Dean Barnett asks that question. The answer has to be, Depends on how you define "dominance."
Different sports have different capacities for dominance. Basketball, for instance, has a very high capacity for it. Players like Bill Russell and Michael Jordan were able to total strangle the sport for years at a time. Tennis has a similarly high capacity, where a single player can sometimes win three of the four majors in a year. Football and baseball have almost no capacity for dominance because they involve so many players--the best QB or pitcher in the history of the games can't do more than get their teams to a couple playoff appearances by themselves.
Until Tiger, gold appeared to be a sport with a relatively low capacity for dominance for a different reason: the fickleness of the game, which meant that no player could really hope to beat the field every time out. Too many things can go wrong in a round of golf.
So it depends. Has Tiger been more dominant than Roger Federer? No. Than Jordan? No. But because he's doing what he's doing in a sport that has never been dominated, then surely that counts for something. Thoughts?
27 minutes ago