Tiger or Roger?

After Roger Federer's thrilling five-set win over Rafael Nadal and his guns, it's time (again) for tennis fans to debate who's the greatest player ever: Roger and his 11 Grand Slam titles, Pete Sampras and his 14 or Bjorn Borg and his 11.

Personally, I object to these kinds of discussions to start with because Roger's career isn't over. I love Peyton Manning to death, but it's too early to compare him with Dan Marino because he's just now hitting his prime. Too many things could happen between now and his retirement, so I stay away from these debates.

That said, I'll take it a different route, inspired by this Nike commercial. Who's more dominant: Tiger Woods or Roger Federer?

Granted, this is hardly a new topic. The Sun-Sentinel, ESPN and other outlets beat it into the ground when Roger and Tiger were both in South Florida in March at the same time - Roger for the Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Tiger for the Ford Championship in Doral.

But no one came up with a good answer. Let's break this down and see what we find.

Major titles: Tiger has 12 Grand Slam titles in 48 appearances. Roger has 11 in 33 appearances. Roger has the better winning percentage (.333 to .250), but it's difficult to compare across sports. When Tiger wins a major, he has to beat out about 80+ guys; when Roger wins a major, he has to beat seven guys. But for the sake of argument, we'll give Roger the edge.

Biggest stage: To be the best, you have to shine on the world's biggest stage. For Roger that's Wimbledon; for Tiger, Augusta. Roger's five Wimbledon titles put him second behind Pete's seven; Tiger's four wins at The Masters is second behind only Jack Nicklaus. Both have dominated while doing so: Roger's only had one five-set match the last few years, and Tiger won his first Masters by 12 (!!!!!!) strokes. Tie.

Pure dominance: This is when it gets fun. Woods is the only golfer to have all four majors on his mantle at the same time (2000 U.S. Open - 2001 Masters), and only one of those wins was close ; Roger's 54 (and counting) straight wins on grass is a record, as is his 56 straight on hard court. Roger's streaks are impressive, but you've gotta give Woods credit for the Tiger Slam.

At the moment: No one touches either. Here's how Woods has done in his last 10 majors: First, Second, First, Fourth, Third, Missed Cut*, First, First, Second, Second. (To be fair, he missed the cut shortly after his father passed away - he gets a pass on that one). As for Roger, his last 13 majors: First, First, Semis, Semis, First, First, First, Second, First, First, First, Second, First, First. Wow. Roger has the slide edge: three wins in his last four Grand Slams, compared to Tiger's two and two runners-up. But seriously, wow.

Biggest moment: This one's easy. Roger's biggest win came at Wimbledon when he knocked off the then-unbeatable Pete Sampras in the only time the two ever met. You could also make a case for today's win over Nadal as one of his biggest moments because of the drama, the stakes (Borg watching from the stands, for God's sake) and, of course, the fact that it was so freaking close - easily one of the top five best games of the year (the others being the Colts over the Pats in the AFC Championship, Boise State's incredible win in the Fiesta Bowl, the entire Mavericks - Warriors series and Barton's upset of Winona State for the NCAA Division II basketball championship). But Tiger's win at the 1997 Masters trumps it. He dominated as a young gun few had heard of. His fist pump became an emblem for a sport. A minority's win at a course known for its intolerance is legendary. And his tearful hug with his father gives me goosebumps.

Achilles heel: Roger can't beat Nadal on clay to win the French Open. Tiger can't come from behind to win majors. Until they do, I'm not sure if either can be considered the greatest in their sport's history. That said, I give the edge to Tiger, simply because once he gets the lead, he grasps onto it (like, um, a tiger clasping meat?), so why does he need to come from behind?

Cultural impact: Roger is almost too humble, Woods is almost too quiet by completely ignoring social issues when his voice could do so much good in the world. But Woods has made golf the fourth major sport in America (a story for another day's blog entry), while Roger hasn't made most Americans care about tennis. It's not his fault, mind you - he just doesn't have the fist pump that Tiger - or Nadal - has. Winning looks too easy for him, so it's hard to get wrapped up in his triumphs.

The verdict: While Roger is more dominant at the moment, Woods gets the edge for his career's work. Somehow I don't think Roger would mind being second to Tiger - as long as he still beats everyone else on grass.