Is Lorena Ochoa or Tiger Woods more dominant amongst their peers? Why?

Question

Interesting article on Yahoo's Tennis home page reporting that Nadal thinks it will be difficult to keep up his success on clay this year. The title of the article is: Tennis ace Nadal fears he'll eventually cave under clay pressure.

Does that change your mind?

Answer 1

Tiger. The reason is that Tiger has been dominant from the beginning. Ever since he turned pro he has won tournament after tournament. Lorena however just got good in the past year or two. Before that she wasn't winning anything. She would get a lead then choke. Tiger however comes back from a huge deficit and wins.

Answer 2

Lorena is more dominant because, to be honest, most women on the tour suck.   But at least the hot one's can sell themselves (Natalie, Paula, Brittany, Karrie, and Morgan... d**n thatd be quite an orgy!

Answer 3

For the time that each has been a professional Tiger Woods has been a  more dominant player than Lorena Ochoa. He has won more tournaments, He has won more major tournaments against stronger fields than has Ochoa.  And the percentage of tournaments won for the number entered favors Tiger all the way.

Answer 4

I'd say Lorena.  Not to take anything away from Tiger, but I think Lorena's competition is better.

Look at it this way... If you split Tiger's points up into Tiger A and Tiger B, Phil Mickelson would be in 3rd place, with both Tigers being 1 and 2.  Tiger only plays courses he is VERY familiar with, while alot of guys will play anywhere.  Plus, it seems that there are more male golfers who are out there just looking for a paycheck.  Which is kind of understandable, considering how anyone who says they'd like to be #1 or would like to take down Tiger gets crucified by everone, especially the media (see Rory Sabatini, Jason Day and Anthony Kim).

Lorena has it a little harder, I believe.  The LPGA makes considerably less money then the PGA, so I don't believe the "I'm here for the paycheck" mentality is as prevalent.  Lorena has all kinds of others looking down her driver: Annika, Jeoung Jang, Morgan Pressel, Paula Creamer, Christie Kerr, Laura Davies.... more than all the villians in Batman's Rogue's Gallery!  Add the fact that any of them can win at any given day.....  

This is by no means an indictment of Tiger, just an honest opinion based on the competition each of them faces.

Answer 5

Tiger plays against better competition...when he actually shows up for a tournament. Lorena is clearly more dominant over the last 18 months but doesn't play against equal talent. But I would go with Lorena because she actually plays more then once a month. Tiger is lazy.

Answer 6

Tiger Woods was more dominant than Lorena.  However, now, Lorena plays a lot more tournaments in a year than he does (even before his knee injury) and so the rest of the field has caught up to him.

Think of it this way, there is a greater distance between tiger and Phil, at number 2, in terms of rankings, than Phil and the entire rest of the PGA tour.  and that is no slight at Phil, who is awesome.  

Lorena is great, but the difference between her and Paula Creamer or Annika or B.Y. Kim, is not as great as Tiger and the rest of the PGA.

Answer 7

Tiger has the ooooomph when it comes to winning. He is definitely more dominant amongst his peers compared to Lorena. His sheer presence in any competition that he is involved will somehow create some kind of a negative stimulus to his peers. He is also master of the impossibles (drives, fairways, sand and putts) on so many critical occasions. He also draws the crowd.

Answer 8

Lorena.  She has much tougher competition than Woods.  The men are all wimps and just give up whenever Tiger is playing in the tournament.  She's got Annika, Paula, Natalie, Grace, Se Ri, etc. and she's beating them by double digit margins week in and week out.