Better Athlete #7
 

Roger barely holds on against Lance. Now let's see him go against some real competition.

Poll?

Impatient Patty.

I have to go with Tiger. Federer's been incredibly good, but Tiger has been the best in his sport for more than a decade now.

Tiger, even though golf isn't a sport

That's part of the debate. Is Tiger an athlete and is golf a sport?

Federer. Come on now. Did you see the Wimbledon final today?

Federer is awesome, but Federer only has to worry about 1 opponent at a time. Tiger Woods has to worry about like 100 a day or however many people there are in a tournment.

Not really. The other players don't control his play. What he does is amazing, but is it more athletic than Federer? I don't know about that. Plus, Tiger plays 4 rounds of golf in a tourny. In a major Roger can play up to 7 full games.

Tiger can put up 315. Can Roger? Probably not

This is what Better Athlete is all about!

Tiger

:p

So Tiger is also a better athlete than Lance?

Yup, Tiger has both his balls and Lance can't putt.

Tiger because it is always Tiger v the Field and not Federer v the Field.

Never heard of Tiger Woods.

It always was/is this year Lance vs 171 other people, 4 hours a day for 3 weeks but, some how Lance isn't in this round.

Yeah but that's a lot of pressure.

I'm a bigger tennis fan then Golf fan. Golf isn't stupid.


It's the hardest sport. Every decade someone dominates tennis. What Federer has done is very impressive, but Tiger Woods dominating is way more improbable.

Also Roger Federer isn't the best in the world in his own sport.

lol what? How is Federer not the best ever? Most Grand Slams and he still has around 3 solid years left. He could finish with 20 by the time he's done.

The argument could be made that Rafael Nadal had absolutely owned Federer in the past calendar year before having to withdraw prior to Wimbledon with his knee injury. You could also argue that the vast majority of Federer's grand slam titles were won in an era with no other dominant stars. Not that Federer's accomplishment isn't impressive -- he certainly still had to win all those matches -- but guys like Pete Sampras and Bjorn Borg played in much more competitive eras in men's tennis, and Nadal only recently became a world power. When/if Federer gets to 20, then it'd be pretty hard to dispute, weak era or not.

k, Pete Sampras beat friggen Cedric Pioline in two of his grand slam finals. It's the luck of the draw. Even Tiger Woods stated that what Roger has done is more impressive than what he's accomplished.