Tiger Woods and Roger Federer - both great, but who's the best?

Time limitations mean there's no links in today's post - just a question. In light of Roger Federer's win at the French Open yesterday - which in my mind makes him the greatest tennis player of all time -who is is the best athlete of this generation?

I wrote the following column on Friday, before Federer claimed the French title, and that win just adds fuel to the discussion. So have a read, then let me know what you think - and if I'm ignoring any other contenders for the crown..... 

I AM going to start with an assertion. Go with me on this.

Roger Federer and Tiger Woods are the two greatest athletes of this generation.

I make this case simply because no-one else in mainstream sport has won as much or ruled their discipline with the same aura of invincibility.

Assertion over. If you agree, read on. If not, this column may make you angry – so read on regardless. It’s fun to get vexed every now and then.

Anyway, as Federer attempts to win the French Open for the first time this weekend, and Woods readies himself for an assault on yet another Major at the US Open later this month, I got to thinking – who is the best, the greatest of the two greats?

On the face of it, they are incredibly well matched. The tale of the tape sees them both stand 6ft 1ins, with Federer enjoying a two-pound weight advantage.

But this is not a fight. So let’s examine career statistics – and again the similarities are striking.

Woods has won 65 career tournaments, Federer 66. Tiger has roared to 14 Majors – second all-time – while Federer has 13 Grand Slams, again second-best in his sport.

More work needed. Obviously you can’t really compare their sports or respective athletic skills, so I’m going to use my own test.

A few weeks back I shared with you my formula for sporting greatness – dominance, longevity and impact – and now I get a chance to use them. Points out of ten, please.

- Dominance: Woods is undeniably dominant, but I’m afraid even he isn’t quite in Federer’s league.

The Swiss racket master has reached the final four in each of the last 20 Grand Slams he’s played in, and last failed to win at least one back in 2002. That is simply incredible.

Even in Tiger’s best year, 2000, when he claimed three Majors, he ‘only’ won nine of twenty tournaments, with ‘just’ 17 top ten finishes.

For me, Federer takes this category, ten points to nine.

- Longevity: Difficult, as both are still playing. But for the purposes of this column, there must be a winner.

Woods made his pro debut in 1996, two years before Federer. The latter, although just 27, will surely only be able to keep playing at the highest level for another ten years or so and has already slipped to number two in the world rankings.

Here, Woods has the advantage. Competing in a less physically demanding sport, Tiger could conceivably carry on swinging and winning until the age of 50 at least.

Woods wins this one 10-9.

- Impact: And so we come to the decider. Federer has undoubtedly had a major impact on his sport, proving that you can win more with skill and guile than brute force like, say, Pete Sampras.

But I’m afraid his impact pales in comparison to Tiger, who has transcended his sport like few before him and brought golf to the masses – of all races, colours and creeds.

In doing so, he has revolutionised the sport – his physique, fitness regime and power alone forcing his competitors to flee to the nearest gym and course designers to frantically ‘Tiger-proof’ their latest creations.

On top of that, millions have been inspired to take up the game on the back of his achievements, charisma and fame.

Simply put, he is a phenomenon, a once-in-a-lifetime supernova burning in the sky with twice the intensity of other sporting stars.

Tiger wins this category 10-9, and takes the title 29-28.

So there you have it. Tiger Woods is, by my estimation, the greatest athlete of this generation.

Of course, there are really no losers here. We all win – after all, we get to watch them both play.