Comparing Tiger to Federer (cont.)

Personally, I think the Roger Federer versus Tiger Woods argument is more of a cosmic one -- like the Diner argument between Sinatra and Mathis. It seems that in sports you often have Sinatra-Mathis arguments -- that is, two athletes who dominate their games in different ways. There's the Sinatra way of dominating -- come right at you, knock over some chairs, announce your presence, take over the room whether anyone likes it or not. And there's the Mathis way of dominating -- smooth, quiet, winning without offending, kicking everyone's butt and having everyone still love you the next day.

John Elway was Sinatra -- he'd tear your heart a hundred different ways. Joe Montana was Mathis -- Howie Long once said that Montana would knock you out with pillows.

Roger Clemens was Sinatra -- he'd throw baseballs at your head, broken bats at your feet, and he'd snarl between pitches. Greg Maddux was Mathis -- he would throw cottonballs over the outside corner (or six inches outside if the umpire would give it to him) and leave batters in the clubhouse shaking their heads and talking about how they just missed.

Bobby Orr was Sinatra -- dominating, insistent, willful, always rushing up the ice, always refusing to let his team lose. Wayne Gretzky was Mathis -- cool, serene, standing behind the net with the puck on his stick and a million possibilities in his mind. And so on. You can probably come up with a hundred of these.

And you can guess, no doubt, that in this scenario, Woods is Sinatra and Federer is Mathis. Woods wears blood red on Sundays and Federer wears sweaters around his neck. Federer expects to win; Woods insists on winning. Woods, like Sinatra, is for whatever gets you through the night. Federer, like Mathis, plays tender music -- I suspect Federer plays such beautiful tennis that it's probably good to make out to ... though I'll admit I've never tried it.

You could see all that at work on Sunday. Woods was on the 13th hole at the AT&T National at Congressional when he got word that Hunter Mahan had just birdied the final two holes to shoot a ridiculous 62. Mahan had tied him. Woods had six holes left and he needed to shoot one-under the rest of the way to win. So ... Tiger Woods shot one-under on the final six holes -- he birdied 16 -- and won. It was the performance of a professional assassin. And everyone in the place -- everyone -- knew that he would do it.

Federer, meanwhile, had that remarkable 77-game struggle with Andy Roddick in the finals of Wimbledon, but he won in a whole different way. He just stayed there, point after point, game after game, set after set. Every now and again, he would show a burst of emotion, but mostly no, he was serene, soft violins playing in the background, and he just kept hitting brilliant shots, kept hitting impossible to return serves, and kept waiting for Roddick to simply accept his fate. Roddick refused to give in for a long, long time. That part was inspiring. When he finally succumbed in the 30th game of the fifth set, he had that said look that said, "And the worst part is he's so good I can't even hate that guy."*

*My friend, AP columnist Jim Litke, once told a story about seeing Julius Erving play in a summer basketball game back when the Doctor was still in college. Apparently there was some other basketball star out there -- forget the name, which probably hits the point -- and at one point Erving drove to the basket and this other guy ran up to defend him, and they both took off at the same time. The crowd was going crazy and they both reached their apex and it looked like the guy would block Erving's shot. Only, it turned out that only one had really reached his apex. Erving kept going up and this other guy started going down, and Erving dunked the ball, and Litke always says that's the difference between Dr. J and everyone else.

That was what it was like watching those final few games between Roddick and Federer. Roddick went up and he stayed up with Federer as long as he could. But, he had to come down because that's just the difference between Federer and everyone else.

So, in the end, I suspect that choosing between Woods and Federer really does come down to choosing between Sinatra and Mathis, between a killer and an artist, between a steely 12-foot putt to save par and a drop shot that hits the ground and doesn't bounce up. It's all how you view the world. But it does make you wonder: When Federer and Woods hang out on the yacht, do they play some chess or Monopoly or Battleship or foosball or Paper Scissors Stones or something like that? And if they do: Who wins?*

*I suspect Tiger wins. He seems like he would be a killer Monopoly player.