Tiger Woods is to Golf what Pete Sampras was to Tennis

[golf_junkie27]

I love watching Tiger Woods play but I don't consider myself a "Tiger Worshipper." I was watching highlights, last night, and I thought about what individual sport athlete he reminded me of. A guy that "went to work" so to speak, lots of resolve, creative, dominant and really had no peer. The only person I could think of was Pete Sampras. I know some people may think Agassi gave Sampras a hard time but in reality, he gave Sampras the same "hard time" that Mickelson gives Woods. They were so far and few, in between, that you could remember almost all of them.

Does anyone believe there is another individual sport athlete that dominates the way Tiger did? (Could be another tennis player, Track & Field star, etc)

[teal]

George Digweed

[Thrash13]

Tiger Woods is FAR more dominant than Pete Sampras ever was. Sampras won a good number of majors, but Tiger will have that number and many more. Also, Tiger is much more dominant on a week-to-week basis. Roger Federer is actually the only guy close to Tiger in individual dominance, and he is starting to slow a little.

[CG031]

Yes, Tiger is far more dominant in his respective sport.

[cougar2588]

i would have to agree that roger federer is almost equally as dominant as tiger woods is. federer may not win every tournarment, but he almost always advances to the finals or at least the semifinals (1st-4th place) just as tiger always finishes in the top 5 in nearly every tournament he enters.

[Undr Par]

Tiger Woods is FAR more dominant than Pete Sampras ever was. Sampras won a good number of majors, but Tiger will have that number and many more. Also, Tiger is much more dominant on a week-to-week basis. Roger Federer is actually the only guy close to Tiger in individual dominance, and he is starting to slow a little.

exactly, Agassi was just as good against Sampras, with Tiger there is no equal

[golf_junkie27]

Tiger Woods is FAR more dominant than Pete Sampras ever was. Sampras won a good number of majors, but Tiger will have that number and many more. Also, Tiger is much more dominant on a week-to-week basis. Roger Federer is actually the only guy close to Tiger in individual dominance, and he is starting to slow a little.

Sampras holds the record for most grand slams.

[Lange]

I wouldn't know really of a individual sport athelete, but theres team sport players that i know could compare up to tigers deal.

[iWALK18]

Tiger is much more impressive than any tennis player because Pete and Roger have never won a major on clay. Tiger is fully rounded in his game, he's won every major, and he is not one dimensional at all. Pete and Roger both have this odd nich on grass courts which has given their stats a huge boost... tiger is just that good on any settup....

And to compair Agassie to Phill is a joke as well. Andre actually won the french giving himself the career slam, unlike Pete and currently unlike roger. And andre has got something like 7 major titles... in the ranks of tennis he's much higher than phil is on the corresponding list of golf greats.

Andre was known for being one of the best ball strikers and returners of serve ever, as well as one of the hardest trainers off the court, which is what made his matchups with pete so amazing. Strength on strength.

[golf_junkie27]

And to compair Agassie to Phill is a joke as well. Andre actually won the french giving himself the career slam, unlike Pete and currently unlike roger. And andre has got something like 7 major titles... in the ranks of tennis he's much higher than phil is on the corresponding list of golf greats.

Andre was considered the second best to Pete. Same as Phil is to Tiger. Phil has also won the most amount of PGA Tourneys and Majors by any American golfer during the Tiger era.

I think the analogy is apt considering both are/were considered 2nd best.

[iacas]

The thing is, in tennis, you play one person at a time. If you enter as a high seed, you often get to play weaker players early on, too.

You aren't battling 155 guys at a time. You only have to beat, what, five or six people to win even a major tennis event? Right? So I don't think you can quite compare tennis to golf. Tiger would be 155-0 this week (U.S. Open). Tiger's career record against his competitors is probably north of 90%, which is nuts since he takes on EVERYONE EVERY time he tees it up. It's not head to head, he can't try to play to someone's weaknesses - he has to beat them all.

And Pete Sampras won 15 majors, according to Wikipedia, and 64 singles tournaments worldwide.

[DJYoshi]

The only person I could think of was Pete Sampras. I know some people may think Agassi gave Sampras a hard time but in reality, he gave Sampras the same "hard time" that Mickelson gives Woods. They were so far and few, in between, that you could remember almost all of them.

by far the

BEST sports commercial of all time was when Andre & Pete shut down was it 6th ave in NY? Then they rolled out a net and started playing on the street. that commercial amused me for YEARS! I was fortunate enough to see a few of their matches live with my pops & older brother. Those were special. next year I'm taking pops to bethpage so we can enjoy a great day of golf. of course we'll follow tiger, but dad's a big easy fan.

[mellojoe]

Muhammad Ali?

I don't know if that is quite the same comparison, but for individual sports Boxing always comes to mind. Ali was the best of all time. He so thoroughly dominated the sport, that there was hardly any doubt as to his claim to the heavyweight title. Sure, he lost to Frazier. But, then he won the rematch. And he whupped on George Foreman to take the title back. And it was only when he was 40 years old and he lost to Larry Holms did he look like he was slipping from contention.

There has never been as dominant a boxer as Ali. Is Tiger comparable? I don't know. He doesn't have the showmanship of Ali (who does???), and he doesn't have the length of the career of some of the greats, yet. Give him another 10 years to see if he is comparable to the greats.

Just some quick morning thoughts.

[mikelz]

Tiger isn't what anybody else was as far as I can tell.
He sure looks like the most dominant person in any individual sport in my lifetime.

[mellojoe]

Jim Thorpe.

[dozu]

it's appropriate to compare tiger to sampras. both technically superb, with unparallel will to win... but both do lack the touch of a pure genius. Both play at their best with visible effort.

Federer however, is a Mozart caliber genius. He wins, with effortless creativity. I don't think there is a golf equivalent of Federer. If we get an Els or Couples, with effortless swing, and can win as much as Tiger, then there would be the golf version of Federer.

[Smallville]

Richard Petty, Auto Racing. 200 victories, 7 Daytona 500s, 7 Cup championships. One other person won more than 100 times (105), Next closest in Daytona 500 victories is 4, and only Dale Earnhardt equals the 7 Cup Championships (Jeff Gordon, in third, has 4).

And some people might say that auto racing is not a real sport but tell me how many sports requires two balls to play!?

[FortAsel]

Every team last season was afraid to play against man utd because of ronaldo, so we can say that he "dominated" soccer last year.

Other dominant players? Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead (in golf) Armstrong (cycling), Schumacher (F1), Michael Jordan (NBA player). But no one can really match tiger...