The world's best athlete: Is it Tiger or Federer?

By GARY SHELTON
Published July 17, 2007

Roger Federer of Switzerland, men's singles Wimbledon champion, poses with the trophy at the Champions' Dinner on July 8, 2007 at The Savoy, London, England.
	[Getty Images]

Conversations with myself:

In a profession that jumps from one event to another, sometimes, you have to pause to admire greatness. Sometimes, you have to appreciate domination. Sometimes, you have to acknowledge (drum roll, please) the Greatest Athlete in the World.

Ah, I see. You're talking about Tiger Woods, who is about to win the British Open.

No, I'm talking about Roger Federer, who just won Wimbledon.

What are you, nuts? Or are you filming a Nike commercial?

Neither one. I'm just a guy who is lucky enough to have covered Federer in three of his five Wimbledon championships and Tiger in two of his four Masters titles. Who are you?

I'm you, knucklehead. Remember? I'm your smarter, better-looking subconscious. I'm here to keep you from embarrassing yourself. Oops, too late.

Look, I'm not knocking Tiger. We all agree that Tiger is terrific. I just think what Federer has done is slightly more amazing.

Coming from a guy with your golf swing, that amazes me.

I'll ignore the cheap shot, but what Federer does - running and jumping and sweating for five hours at a time - takes a great deal more athleticism than what Tiger does in an average workday. For instance, when is the last time you saw a guy who looks like John Daly on the tennis courts?

That would be a great point ... if we were talking about John Daly. But Tiger is different. Gary Player recently told Golf World that Tiger would beat any tennis player in the world in a workout in the gym.

Yeah? And who is the better bowler? James Blake recently said Federer is the better athlete by far. Don't you expect tennis players to back the tennis player and golfers to back the golfer? I would think that if you asked a horse, he would say "Street Sense." Not that you have any.

I probably should point out that Tiger has won 12 major titles, one more than Federer.

Yeah, but Tiger is six years older. Think of it like this: Federer has now won 11 of the past 17 Grand Slam titles in his sport. Tiger has won four of his past 20. What does that tell you?

It tells me that tennis is easier to dominate than golf. Look, a lot of different guys have had mini-dynasties in tennis: Laver, Borg, Becker, Lendl, Sampras, Federer. The only golfer who has done anything like Tiger is Jack Nicklaus. There have been fewer kingdoms in golf because it's a harder sport.

How can any sport where you don't play defense be considered harder? Tiger just has to beat the course.

Right. A course that involves hills and holes and woods and water and sand and elevated greens and evil pin placements. He plays short holes and long holes and holes that take sudden turns along the way. And he has to conquer it all better than any of the other 143 other golfers on the course. Just that.

You're missing the point, though. Much of Federer's greatness is the way he inflicts his will on his opponent. Every match, he defuses his opponent's greatest strength, whether it is Roddick's serve or Nadal's backhand. He doesn't outlast the field - he grinds it under his sneakers.

Oh, come on. Don't you think Tiger would love to control his opponents? Don't you think he would love to exploit their weaknesses?

Doesn't he? Golfers tremble at his name on a leaderboard. Face it, Tiger isn't exactly beating Watson and Trevino, the guys Nicklaus used to beat.

And Federer isn't beating Connors and McEnroe, the guys Borg used to beat. Except for Nadal, the rest of the tennis world has surrendered.

Don't forget. Federer has to play two weeks to win a Grand Slam. Tiger plays four days to win a major.

Yeah, but Tiger's scores carry over. One bad shot Thursday could cost him Sunday. That's not true with Federer, who gets a fresh canvas every day.

I don't think you realize how demanding men's tennis is. Look at how it grinds up its champions. Bjorn Borg was burned out at 25. John McEnroe never won another major after 25. Pete Sampras won one major after 30.

It is demanding. No one suggested it isn't. But maybe that's the point here: Federer may well pass Tiger as far as winning majors. And Tiger will pass him right back. Even you can see that, can't you?

I'm beginning to think I need medication. The voices in my head are taunting me. I may need an exorcist.

Mess with me, and I'll put a Neil Diamond song in your head again.

Okay, okay. Let's find some compromise. Will you at least agree that Federer is the better athlete?

Yes. If you'll agree that Tiger plays the harder sport to dominate.

That sounds right. Second-guess me later?

Always.

Gary Shelton can be reached at (727) 893-8805.

[Last modified July 17, 2007, 02:24:26]