Roger Federer Is Better Than Tiger Woods...Period! (And It's Not a Joke)

antiMatterSenior Analyst IDecember 23, 2009

UNITED STATES - MARCH 21:  Tiger Woods and Roger Federer during a practice round at the CA Championship held at the Doral Resort and Spa on the Blue Monster Course in Miami, Florida on Wednesday, March 21, 2007.  (Photo by Sam Greenwood/Getty Images)
Sam Greenwood/Getty Images

I hate it when someone says this: "I think Roger Federer is better than Tiger. Period!" But that is NOT because that statement is not true.

When you say that last thing—yeah, the "Period!" thingy—you somehow lose your credibility.

It is as if you are trying to use that word in the absence of real evidence to get your way. That word sometimes is intimidating—with that capital "P" and all.

Anyway, that is not the point of this "article." We have real foolproof* arguments here.

Let's see:

1. Name

There is something called "Comparative" in English. Don't bother googling it now. (and for this, a word editor would probably give me an error since I didn't start the sentence with a capital letter) tells us, "Grammar. being, noting, or pertaining to the intermediate degree of the comparison of adjectives...blah."

Which means that words ending in "er" are better than words ending same word without the "er."

Let's see now, "Tiger" is the name. Now "Tiger," going by the rules of English (See? I am not making up anything here), means "something better than, say, a 'Tig.'"

Look at Federer now. Breaking it up, we get "Fed-er-er." A "Feder" is something better than a "Fed," and a "Federer" is something even better than a "Feder." Actually it is a "Fedest." Not to mention that "Roger" is something better than "Rog."

So, the name "Roger Federer" is actually better than the best at what it is (which is "Rog Fed"), while "Tiger Woods" is just "better"—intermediate according to

Now, you cannot compare tennis and golf, so we cannot really, directly compare these two guys. But the correct way to compare is to see who is better at what is expected of them.

"Roger Federer" is better than the best at what is expected of it (which is "Rog Fed"), while "Tiger Woods" is only intermediate.


2. Tennis Is the Greatest Game of All Time**. Hence...

Well, the working assumption of this argument is that tennis is the Greatest Game of All Time—including what is going to be invented in the future.

Now, assumptions are never to be questioned—they are called axioms. Axioms are the elements of your reasoning—you just accept them and reason your way out from there. The axiom can't be wrong from the point of view of your subsequent reasoning.

Anyway, my intention is not to flaunt my knowledge (though I have, like, a lot of it). So:

1. Federer is the GOAT in his game (already proved).

2. Tennis is the Greatest Game of All Time.

3. (1) and (2) imply that Federer is the Greatest Athlete of All Time.

4. (3) implies that he is the greatest in any decade (since he is the greatest of "all time" and "all time" will include any given decade).

5. (4) implies that he is the greatest in the decade 2000-2009 (since 2000-2009 is included in "any given decade").

This is as objective as it can get.


3. Federer is NOT mentally weaker than Tiger Woods

Everyone knows what the golf guys are thinking now—that Federer is not as mentally tough as Tiger Woods is. (It is not as if one should even bother about this since it is completely mental and has nothing to with "athleticism").

OK, let's see what the argument is. It is a name, "Rafael Nadal." Now how do you beat a line of reasoning? Surely there is no better way than to take the worst case of that reasoning and somehow prove that it is not really a sound reason.

What was the worst instance of Federer's mental weakness against Nadal? The Australian Open, of course! He cried after losing. OK, now let's look at the circumstances. What does Rafael say at the French Open after beating Federer? "I am sorry" and "tankyuverymuch."

Now look Federer in the face and tell him that you have met another guy who rubs it in more (you can't partly because you probably will never see Federer face to face, but that is only an aside). Now, there is no greater pressure than to play against an opponent who rubs it in, and Rafael rubs it in the most (he could be called the Greatest Rubber of All Time—GR(e)AT!).

Now, has Tiger Woods EVER been subjected to that kind of pressure? He cannot be. Since Rafael is the GR(e)AT and is in tennis, golf cannot have someone who is better at it.

So the only argument that golf has to offer falls apart even worse than the tower of cards I built the other day (which was like the worst ever).


So, that's about it.


*foolproof—some experts debate whether foolproof means "proof for fools." But again, such trifles are not to be argued upon here.

** (Again, don't bother following that link. You didn't do that with Google, so why now?) reports that the most biased sports articles occur in tennis. Now, how much a sport makes you biased is surely an indicator of how great it is since it made you lose all your objectivity—it is THAT good. Tennis giving the highest number of such articles is surely the best. Now who will have second questions about the veracity of