Roger Federer, at age 25, is arguably the most dominant athlete in the world. He may not be the most powerful, or the most flamboyant; he is, however, preternaturally talented, unerringly consistent, and unhampered by any notable weakness. If he keeps at his current pace—and there is no conceivable reason outside of an injury why he wouldn't—he'll shatter every record in tennis before the end of the decade. (He already has 10 Grand Slams. Pete Sampras has the most with 14, the last of which he won at age 31.)

Outside of the nascent Spaniard Rafael Nadal—whose best chance to beat the Swiss champ is on his native clay court or on an off day for Federer—he has no rival of which to speak. He decimates lower-ranked players as if they were third-graders taking lessons at summer camp. A frustrated Andy Roddick, who has heretofore failed to find a chink in Federer's armor, said during the 2007 Australian Open that he felt the rest of the men's field was closing the gap on him. And then he watched Federer breeze through the tournament and win the championship in the most decisive fashion imaginable: without losing a set. How did those words taste, Andy?

But is Federer's perennial supremacy good for the game of tennis? This is a sport whose popularity has historically been propelled by rivalries: McEnroe/Bjorg, Sampras/Agassi, Venus/Serena, to name a few. If the favorites made their way through their respective brackets and met in the finals, these matches achieved legendary status and helped thrust tennis into the popular consciousness. Today, however, Federer stands alone at the top with no equal. It's rarely "Is such-and-such going to beat Federer?" and more "How severely will Federer beat such-and-such?"

It is admittedly thrilling to be in the presence of history in the making—I can't keep track of how many times the commentators have said as much—and it is truly a pleasure to witness an athlete performing at his astronomical peak. But when the result is all but predetermined virtually every time, the sport loses much of its excitement. And some of its fun.—Anthony DiRocco

LINKS
• His website, however, is pretty average
• Wikipedia catalogs the excellence