Tiger Woods v. Roger Federer: Who is more dominant?

After their most recent accomplishments, the very difficult question of who is more dominant, Tiger or Roger, has been posed. Woods capped off his 7th consecutive PGA tour win, the longest streak in 61 years and the 2nd longest of all time. Federer won his 10th grand slam in record fashion, by winning all 21 sets in the tournament.

So who is more dominant?

The answer, in my opinion, is obvious. It has to be Tiger Woods for many reasons.

1. Reger Federer only needed to beat 7 guys individually, one guy at a time. In the first 4 rounds of the tournament, he played relative no names. He can put it on cruise control and win those matches. Therefore, he only needs to really play well for 3 matches. You can also argue that his opponents in these final 3 rounds weren't all that special either. Let's face it, Andy Roddick is tennis' best example of Phil Mickelson. Roddick is 1-12 verse Federer and really has no chance of beating him. On the contrary, Tiger Woods needs to defeat some 153 other players and needs to play well on 4 consecutive days. People say well Tiger only beat rookies this weekend at the Buick. That isn't entirely true. The field included the 2nd and 3rd ranked players in the world in Mickelson and Singh. Tiger beat them by over 10 strokes. Also, all these golfers are very good and are capable of playing the round of their life or the tournament of their life on any given week and posting a ridiculous 61. In tennis though, when you are better than someone, you are just better, and unless you pull a hammy, you will beat them 99% of the time.
2. Federer hasn't even won all of his sports major tournaments. The French Open, tennis' equivalent of golf's British Open, has illuded Federer for 8 years. Tiger has won every major in his sport twice at least. If you are going to be the most dominant man in sports, you need to win every major tournament in your sport. Federer isn't the best player on clay, so he doesn't completely dominate his sport.
3. People say well Tiger is older and has been pro much longer. Federer turned pro in 1998, only 2 years after Tiger Woods has turned pro, in 1996. Since Federer turned pro, Tiger has the edge in majors, 11-10. Tiger has also won more tournaments in that span.
4. Federer has no competition. You can say he is just that good and that much better than everyone but in reality, the guy has noone that poses a serious threat to him on any surface other than clay. He beat Roddick 6-2 6-0 6-2. That is similar to Eldrick beating Ames 9 and 8. This guy is supposed to be a rival to the world's number 1 and he wins 4 games in 3 sets. That isn't a rival. Roddick is merely a blip on Federer's radar. The same argument can be made about Woods, that he doesn't have a true rival, like Jack and Arnie. Well, it may be true that noone matches up to Tiger individually. But in a field of over 150 people, there will be one player that has the week of his life that week. So in each tournament, for the most part, Tiger will have someone that challenges him. That is, until Sunday when he is paired up with Tiger and his week of his life turns into disaster. Tiger played with 2 players, one on Saturday and one on Sunday this week who entered the round in contention. They fired an 80 and 76 respectively and fell off the 2nd page of the leaderboard.
5. Tiger's intimidation factor isn't matched in sports. People seem to fold by the mere sight of his name on the leaderboard on the final round. He has yet to be challenged in a major by one of the sports better golfers. The only time Tiger has been challenged was by relative no names Bob May and Rich Beem who didn't know where they were or what they were doing. A perfect example is the '99 PGA when Mike Weir was having the tournament of his life, firing 3 rounds in the 60's to get into the final group with Tiger. Weir followed that up with a final round 80.
6. People say that tennis takes more athletic ability than golf. I agree, but golf takes more skill and more patience. Anyone who has played golf can agree that it is the hardest sport to play. Mastering golf seems to be impossible even for the best players in the world.

Federer is dominant, but not as dominant as Tiger. Winning 7 straight matches in straight sets is impressive, but not as impressive as winning 7 straight starts on tour. Tiger has had to be consistent for 28 consecutive rounds over a span of months, not 14 days like Federer. Tiger has defeated a grand total of 1050 players in these 7 tournaments. In 7 tournaments Federer needs to beat 49 at most. I don't think the conversation of who is more dominant can even be had until Federer wins a French Open. This could never happen since Nadal seems to have his number. At least he will have some competition for that tournament.