Roger Federer's dominance of men's tennis has inspired talk amongst athletes, sports columnists and fans of who's greater or the more dominant? Roger or Tiger? 14-time Major winner Pete Sampras got into it recently.
--
SI: Who do you think is the more dominant athlete: Tiger Woods or Federer?
Sampras: Good question. As far as pure domination, it's hard to say because I find golf harder to dominate than tennis. For Tiger to do what he has done, he has to worry about a field of players but he's not as much in control of how it goes compared to Roger. For Roger, it's just one on one. He has to worry about seven guys and seven guys only. Tiger has to worry about some floater guy shooting 62. Tiger is not as much in control so it tells you what Tiger has done might be more impressive. But at the same time Roger has lost like five matches in the last 18 months. Something ridiculous like that. It's hard to say whether tennis is harder to dominate than golf. I think a lot more crazier things can happen in golf than tennis so I'd lean a little toward Tiger but at the same time Roger has won more than Tiger.
--
Uhm? But golf is not a sport. It involves skill, sure. But look. If you can eat a hotdog while playing it? It aint a sport, you aint a athlete.
No comments:
Post a Comment