Jim McCabe

Granted, the margin is skimpier than a swimsuit model’s bathing suit or thinner than a Terrell Owens excuse, but Tiger Woods is more impressive and more dominant in golf than Roger Federer is in tennis.

Now if you’re a devoted tennis fan whose knowledge of golf revolves around what you’ve seen of Happy Gilmore and Roy ‘Tin Cup’ McAvoy, you’re immediately dismissed. For those who want to toss out the tired old clichés about golf not being a sport, golfers not being athletes, and poke fun at the pace of play, the lack of physical contact, memories of champions built along the portly line, or the presence of caddies, you can save your foolhardy time and useless energy.

I come not to rip Federer, who is a most dynamic athlete, but to raise Woods to a slightly higher plateau. That is no shame on the incomparable gentleman from Switzerland, but rather a further testament to just how incomparable Woods.

Why do I elevate Woods above Federer? Simple. It’s harder to win a golf tournament.

Consider that on any given day, Woods is up against a host of competitors, not just one, which is the luxury tennis affords Federer. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, Woods has to beat, or at least keep pace, with players against whom he has no control. Unlike tennis, there is no defense in golf, so Woods was unable to do anything about that 61 Brandt Snedeker threw at him in the first round of the recent Buick Invitational. Instead, Woods was assigned the challenge of tracking down not only Snedeker, but those who shot 63, 64, and 65, too.

If Federer needs five sets to win his first-round match, he’s tied with a guy in the other half of the draw who wins in straight sets.

By the time Sunday rolls around, Federer can usually look across the net and see just one opponent and that’s easier than Woods' final-day task, which usually presents him with three or four, or even six, seven, or 12 serious competitors.

Now you can say that Woods has already beaten his competitors silly, that they are mentally shot and prepared to wave the white flag on the first tee — and I wouldn’t argue. The only thing is, Federer has that same thing going for him. Andy Roddick wants no more to do with Federer in a final than Sergio Garcia wants to slip into his British Open banana costume and take on Woods on a Sunday.

What makes Woods so dominant is exactly what makes Federer so dominant — which is why they’ve perhaps become each other’s biggest fan (all right, the Nike connection helps). The fact is, they’re not so much athletically superior to their competitors as they are mentally tougher; they know they’re going to win. Why? Because that’s all they’ve been doing for years.

TIGER'S PGA WIN STREAK ENDS O'Hern stuns Tiger again in Match Play A look at the streak, which reached 7   Discuss: What went wrong in Match Play? Opinion: Tiger more dominant than Federer Opinion: Just how good can Tiger be in 2007? Tiger's Triumphs: A look at all of his wins Tracking Tiger: News, features about star

The difference is, Woods is doing this in a sport that has never had this sort of domination. Quick, who represents the yardstick by whom all other golfers are measured? Jack Nicklaus, you say? Give yourself a prime tee time because you’re right. Now, consider this: In arguably his greatest season, 1972, Nicklaus won seven times in 19 starts, a robust winning percentage of .368. Last year, Woods posted a winning percentage of .533. Career winning percentages? Glad you asked. Nicklaus, .136; Woods .259.

(You want to complain that those numbers are inflated because they take into account many seasons in which Nicklaus was no longer competitive? Fine. Consider, then, only the years from his first win to his 73rd. Nicklaus' winning percentage improves to .162, but still far below what Woods is doing.)

Turn to tennis and Federer can’t match this sort of historic feat. But didn’t he start the 2005 season with a 35-2 match record? Well, sure he did, and while that’s pretty good, John McEnroe went 39-0 at the outset of 1984. But Federer ended 2005 with an 81-4 record and .953 winning percentage, you say? I submit that McEnroe was 82-3 and .965 that 1984 season, which explains, in part, the dilemma Federer faces.

Slide show Woods' world As these images show, there’s more to Tiger Woods than simply golf more photos

We’ve seen this before in tennis — young phenom gets his driver’s license, turns pro, wins major championships by the time he can vote (if he’s an American citizen), and is the rage around the same time he becomes old enough to drink (at least in the United States). Granted, Federer’s major stash (10) is piled higher than those marvelous tennis forces before him, but we shouldn’t overlook that Bjorn Borg (11), Andre Agassi (8), Jimmy Connors (8), Ivan Lendl (8), John McEnroe (7), and Mats Wilander (7) — just to name a few of the post-1970 stars — had impressive runs, too.

And just as Woods (12 major wins) is closing in on an icon who holds the most majors in golf (Nicklaus, 18), so, too, is Federer roaring up on Pete Sampras’ record 14. In doing so, each has surpassed legends in their respective sport — Walter Hagen, Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Harry Vardon, Bobby Jones, Gene Sarazen, Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino, Nick Faldo in golf; John Newcombe, Ken Rosewell, Fred Perry in tennis.

Slide show   Week in Sports Pictures Golfing from the rough, college football openers, net gain for tennis, and more more photos

So far as major titles go, Woods has already moved to No. 2 behind Nicklaus. That’s higher in the standings than Federer, whose 10 has him even with Bill Tilden, one behind both Rod Laver and Borg, and two behind Roy Emerson, who currently sits second to Sampras.

There’s no doubt that Federer has an edge in age — 25 to Woods’ 31 — but treat this with perspective. For those who desire prolonged career of great success, golf’s landscape is far more advantageous than that of tennis. History tell us Federer better keep this going for the next two or three years, because Sampras won just one major after he turned 30, Connors and Agassi captured just two, while Lendl won his last major at 29, McEnroe captured his at 25. Borg? He, too, won his last major at 25 and was burned out by 26, seemingly setting the tone for a generation of tennis players since.

Woods has already given enough indication that there are no such fears about complacency. The jury is still out on Federer.

MORE FROM GOLF

Golf Section Front

First round of BMW Championship a washout Calif. lawmaker blasts LPGA's English policy McIlroy, Rumford share lead at European Masters Sorenstam plays last tournament in Europe Expert: FedEx Cup format remains a work in progress Ventre: Tiger-less U.S. team can win Ryder Cup Special feature: Ryder Cup participants Vote: Who is golf's player of the year? Latest golf videos Special section: Golf on NBC Golf Section Front   Add Golf headlines to your news reader: