCORE! THAT'S IT. Now that in 2009 Tiger FAILED to win the U.S. Open for the 2nd year in a row, watch Tiger as he watches Federer in envy try to win his U.S. Open for a record 6th year in a row and try to capture a new record of 16 MAJORS! Any of you TIGER CHEERLEADERS want to make a bet on who will win more majors this year Tiger Woods or Roger Federer. I will take Federer! Now tell me Tiger Woods dominates Golf more than Roger Federer dominates Tennis? If Roger had a name like Cheetah Ace and was African American like Tiger and if Tiger had the name Roger Federer age 33 from Switzerland, WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION on who is more DOMIANT or IMPRESSIVE!

Andre,
You make some valid points, but you missed by point when I said that when you judge how deep a competitive field is you do it by looking at the low end, not the top end, which is what you are doing by using how 'the other' A-Rod performed against Federer. It's like when you compare how deep a conference is in in college football. You look at the bottom feeders. Like if you were going to compare the Pac-10 with the SEC. At the top, the Pac-10, with USC, Oregon and Cal, match up with the SEC, with LSU, Alabama and Florida. But the bottom of the SEC, with Mississippi, Vandy are much stronger than Washington and Washington State, so it's easy to say the SEC is stronger. It's that way, I believe, in comparing golf to tennis right now. And in a major like Wimbledon, Federer could probably be injured and still win his first three rounds. What it really comes down to is that there is no way Roger could lose to the No. 30th-ranked player, where the No. 30th guy in golf is capable of outscoring Tiger in a given tournament. Golf's history is full of guys who have come from nowhere to win a big tournament. You have referenced John Daily, but remember we only know of him because he came from nowhere to win the PGA. I can't recall the last time an unknown who was ranked in the top 100 in tennis came on to win a major. I can recall unknowns making it to the finals in the 70s and 80s, but no one recently, at least not in the big two - Wimbledon and the U.S. Open...another point in tennis, is one made by Jim Courier in a radio interview about a week ago. He said Borg, who won 11 majors in his career, rarely went to the Australian Open, because, while it was a grand slam event, it just wasn't a big deal as late as the 1970s. If he had, he might have 20 or so major wins to his credit. I think Roger is better than Sampras, but I might take Borg over him, with both in their prime.
Get back to me in about three years, if Roger Federer has about 20 major wins (likely) and Tiger is still stuck on 14, well, it's obvious who is better in his sport. But right now, I view it as a wash.

Steve! FAIR ENOUGH, but if you do decide to join the PATRIOTIC TIGER CHEERLEADING SQUAD instead of going with Mr. Federer I got some good advice for you. #1 Don't be late for Cheerleading Practice. #2 Keep your cheerleading outfit clean because you'll never know when your gonna be called. and Finally, Don't buy your POM-POMS! Fred has extras just tell him I said to give you a pair. Oh Ya! when you say Apples & Oranges I would say this! You can compare Apples to apples & Oranges to oranges by comparing (Pete Sampras to Roger Federer) & (Tiger Woods to Jack Nicklaus) Right? So let me say that Pete won his first major at age 19 and 49 majors later at the age of 31 he had his record 14th. Roger Federer won his first major at ae 21 and 25 majors later at age 27 has 15 majors and the all time majors record in his sport. Tiger won his first major also age age 21 like Roger and 50 majors later has 14. So LOOK! Apples to Apples and compare Pete to Roger. Pete = 14/49 Roger = 15/25 majors and Roger is not done. Roger won his 15 majors in 1/2 the time it took Pete to win his 14 majors. How's that for Apples to apples comparison? Now let's go Orange to oranges and compare tiger relevent to Jack! Tiger is 14/50 majors so far ever since he won his first so as you can see both Pete Sampras and Tiger woods are wining majors at about the same rate. Now if you compare that to Jack that would mean that Tiger would have to win 19 majors in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th. Are you with me so far Steve? People say Tiger will eventually pass Jack and get his 19th major. I say how many more majors do you think Roger will have at that time? As far as Roger having no competition? You would have to go to another planet to get better competition because these are the best in the world. Steve didn't you see or hear about the Wimbledon finals? Now tell me that was no competition! That could have went for Roddick! Fred even says that Roger is 7-13 against Nadel right? So isn't he contradicting himself when he says Roger has no competition? What Fred doesn't understand is that even though Roger has a losing record against Nadel, Nadel will lose to other people like Soderling that Roger will not. Finally, what Sportswriters and the average fan doesn't understand is that Nadel Plays with such intensity, that his career will probaly be a short one because of it. You can't play tennis like Nadel and have a long career! If you played OPEN TOURNAMENTS you would understand why! That is another reason which makes Roger great! He is smoothe, efficient, and his style will allow him to have a long career. I could give you more facts, stats, and records that Roger has but am getting tired of typing so let me concluse by saying this! You watched Tiger FAIL to win his 2nd U.S. Open in a row, now you might want to watch Roger Federer try to win his 6th U.S. Open in a row! I bet TIGER will be watching in ENVY!

Andre,
My point was that what Force - a decade of championships - has not been matched, meaning his accomplishment is the best. But to answer your question, to me it's a wash, because these two sports are so different in how you pick a champion, it's the old apple-to-oranges theory. By pure percentages, as you have pointed out, Federer's is better. As you also pointed out, Federer has won one more major than Tiger and in less time. But the question is the competition, and it's hard to determine which has less. Tiger does have the advantage that he can struggle early and still comeback and win, while tennis a one and done. But for Tiger, it also depends who he is chasing. If he goes out and shoots a 75 in the first round, and if 10 other guys shoot between 60-63, he's not going to catch and pass them all. It's like being five games behind a total of six teams in the MLB wild-car race going into September. A couple may fold, but not all five. Also in tennis, a top-seeded player is facing guys in the early rounds he can play his worst against and still beat, easily, even in they are playing their best. The tournament for top seeded players doesn't really begin until round four, maybe round three in others. Remember, measuring the strength of a division, league, or in this case, a tournament is done by examing the bottom third, not the top, and I believe the talent level of the top 100 in golf is tighter than the top 100 in tennis. Also in tennis, they play on the same courts at a particular major that they've have played before. If you've been to Wimbledon for six consecutive years, you know every nook and cranny, how the ball bounces off the surface, etc.. But sans the Masters, which is always at Augusta, the other majors in golf are on different courses, which kind of narrows a veteran's advantage, so to me that's a plus for Tiger, since he's been able to win despite having to figure out the nuances of a particular course.
But I will say the more majors Federer wins without Tiger winning a major in golf, swings the door towards RF. But right now, I would call it a wash.

Steve Ramirez! OK! Force must be a force, but there are a lot of great athletes out there that people don't recognize my point is that the SUBJECT is about Tiger and Roger! Why do we compare them? It's because they both play in #1 sports that have 4 majors a year. #2 Both sports are non contact. #3 Both are country club sports. #4 Both won there first major at age 21. Both are sponsored by NIKE. Bothe are 6'1'' tall. Both are good friends. Finally, Steve I guess both you and I are friends with Fred so now that you have heard some of my comments, what do you think? Tiger or Roger who is more dominant and impressive? Give me your pick and reason why? You already know mine!

Since when is Force retired?
He's racing this weekend in Denver, like he's been doing it all year. I only put Force's name up there, because my good bud Fred, like so many others in sports, often fail to recognize there are other sports out there with very good, and in this case dominant, competitors. I've covered John Force since 1993 and have seen his dominance first hand and in these arguments I always respond to include him. I'm not changing the subject, just saying the guys you and Fred argue are not in JF's class of dominance. Like I said, when either of them have won their sports' season championship for 10 consecutive years, then get back to me. But until then, the argument is closed!

Steve Ramirez! This debate is not about Russell and Force. Those guys are retired now and are not even in the topic of this discussion which is about Tiger & Roger 2 active athletes that compete in individual non contact country club sports which both have 4 majors a year and are dominant in both. Are you guys CLOSET TIGER CHEERLEADERS that can't write down how like I have how Mr. Federer is so much more DOMINANT than Tiger that you are ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT? Plese! read tho topic of conversation, it'a about Tiger & Roger. Say something like Tiger won his first major in 1997 at the Masters. Roger won his first major 6 years and 25 majors later in 2003 at wimbledon. Tiger is now age 33 with 14 majors and is 5 majors SHORT of the all time majors record on the PGA Tour. Roger is now age 27 with 15 majors and THE ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER IN HIS SPORT & he won his 15 majors in 1/2 the time it took both Pete Sampras and Tiger to win ther 14 majors! THOSE ARE FACTS, & THEY ARE ON SUBJECT.

Roadie,
Yes, I know Russell was a player-coach in 1968 and '69, but the Celtics streak of EIGHT consecutive titles ended after the 1966 season. The 76ers won the title in '67, and the Celtics came back to win it in '68 and '69, so either way Russell is two titles short of Force's 10 in row. And no, Force is not the crew chief, but driving a funny car is not as easy as standing on the gas. A good driver can save a run, and be the difference in winning and losing, and Force is considered the best at this craft, as well as getting the jump on the starting line. There's a reason why these guys are pros in their chosen profession - because they are very good at what the do. But this argument is all about the numbers and Force is the only individual, or team competitor to win 10 world championships in a row...period. I even went back and looked at the record book and counted 23 victories for Force in what would be regarded as the majors in drag racing. That's pretty good for a former quarterback at Bell Gardens High School.

Roadie,
Yes, I know Russell was a player-coach in 1968 and '69, but the Celtics streak of EIGHT consecutive titles ended after the 1966 season. The 76ers won the title in '67, and the Celtics came back to win it in '68 and '69, so either way Russell is two titles short of Force's 10 in row. And no, Force is not the crew chief, but driving a funny car is not as easy as standing on the gas. A good driver can save a run, and be the difference in winning and losing, and Force is considered the best at this craft, as well as getting the jump on the starting line. There's a reason why these guys are pros in their chosen profession - because they are very good at what the do. But this argument is all about the numbers and Force is the only individual, or team competitor to win 10 world championships in a row...period. I even went back and looked at the record book and counted 23 victories for Force in what would be regarded as the majors in drag racing. That's pretty good for a former quarterback at Bell Gardens High School.

2 ALL U SPORTSWRITER & TIGER CHEERLEADERS! Imagine Tiger wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th? How DOMINANT WOULD THAT BE? That's exactly what ROGER FEDERER did! Roger won his 15th major in about 1/2 the time it took former ATP record holder Pete Sampras to win his 14th. YOU WANT PROOF? OK! Pete won his first major at age 19 and 49 majors later at the age of 31 got his 14th major. ROGER FEDERER won his first major at age 21 and 25 majors later at the age of 27 got his all time ATP record 15th major! THAT'S DOMINANT! How about Tiger? Tiger like Roger won his first major at age 21 and 50 PGA majors at the age of 33 Tiger has 14 majors. So Tiger and Pete are about the same where Roger STANDS OUT ALONE! I know Roger doesn't have a unique first name like Tiger and a golf last name like Woods. Roger is not African American and doesn't stand out in the field like a Black Sheep, but SO WHAT! Finally, for thos TIGER CHEERLEADERS that say Tiger will eventually pass Jack Nicklaus and get 19 majors, I say to you how many majors do you think ROGER FEDERER will have by then? Oh Ya! I almost forget! Now that you seen Tiger FAIL to win his 2nd U.S. Open in a row you might want to watch Tiger in New York as he watches Roger try to win his 6th U.S. Open in a row which would give him 3/4 majors this year won and a new ATP record of 16 Majors! NEED I SAY ANYMORE ABOUT ROGER FEDERER? I know you TIGER CHEERLEADERS right about now are saying CAN WE BRING OUT MORE POM-POMS to TRY to minimize the DAMAGE? I say to you Ra! Ra! Ra!

Me? I don't know and I don't care. These Ali vs Louis arguments are only fun to watch, not take part in.

This guy, however, gets paid by SI for his opinion.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/07/08/federer.woods/index.html?eref=si_topstories

2 ALL U SPORTSWRITERS & TIGER CHEERLEADERS! We all know that the PGA & ATP have 4 majors a year. We all know that TIGER WOODS & ROGER FEDERER dominate those 2 sports right! Now imagine That Tiger and Roger switch sports. Tiger is now TIGER ACE not Tiger Woods and Roger Federer is stil Roger Federer but now he is a golfer on the PGA Tour! Imagine Tiger playing tennis with the last name Ace! Now imagine Tiger having the all time ATP majors record of 15 majors in 1/2 the time it took Pete Sampras to win his previous record of 14? Imagine an African American with the first name Tiger and a tennis last name like Ace breaking the all time Majors record in 1/2 the time it took Pete Sampras to get his record even though Pete never had a career grand Slam? Think about it? How much HYPE would TIGER ACE get from the American sportswriters and sportsmedia? Now imagine Tiger Ace being the only person to win 3/4 majors all in the same year 3 times, to win 2 different majors 5 years in a row, to have more majors than the rest of the field COMBINED, to have the all time majors record in 1/2 the time it took Pete Sampras to get his record 14th, and to do all this at the age of 27? Can you imagine TIGER ACE a African American doing all this at age 27? Now Imagine African American TIGER ACE in 2009 trying to win the U.S. Open for a record 6th year in a row? How much HYPE would this 27 year old African American Tiger Ace get? Now imagine a Swiss golfer name Roger Federer age 33 with 14 majors and being 5 majors away from the all time PGA record of 18 set by Jack Nicklaus? Do you think this Swiss golfer who won his first major 6 years and 25 majors earlier than African American tennis Player Tiger Ace who holds 15 majors and is the all time majors record holder in his sport gonna get the same SPORTS-HYPE as 27 year old African American TIGER ACE? Now you should be able to seperate SPORTS REALITY from PATRIOTIC SPORTS CHEERLEADING HYPE, because we should all have the ability to think! NOW SWITCH TIGER & ROGER BACK TO THERE REAL SPORTS AND NOW TELL ME THE TRUTH ABOUT TIGER vs. ROGER and who is REALLY MORE IMPRESSIVE?

Well Steve...I'll agree to disagree. The last two Championships Russel won he was the coach as well. Is Force the Crew Chief as well as the driver? Also compare the teams that Russell beat annually...Wilt, West and Baylor arguably the three greatest offensive weapons at that time and two of the three were concensus defensive greats...and yet Russell beat them time and again....that's impressive.

Force is the best Amarican driver ...but is he better than Schumacher?

Cover your flank Steve...I'm coming at you from the side!!!!

LOL...Steve you're pretty cool ! When's the next ROAD TRIP !!!

Force is well-funded, but he is well-funded because he hits the street seeking sponsors. Castrol didn't call John one day and say, 'Hey, you want $5 million bucks?' Plus, it's not aways just about the money. Yes, you need big-time money to succeed in auto racing, but you still have to make smart decisions with your money, hire the right people. Don't believe it, see the Baltimore Orioles or the Washington Redskins, who for all of Daniel Snyder's big pockets can't seem to win. Force's dominance is a combination of having the best crew chief money can buy and combining with his driving ability. I seen the guy save many of a run and still get the win, and when he really needs to get the jump on the starting line, he pulls it off.
And Russell only won eight titles in a row, not 10!

Fred J. Robledo! Answer this question! If Tiger won his 19th PGA Major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th, but had a losing record in MATCH PLAY to a PGA Golfer that had 1/3 the majors Tiger did Wouldn't you still say that Tiger is the best PGA Golfer of ALL TIME? Yes you would! so stop talking about Roger's record against Nadel. Roger beat Nadel last time they played and it was on CLAY. Furthermore, Roger now has 15 majors and is the ALL TIME majors holder in his sport. What you DON'T UNDERSTAND is that although Nadel is a great tennis player, his STRENGTH is also his WEAKNESS! What do I mean by that? The way Nadel plays is so physical and hard that it will SHORTEN his tennis career. He is already having knee problems in both knees. You can't have a long career playing the way Nadel does. Most SPORTSWRITERS like yourself can't see that. Roger plays smooth and efficient and I wouldn't be surprised if Nadel ends his career before Roger does. Finally, Roger is now #1 and before Nadel had the #1 position did you know that Roger was ill with Mono? Roger before the Mono was #1 for 4 straight years got Mono, but still kept on playing and slipt briefly to #2. Finaly, Tiger is 0-2 in majors so far this year where Roger is 2/3 and lost 1 in the finals. NOW TELL ME WHO IS PLAYING BETTER BALL?

TIGER vs. ROGER - Former ATP majors record holder Pistol PETE SAMPRAS - won his 1st ATP major at age 19. Pete won his record 14th ATP major 49 majors later at the age of 31, but Pete never won the French Open or a clay court tournament. So Pete was 14/49 majors ever since he won his first. 14/49 is a wining percentage of 28.5% Good! TIGER WOODS - won his 1st PGA major at the age of 21. Now it is 50 PGA majors later and Tiger has 14 PGA majors at the age of 33 and is 5 majors shy of having the all time PGA Majors record. So Tiger is now 14/50 majors ever since he won his first. 14/50 is a wining percentage of 28% Good! That's almost just like Pete's wining percentage. ROGER FEDERER - Won his 1st major at age 21. Now it is 25 majors later and Roger has 15 majors, the career grand slam, and the all time majors record in his sport at the age of 27. 15/25 majors is a wining percentage of 60% AWESOME! So as you can see, ROGER won 15 majors in about 1/2 the time it took both PETE and TIGER to win 14 majors. That's like TIGER wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took JACK NICKLAUS to win his record 18th PGA Major! How dominant is that? Finally, ROGER FEDERER is NOT DONE WINING MAJORS! TIGER CHEERLEADERS! - NEED I SAY ANYMORE? OK! I will! He is only age 27 and I predict by the time his career is over he will probaly have over 20 Majors! Now that YOU TIGER CHEERLEADERS seen TIGER FAIL to win his 2nd U.S. Open in a row, you might want to watch YOUR HERO TIGER in New York as he watches ROGER FEDERER try to win his 6th U.S. Open in a row and capture his 16th Major! YOU TIGER CHEERLEADERS - Can't write something like that, all you can do is DRYCLEAN your CHEERLEADING OUTFITS, think of a NEW ROUTINE everytime Tiger is about ready to play a major and do what you guys do best WAVE THE POM-POMS! Ra! Ra! Ra!

Sorry Steve but Bill Russell tops Force.No explanations necessary, Also once Force became the best the best funded Force and as we all know money equals speed, speed equals wins and wins equals money, speed, wins and total domination. Is he talented yes but are his peers as well funded as he is? The money follows the winners from Jackie Stewart to Dale Ernhart to the Busch brothers and Smoke himself....money wins most of the time.

Now is Force a good athlete in comparison to the other drivers? I've don't know anything about him so I'll take your word for it. Is he Steve?

Sorry Steve but Bill Russell tops Force.No explanations necessary, Also once Force became the best the best funded Force and as we all know money equals speed, speed equals wins and wins equals money, speed, wins and total domination. Is he talented yes but are his peers as well funded as he is? The money follows the winners from Jackie Stewart to Dale Ernhart to the Busch brothers and Smoke himself....money wins most of the time.

Now is Force a good athlete in comparison to the other drivers? I've don't know anything about him so I'll take your word for it. Is he Steve?

My dear sirs:
The argument here is not who is the better athlete? Force loses because he's not an athlete, he's a race car driver and the fierest sports competitor over the past 20 years, PERIOD! The argument is what competitor dominated his chosen sports genre more, and its obvious that it's Force. His record speaks for itself. Force is the only sports competitor - team or individual - to win a series, or league title for 10 consecutive years. But he also won 13 series titles in 14 years, all while qualifying for every event during that span and breaking countless amount of world speed and elapses team records. Just by pure percentage, there's no one who has been as dominant, whether it be Federer, Tiger, Armstrong. It's just not close'

FRED J. ROBLEDO - Golf is harder than tennis? & Roger has no competition right? Now you wouldn't be saying this because your hero Tiger has 14 majors and is 5 majors away from being the all time majors leader in his sport where Roger Federer has 15 majors and is THE ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER IN HIS SPORT would you? Even though Roger won his first major 6 years and 25 majors after Tiger won his first! Le'ts do it Fred! Let's compare A GOLF MAJOR vs. A TENNIS MAJOR! - Play 4 rounds of golf and you can win a PGA Major. Play 7 rounds of tennis and you can win a ATP Major. Have a bad round of golf? don't worry you can make it up in the next round. Have a bad round of tennis? YOUR GOING HOME and carrying your own bags. A tennis ball can move over 150mph and you have to RUN, SWEAT, and SWING in all directions to get it back. A golf ball moves at 0mph and you are practically standing still before you hit it. The fact that Golfers have a longer career than tennis players should alone tell you something about the nature of tennis. Nadel is an athlete in his prime and already having knee problems. Take Tiger's closest competition PHIL MICKELSON & RAFAEL NADEL which is Roger's closest competition. Both lefthanded, but you tell me who looks like the ATHLETE in there MALE MOJO PRIME and who looks like the LOCAL MAIL MAN who eats at HOMETOWN BUFFET and is closer to the SOCIAL SECURITY AGE? Finally, guys like SWIMSUIT MODEL John Daly have won Majors on the PGA Tour! Guys like that couldn't even be a BALL BOY on the ATP Tour! Nice Try Fred! Only if they had Varsity Golf in high school you could have been in the SPORTS NEWS instead of WRITING ABOUT IT!

FRED & ALL THE OTHER TIGER CHEERLEADERS! First of all, Sampras or Nadel never won 5 or 6 majors in a row. (Get your facts straight buddy). Second, You are saying Roger has no competition? Did you not see the WIMBLEON finals? Should Roger try to find more competition on another planet, because these are the best players in the world. How about you give Roger some respect for his domiance! instead what you do is put down his competition because your boy Tiger doesn't have the same stats and wining percentage that Roger does. Fred when you played high school tennis, did you have competition? YES YOU DID! A LOT! Now Did I? NO I DIDN'T! We played the same people, but I was just a lot more dominant than you were. Next, APPLES & ORANGES? OK! my high school buddy let's compare APPLES to apples & ORANGES to oranges! Is that Fair? I will compare Roger to Pete & Tiger to Jack! First let's take Pete and Roger. Pete Sampras who once held the all time ATP majors record won his 1st major at age 19 and 49 majors later he had a record 14. Roger Federer won his first major at age 21 and 25 majors later he had 15 majors and the career Grand Slam at the age of 27. So Roger won 15 majors and the career grand slam in 1/2 the time it took Pete Sampras to win 14 majors without the career grand slam! Are you with me Fred? Now let's tak Tiger - who also like Roger won his first major at age 21 and 50 PGA majors later has 14 majors. Pete is 14/49, Tiger is 14/50, and Roger is 15/25 majors and is the all time majors leader in his sport at the age of 27! CAN YOU SEE THE STAND OUT BUDDY? That's lik Tiger wining his 19th PGA Major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th! What your doing is trying to give your CHEERLEADING OPINION by saying Golf is harder than tennis, or Roger has no competition. Why? Because when you look at the STATS, NUMBERS, and WINING PERCENTAGES Roger Federer is wining majors faster than anybody in history. Finally Fred J. Robledo yes I was a dominant tennis player in high school, and you would have been DOMINANT TOO, but they didn't have Varsity Ping Pong or Varsity Golf in High School at Edgewood.

What Andre Marshall and others fail to understand again and again, is how tough it is to win majors in golf. In tennis, there are the same four to five guys that compete for titles. It is much easier to be dominant in tennis, that's why you have champions that win six in a row, or five in a row like Sampras, Federer and Nadal. You're comparing apples and oranges. You want stats, since 1993 there have been 31 different Grand slam champions in tennis. In that same 16 years, only five different players have won Wimbledon, and six different have won the U.S. Open. In golf since 1993, there have been 48 different grand slam champions. In fact, Tiger Woods and Predrag Harrington are the only golfers since 1993 to win back-to-back grand slams in the same events. Tiger won back-to-back Masters (1993-94), back to back PGA championships (1999-2000) and back-to-back British Opens (2005-06). Harrington won back to back British Opens in 2007-08. In fact, since 1993, there have been no repeat U.S. Open champions, further proving how much more difficult it is to repeat in golf compared to tennis. In the last 16 years, Tigers has dominated his sport more than his competitors, it's that simple. Tiger has won each major more than any of his current competitors. Roger Federer can't say that because Nadal owns more French opens and Nadal owns a better head-to-head record against Federer. You tell me Andre, how is that more impressive than Tiger. Shoot, Federer wasn't even the number one player in the world until Nadal, coming off Wimbledon and Australian open titles he won over Federer, got hurt and opened the door for Roger to become number one again with his 14th and 15th majors. Andre, Tiger takes a back seat to nobody. And also, is Roger better than Sampras? In Sampras' career he spent 286 weeks at No. 1, Roger Federer is fourth all-time with 238. Because of the competition during Sampras' era, (Agassi, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Hewitt, etc), he had to continue to regain his top ranking. Since Federer took over No. 1 in 2004, he held it for 237 straight weeks because of the Larry Holmes competition he faced, finally giving way to Nadal before regaining it because of Nadal's injury.

Steve this is fun so take thsi with a grain of salt....in your words..."do the math"

Armstrong races over how many days? Trains for how many hours or how long a career?

Force's "run" is impressive but not on the scale of someone who has won the 'Tour seven times staright and is cureently on 4th place up from 10th after how long a lay of?

Armstrong ight be the greatest athlete of our generation whereas Force might not even be an athlete.

That's not only math my friend that being honest!

Steve please be civil...I have. ;-)

My Buddy Fred Robledo has the statement wrong when he says Who's 14 majors are more impressive. It should read like this! Is Tiger's 14 majors more impressive than THE ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER IN HIS SPORT Roger Federer's 15 majors? Now considering that Roger won his 15 majors in about 1/2 the time it took Tiger and Pete Sampras to win 14 and also considering that Roger is only age 27! That's like Tiger wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th! Finally, after you TIGER CHEERLEADERS saw Tiger FAIL to win his 2nd U.S. Open in a row and in 2009 you saw Roger Federer WIN the French Open and Wimbledon you can now watch Roger try to win his 6th U.S. Open in a row and try to win his 16th major! Fred! Roger is wining majors faster than you can update your website! How dominant is that? Fred you better stay close to your computer, because before you know it Roger will have yet another Major!

Well, on the surface, Force's is better because, and I will try to explain this in math to you, 10 IS MORE THAN 7. Someone said earlier that Armstrong was better because he supplies is own power, but driving a funny car that is capable of speeds well over 300 mph is lot more difficult than just mashing the gas. That's the myth. I will try to explain this to you, but when the crew chief sets up a car he might put enough horsepower for the car to run a quartermile, now 1000 feet, in say 4.75 seconds. But the track, due to certain weather conditions, will only hold the amount of hp to make a 4.8 run. But a good driver, like Force, can feather the throttle enough to get the car down the track in enough time to pull off the win, where an inexperienced guy might not be able to pull that off.
That's what made Force so dominate. Yes, he had the best car, but he combined with the best ability to make a near unbeatable combination. And to this day, no team, no individual competitor other than Force has won a series title or league championship for 10 years running. Enuff said!

TIGER CHEELEADERS! Your not having a BAD DREAM! Tiger has 14 majors and Roger has 15 majors and is the ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER IN HIS SPORT! Ra! Ra! Ra! I can speak your language!

SPORTSWRITERS & TIGER CHEERLEADERS! The PGA & ATP have 4 majors a year. Tiger Woods - Won his first major in 1997 at the Masters at the age of 21. Ever since then there have been 50 PGA Majors and Tiger has won 14 of them. 14/50 is a wining percentage of 28% Not Bad Tiger! Roger Federer - Won his first major in 2003 at Wimledon also at the age of 21. Ever since then there have been 25 ATP Majors and Roger has won 15 of them. 15/25 is a wining percentage of 60% THAT'S DOMINANT ROGER! Furthermore, Roger STANDS ALONE as the ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER in his sport, with the Career Grand Slam, wining on all 4 surfaces, and at the young age of 27! (NO! Tiger or his CHEERLEADERS CAN'T SAY THAT!) So how DOMINANT is Federer? Pete Sampras who won his 1st major at age 19 and 49 majors later won his 14th. It took Roger only 25 majors to win 15! That's more majorS in 1/2 the time! That's like Tiger wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th! NEED I SAY ANYMORE? Finally, this about comparing 2 sports that both have 4 majors a year. This is not about cyling or hot dog eating.Some of TIGER CHEERLEADRS are trying to change the subject, because you don't have THE STATS, NUMBERS, or FACTS that I have to BACK UP Tiger like I have for Roger. You can't say Tiger is the all time majors leader in his sport! Not only can I say that Roger is the all time majors leader in his sport, but I can say that He is wining majors in 1/2 the time it took Pete Sampras and Tiger woods to win there majors. All you TIGER CHEERLEADERS can do is try to bring out a NEW ROUTINE & keep waving the POM-POMS! Oh ya! Now that YOU TIGER CHEERLEADERS seen your SUPER HERO Tiger FAIL at wining his 2nd U.S. Open in a row, why don't you watch Tiger in New York as Tiger picks up the POM-POMS and watches Roger Federer try to win his U.S. Open for a record 6th year in a row and try to win his 16th Major! Ra! Ra! Ra! Now am speaking your language right CHEEERLEADERS!

SPORTSWRITERS & TIGER CHEERLEADERS! The PGA & ATP have 4 majors a year. Tiger Woods - Won his first major in 1997 at the Masters at the age of 21. Ever since then there have been 50 PGA Majors and Tiger has won 14 of them. 14/50 is a wining percentage of 28% Not Bad Tiger! Roger Federer - Won his first major in 2003 at Wimledon also at the age of 21. Ever since then there have been 25 ATP Majors and Roger has won 15 of them. 15/25 is a wining percentage of 60% THAT'S DOMINANT ROGER! Furthermore, Roger STANDS ALONE as the ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER in his sport, with the Career Grand Slam, wining on all 4 surfaces, and at the young age of 27! (NO! Tiger or his CHEERLEADERS CAN'T SAY THAT!) So how DOMINANT is Federer? Pete Sampras who won his 1st major at age 19 and 49 majors later won his 14th. It took Roger only 25 majors to win 15! That's more majorS in 1/2 the time! That's like Tiger wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th! NEED I SAY ANYMORE? Finally, this about comparing 2 sports that both have 4 majors a year. This is not about cyling or hot dog eating.Some of TIGER CHEERLEADRS are trying to change the subject, because you don't have THE STATS, NUMBERS, or FACTS that I have to BACK UP Tiger like I have for Roger. You can't say Tiger is the all time majors leader in his sport! Not only can I say that Roger is the all time majors leader in his sport, but I can say that He is wining majors in 1/2 the time it took Pete Sampras and Tiger woods to win there majors. All you TIGER CHEERLEADERS can do is try to bring out a NEW ROUTINE & keep waving the POM-POMS! Oh ya! Now that YOU TIGER CHEERLEADERS seen your SUPER HERO Tiger FAIL at wining his 2nd U.S. Open in a row, why don't you watch Tiger in New York as Tiger picks up the POM-POMS and watches Roger Federer try to win his U.S. Open for a record 6th year in a row and try to win his 16th Major! Ra! Ra! Ra! Now am speaking your language right CHEEERLEADERS!

Steve and Force is no Armstrong? The question on the table was between Tiger and Roger. Steve just we're on the same page...who'd run is more impressive...Force or Armstrong?

I'll wait to see your take.

Yeah Andre, but RF is no Force. Not even close!

TIGER CHEERLEADERS & FRED ROBLEDO! Imagine Tiger wining his 19th PGA Major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Niclaus to win his record 18th major? Check out these stats TIGER CHEERLEADERS! Pete Sampras won his 1st ATP major at age 19 and his record 14th major 49 ATP majors later. That's 14/49 ever since Pete won his first! Mr. Roger Federer won his 1st ATP major at age 21 and his record 15th major 25 majors later. That's 15/25 ever since Roger won his first. That means it took Roger Federer about 1/2 the time to win 15 majors that it took Pete Sampras to win 14! HOW DOMINANT IS THAT? That's like Tiger wining his 19th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th. NEED I SAY ANYMORE? OK! I will! While you TIGER CHEERLEADERS saw Tiger fail to win his 2nd U.S. Open in a row, you might want to watch Tiger in New York as he watches THE ALL TIME MAJORS LEADER IN HIS SPORT - ROGER FEDERER try to win his U.S. Open for a record 6th year in a row. Plese TIGER CHEERLEADERS keep the POM-POMS at home!

So what ANDRE MARSHALL! Roger doesn't have a unique first name like Tiger or a golf last name like woods! Roger is not American and doesn't stand out like a black sheep! We THE TIGER CHEERLEADERS are right now working with the sportswriters and sportsmedia (who also carry Tiger POM-POMS) on a story why 13 of Roger's 15 majors should not coount! Why? Those 13 majors were not played against Rafael Nadel in the finals. We THE TIGER CHEERLEADERS are always working on a NEW ROUTINE for OUR HERO TIGER both on and off the course. Ra! Ra! Ra! Don't worry Tiger we THE PATRIOTIC TIGER CHEERLEADERS GOT YOUR BACK!

TIGER CHEERLEADERS! Which 2 sports have 4 majors a year? Are individual sports? and are non contact? That's right Golf and Tennis! The PGA & ATP. Not Cycling, not eating hot dogs either! Now TIGER WOODS & ROGER FEDERER both won there first major at the age of 21. Tiger won his first at the 1997 Masters which was the first major of the year and Roger in 2003 at Wimbledon. Ever since Tiger has won his first major at age 21, there have been 50 PGA majors played and Tiger has won 14 of them. Ever since Roger won his first major at age 21, there have been 25 majors played and Roger has won 15 of them. So that means Tiger is 14/50 Majors won ever since he won his first (that's a wining percentage of 28% for Tiger)and Roger is 15/25 ever since Roger has won his first (thats a wining percentage of 60% for Roger. Are you TIGER CHEERLEADERS with me so far? Good! Now while Tiger is 5 majors away from being the all time PGA majors leader in his sport, Roger stands alone being the all time majors leader in his sport, with the career grand slam, and also wining on all 4 surfaces like Agassi! Oh Ya! Pete Sampras won his first major at age 19 and his 14th major at age 31. (it took Pete 49 majors from his first major win to his 14th) Roger from his first major win to his 15th major won only took 25 majors. That's less than 1/2 the time it took Pete to win his 14 majors! That's like Tiger wining his 18th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th. I know now you TIGER CHEERLEADERS now are working on a couple of NEW ROUTINES saying something like since Roger didn't play Nadel in the finals of 13 of the majors they should not count right? or how about instead of giving ROGER RESPECT, you PUT DOWN his competition! Finally, YOU TIGER CHEERLEADERS just can't admit to the fact that Roger dominates tennis more than Tiger dominates golf. All you guys can do is be good TIGER CHEERLEADERS & KEEP WAVING THE TIGER POM-POMS! Ra! Ra! Ra!

Just sayin, you bring up an interesting point about schools who want to be tested should move up once in awhile. How does the the reverse work? Does Bishop Amat play up given that they have never been down? Also another point to consider is mission, who sets the mission and under what criteria is it set in each individual school. The mission at CO might be to keep students on school while the mission at Bishop Amat is education first and next level scholarships next, or is it?

The argument about Bishop Amat fails everyone. This argument, although harmeless on the surface, does nothing to enhance any one. The evidence is as clear as the nose on everyone's face...just look at the putdowns and tearing down of great individuals (Farrar/Gano/Bogan) and an outstanding Institution (Bishop Amat).

First of all, I don't set the rankings; Fred does.
But my philosophy on rankings, which I learned while working for Cal-Hi Sports, is pretty simple.
But I will explain it again for you:
To begin the season, you rank the top 10 by who would win on the field, leaning towards traditional powers. But once the season begins, then you in corporate how the season is going for particular teams. Ex.: If Bishop Amat is 0-5 and Azusa is 5-0, you reward Azusa, although talent wise they would have no chance if the two met.
In that sense you reward the teams that win and do what they were expected to do. But also, once a team has solidified a spot in said rankings, they are entitled to at least that spot, unless they lose or don't play up to expectations while winning. If said team is No. 1, they play a cream puff and dominate them, they deserve to remain No. 1 no matter what the teams ranked behind them do. Do to anything else would be penalizing them for something they had no control over.
If you checked by rankings when I was prep editor from 2000-03, I never varied from this philosophy.
Rankings are completing different than comparing which champion in a particular sport is better or had the tougher road.

size matters-then maybe those teams that are lower than they'd like to be looked upon as, should move up and challenge themselves once in a while. THAT would answer all the questions now wouldn't it? If you don't do that you have no claim and should just sit down and be quiet

Just sayin, who you compete against only matters for the team that's moving up and not the team that's moving down.

Steve-stop on the football thread and explain that WHO you compete against effects what your win/loss record and how many championships you win. Kind of the same argument. And remember your argument when it comes time to "rank" football teams.

Also, I will say that I'm not sure Federer is the best of all-time in his sport. I pick Bjorn Borg. Yes he had just 11 GS to Federer's 14 (or possible 15 today), but the competition was much better, and tighter with guys like Arthur Ashe, Jimmy Connors, Roscoe Tanner...Of course, I can say the same for Tiger, who hasn't faced the competition Nicklaus did going up against Lee Trevino, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Hale Irwin, Johnny Miller.

Also, where does Takeru Kobayashi's six consecutive titles in the Nathan's Hot Dog eating contest rank? Or Joey Chestnut winning the last three, especially with Saturday's record-setting performance in which he ate an amazing 68 hot dogs?

Andre you seem like a cool dude...which is more impressive? Lance Armstrong's 7 in a row or Federer's hopefully 15 Majors?

Let's see Andre the Great tackle that one!

This should be interesting based on your Roger takes, which I totally agree with.

TIGER CHEERLEADERS! You guys were in that cheerleading movie call BRING IT ON!

TIGER CHEERLEADERS - You watched Tiger FAIL at wining his 2nd U.S. Open in a row! Now watch Tiger in New York as he watches ROGER FEDERER try to win his 6th U.S. Open in a row! ROGER FEDERER - 14 majors, the all time majors leader in his sport, the career grand slam, at the age of 27! (NO TIGER OR HIS CHEERLEADERS CAN'T SAY THAT!) and Roger won his first major 6 years and 25 majors after Tiger won his first! Ra! Ra! Ra! keep the TIGER POM-POMS going! It's called PATRIOTIC CHEERLEADING!

Steve great take, but Force wasn't part of the initial question. In fact Armstrong's 7 are also up for discussion...and might even be more impressive than Force's given that Lance produces his own horsepower...yuk yuk.

Seriously should some consideration be given to the competitors that challenge the 14 and were beaten?

14 Bowling Championships
14 Racing Championship
14 Tennis Championship
14 Track Event Championship

All individual sports

At some point doesn't it matter who you're up against? 14 MLS Championships don't measure up to 14 World Cup Championships...wouldn't you say?

Steve I'll take you up on the next race....if you can recommend one for me and others. Help us appreciate the sport.

Fred I've got to tell you it's been fun discussing this question without any distractions.

RHS,

U are missing the argument, which is not who is the better athlete, but, mind u, whose achievement is more accomplished; who is more dominant in their chosen sports genre.
I stand by Force over Tiger and Federer. When either of them have won their respective tour champions 10 consecutive years or 13 times in 14 years, then get back to, but until then, may the Force be with you.

Tiger takes less than 300 swings in competition, plays 72 holes and walks from one tee to the next over four days and never breaks a sweat other than whatever is caused by the weather or pressure while Roger uses ever muscle in his body and is chasing a ball all over the court and making shots on the run while Tiger stands over a ball and takes 10 minutes to decide the club, the slope and the wind. Can believe anyone still want to compare a Golfer to a Tennis player...who would play John Daly on the Tennis Circuit?

Wait a minute...the fact that Federer, who is the greatest tennis player on the planet, was able to win 14 of his last 24 majors while Tiger, who is the greatest golfer on the planet, was only able to win 14 of his last 50 majors doesn't necessarily indicate that Federer is better at his sport and instead, more likely stands for the proposition that it is much more difficult to win a golf major than one in tennis. Compared to golf, tennis is a more physical sport but because of the money more athletes are choosing to play golf...a whole bunch of the young guys are 6'3", 190 lb studs. Don't forget, if Tiger were a tennis player his career, at age 33, would already be over. The point is that it is not fair to compare the physiques of 20 year old tennis players to 35 year old golfers. And, it is irrelevant that Federer beat a bunch of different guys in the majors over his career as in any given year there are only 3 or so players in the world that can beat him...how many times did Federer lose in the 1st or 2nd rounds? Like never???

ANDRE MARSHALL, that was clutch!

Now you know what the blog is all about. The facts have to be so overwhelming and still people won't concede only to say....but, but, but...or if all else fails ...add another "T"

Andre... with the exception of Gale Sayers...has their ever been a more beautiful moving athlete with so much power, skill and deternination?

Add the fact that Roger is one of the classiest Champions in any sport today and I'm still befuddled why he isn't even more admired....maybe he doesn't sport enough tattoes or date one high price model after another or...you get the picture...

TIGER CHEERLEADERS! Imagine Tiger being the only person to win 3/4 majors all in the same calender year 3 times! Imagine Tiger wining 2 different majors 5 years in a row! Imagine Tiger having more majors than the rest of the field COMBINED! More? OK! Imagine Tiger trying to win the U.S. Open in 2009 for a record 6th year in a row! More? OK! Imagine Tiger having the all time majors record in his sport with the career grand slam at the age of 27! Now WAKE UP! and put down the TIGER POM-POMS DOWN CHEERLEADERS because it's Tiger's buddy ROGER FEDERER who is doing this! More? OK! Imagine Tiger wining his 18th major in 1/2 the time it took Jack Niclaus to win his record 18th major? Check out these stats TIGER CHEERLEADERS! Pete Sampras won his 1st major at age 19 and his record 14th at age 31. (It took Pete exactly 49 ATP majors or just over 12 years). ROGER FEDERER won his first major in 2003 at wimbledon which was the 3rd major of the year at the age of 21 and his record 14th major at the 2009 French Open which was the 2nd major of the year at the age of 27. That's exactly 24 majors or 6 years. Roger won his 14 majors in less than 1/2 the time it took Pete Sampras to win 14 majors. That's like Tiger wining 18 majors in less than 1/2 the time it took Jack Nicklaus to win his record 18th! So how about Tiger? Tiger won his first major in 1997 at the Masters also like Roger at the age of 21 and his 14th at the 2008 U.S. Open at the age of 33. So it took both Tiger and Pete about 12 years to win 14 majors. Roger did it in 6 years! So what's next? THE TIGER CHEERLEADERS are now working on a story with the sportswriters and sportsmedia (Who also carry TIGER POM-POMS)on how 12 of Roger's 14 majors should not count! Why? Because those 12 were not played against Rafael Nadel in the finals either! Finally, I know Roger doesn't have a unique first name like Tiger or a golf last name like Woods and he is not American or he doesn't stick out in the field like a Black Sheep, but SO WHAT! Ever since he won his first major at age 21 Roger has won 14 out of his last 24 majors. Ever since Tiger has won his first major at age 21 Tiger has won 14 out of his last 50 majors! NEED I SAY ANYMORE? Am sure you TIGER CHEERLEADERS already got your CHEERLEADING OUTFITS at the CLEANERS and are working on a NEW ROUTINE for Tiger's next major.

Steve and isn't that what Roger has to do to win a tournament...just like Force it's win or go home.....Tiger can blow Day One and Win on Sunday as the pack come back to earth or chokes it away. That's why the UCLA analogy holds water....how many consecutive matches does Roger need to win.

Early stats

Won 11 of his 14 Grand Slam Finals against different opponents (all time record) so there goes the one or two guys have a chance hat
5 consecutive Wimbledons has Tiger won 5 in a row of teh same tournament?
5 consecutive US Opens
Career record is 175-26
24 straight finals appearances...broke the record of "12" held by McEnroe and Borg...both Galactic Superstars in their own right.

One thing that also separates roger from Tiger and in fact from Roger's contemporaries is his game is so beautiful o watch and his still shots are works of art...balance, fluidity and power...tough to see any athlte as well in tune to their game as Roger Federer.

How about discussing who was the better pitcher...Koufax or Gibson? The better Coach Riley or Jackson or the better team Magic and Jabbar or Kobe and Shaq?

ROGER FEDERER BY FAR!

Great take,
Thanks. Well, to me, in comparing sports and who is better, it's all about the competition. I guess that's why I rank Tiger over Federer because there are more golfers, by far, who have a shot at winning one of the four majors, where in tennis, there's only a handful of guys who can win, and probably over the last few years you could count on one hand the number of guys who have won a grand slam event. I would agree with you the sport that demands more physcial attributes should receive more credit, but only if the numbers put up by each champion and the competition level is the same. But if one guy has to face more competition that is close to his talent level and puts up better number in doing it, or if he just puts up far more dominating numbers, that would get my vote.
As for your UCLA-Boston question, I would choose UCLA, because I believe to win 7 consecutive titles, they had to win 35 consecutive playoff games, where there Celtics were allowed to lose 3 per series to keep their streak of 8 straight going. In the NBA, there's more margin for error.

Steve I have a ton of respect for you and the way you go about your business so I'll reserve Force's dominance until I see him some time. I've never seen a Drag race or a Nascar race for that matter but I would say your Twilight Zone comment kind of make my point and yours as well.

Being the best at anything is an accomplishment in and of it's self but I ask you which is more difiicult being the Heaveyweight Champion of teh World or the SupperFly Weight Chmapion of the World.

Doesn't it depend on teh level of competition and the various factors that go into said competition. For example at teh Heavies one punch by almost any Heavy will knock most Heavies OUT COLD....can we say that about Superflyweights?

To dominate at a sport that demands a physical component rather than a mental one in my mind deserves more credit. Take Basktball for example...which is more impressive....Boston's NBA run or UCLA's Championship streaks. It would be fun to hear your take.

I do however respect any driver that has to keep his mind sharp, his focus evn sharper while dealing with the heat and fatigue of cars...plus those around them.

So Steve or Fred or anyone else...UCLA or BOSTON..which is more dominant an accomplishment?

My point would be that it's not which sport is tougher, but who is more dominating at their chosen genre. As I said before, I think Force was more dominant in his than either Tiger or Federer than in theirs. I would rank them, 1. Force, 2. Tiger, 3. Federer.
But the real important fact is they both are the top dogs in their sport and with that I will leave you with a quote from an old 'Twilight Zone' episode in which he played pool shark Fats Brown. He said, "I may be just a pool player, but I'm the best!"

Great Honestly Debated Topic...Great Job Fred !!!

Both Tiger and Roger are awesoem but if you took their carrer spans and allowed for a factor of ???? to allow for Roger's shortened competitive sapn Roger would simply dominate.

14 Majors for a tennis play whose' career last 14 years as opposed to Tiger's career that would have been peaking if not for his injury. Roger inspite of great health is about two to three years from retirement ...if not sooner.

Plus Tiger competes against non athletes. or at least the least athletc peers of any sport short of Bowling.

now which is more impressive...competing against soem of teh best athletes in the world or the guys on the high school golf team....seriously.

Great debate but that's eqaul to saying hitting a baseball is tougher than running with the ball in an NFL game...seriously...which is tougher..or more difficult?

See we all can get along...

For my money, golf is more difficult to dominate because the margin of error is much less than in tennis. People don't realize that statistically Tiger is only 1% better than the top 50 guys in the world. For example, if Tiger shoots 4 rounds of 69 than his total is 276 while the 10th place guy in the tourney, who may be the 150th ranked golfer in the world, shot 4 rounds of 70 for a total of 280. The percentage difference between 280 and 276 is a little over 1%. On the tennis side, Federer beats the 150th ranked tennis player easily 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 and only has trouble with maybe 3 guys in the world. But, the bottom line is that both Tiger and Federer are the best that have ever lived at their respective sports.

A reply to the tennis is played on three surfaces and golf on one. On the tennis court the boundaries are always the same. The lines always the same as well as the placement of the net. In golf every course is different and I have yet to see any lakes on a tennis court or a roof over a championship golf course as we now have at Wimbledon . Yardage, the type of grass ( bermuda ,rye,and so forth) wet or baked dry which all effect the roll of the ball. From one green to the next the speed could be different. One point I think might settle this is when speaking of the greatest in tennis you can name maybe 8-10 people who come along every now and then ( Borg,Laver,Gonzales,Sampras,Connors) but when speaking of golf you have The Golden Bear and then you have Tiger.I think you need to do a little more research on golf before discounting the game so quickly. That alone should tell you how tough it is to dominate in golf. Great point on Force Steve, but you know he just some beer drinking hot rodder that all he knows how to do is steer a car going 300 mph plus.

I think I already answered that!

How is Tiger better when every former great had Federer annointed as the Greatest ever about 6 Majors ago. That's saying something isn't it when Mc Enroe and Sampras were the ones who said early on that Roger's game was as beautiful and complete as any they had ever seen....and would go down as teh greatest ever.

Woods is chasing The Golden Bear while Federer is there already and with one more win has the most Titles ever....Tiger has a ways to go

One last point Tennis is played on three different surfaces while golf is played on one...natural grass.

The one question I do have is who was more dominant in their sport...Jordan, Tiger, Russell, Armstrong or Phelps.

I don't think this is an argument of who is the better athlete, but who is the more dominant sports competitor in their chosen genre. It's a close call, but I would think Tiger has it slightly tougher, since the competition in golf is much richer than in tennis, where there are only a few players in the world who enter a major with any hopes of winning.
I will say, in my book, Tiger and Federer are No. 2 and 3 among being the top sports competitors over the past two decades. I believe NHRA driver John Force is No. 1, when you compare what he has done in his sport to what they have done in theirs. Force has DOMINATED the NHRA world, winning 14 Funny Car titles since 1989 and 126 races. He also won 10 consecutive series titles between 1993-2002,becoming the only team/individual in a national/international series or league to do so. He also did it by averaing close to 10 wins per year in the process, and in some cases winning more than half the races in the NHRA season.
To me, it's not even close who is No. 1

John Wooden

Basketball Hall of Fame as a Player and a Coach

Life Hall of Fame for sure.

Let's add a new wrinkle to the discussion . . . how about John Wooden's accomplishments? 10 NCAA titles, he led the Bruins to four 30-0 seasons (1963-64, 1966-67, 1971-72, 1972-73), to 88 consecutive victories, to 38 straight NCAA tournament victories, and to 19 PAC 10 championships. He was NCAA College Basketball Coach of the Year six times (1964, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973). He was named Sports Illustrated Sports Man of the Year in 1973. Hmmmm I think that's a whole lot more than 14 titles :=) Just tryin to fan the flames.

Doesn't the teh always miss the point.Off again with mindless ramblings.

Fred are you making my point?

Which Sport is tougher to dominate has to do with which sport take the most out of your body.

Sorry but Pete Sampras was more dominant in his Sport than Tiger is in his. Better competition, did it for a longer time and against great athletes on several surfaces.

Golf is played as a leisurely pace against some of teh worst athletes on the planet. Fred it's not even close. Compare Bill Russel's accomplishements to Pete and Roger and you have better footing....in my opinion.

This Roger and Tiger take is base on Marketing. Better yet Fred compare the greatest Golfers at any time in Golf's history to Tennis, Footbal and Basketball greats, it won't be funny.

Tennis could and would be in any discussion in terms of Great.

I'll try and not be a hammer with my opinion and limt myself to two takes and then listen to others but I like Mikey's take of condensed careers...how many would Pete have won if his body, like Woods< would allow him to play into his 40"s? Just a question.

You miss the point. The argument isn't which sport has better athletes, tennis by far is a more athletic sport. That would be like comparing greats in baseball and tennis. Don't baseball players chew sunflower seeds and chew tobacco between innings. I have seen how hefty some baseball players are, like um, Babe Ruth for example. The argument is which sport is harder to dominate?

Fred, here's my opinion. Tennis players as you know are athletes, not some of them...all of them/ Golfers on the other hand are trained and skilled non athltes....not all of them but most of them.

Agassi, Cgang, Gederer, Sampras, Lendyl. and Nastase were a;; athletes who could play other sports...most notably our beautiful game, soccer.

Sam Snead, ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, John Daly and others would, could and did smoke cigarettes while they played in Majors and on the Tour.

Tiger Woods, while an incredible physical specimen, is the exception that proves teh rule. Golf is a skill that takes tremendous concentration and hours upon hours of practice to master but lacks the physical componenet to qualify in the same breathe as tennis and therefore Roger's dominace is much more impressive, as was Pete Sampras'.

For the sake of argumenet Fred, what if John Daly had been able to cotrol his drinking and partying and somehow was able to have the resolve of a Tiger Woods. If he won 8 Majors, would he be in the same breathe as John McEnroe or Bjorn Borg?

One last point...compare the Williams sisters to Nancy Lopez and other great women Golfers...Golf is not a true comaparble....not Bowling might....now Earl Anthony and Tiger Woods would be comapring Apples to Candy Apples...LOL

you know my answer...

but, in Federer's defense, his window is much shorter than Tiger's window.. Tiger will be winning major's in his 40's.. Federer is near 30 and is already on the back nine of his career...

If Nadal is Federer's contempory, he's 10 (soon to be 11) major's behind... Federer already is one of the all time greats...

just curious..
how many do you think will Federer end up with?
how many do you think will Tiger end up with?

In a major tennis men's championship rarely an player not seeded in the top 4 wins. In golf you can have someone not even ranked in the top 100 win a major. Roger Federer has to only beat 1-2 top players to win a major. In golf you have to beat the whole field and unlike tennis the PGA,US Open,British Open is played at a different venue from year to year. In Rod "rocket" Laver played when professional tennis players were allowed to play he would be the leader of the tennis greats.