Athlete of the Decade: Who ya got?

[Simon_Cowbell]

What? No love for Mark Sanchez here?

Awesome.

Seriously, though....

How many competitors does Federer have to beat to win a Grand Slam event?

A tiny number compared with the number Woods has to beat at each major.

 

[GB-Hack]

What? No love for Mark Sanchez here?

Awesome.

Seriously, though....

How many competitors does Federer have to beat to win a Grand Slam event?

A tiny number compared with the number Woods has to beat at each major.

God, this is such a tired argument.

In golf, you compete against the course, and in some circumstances the course you play with a morning tee time is vastly different from the course your competitor plays with an afternoon tee time.

In tennis, you have to defeat someone else, man-to-man or woman-to-woman. The conditions for both are the same. And often, you have to defeat three players in the top 10 in the world, and likely at least five in the top 50, to win the event.

A bad day in golf can put you out of contention, with a chance to recover.

A bad day in tennis puts you out.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

What? No love for Mark Sanchez here?

Awesome.

Seriously, though....

How many competitors does Federer have to beat to win a Grand Slam event?

A tiny number compared with the number Woods has to beat at each major.

God, this is such a tired argument.

In golf, you compete against the course, and in some circumstances the course you play with a morning tee time is vastly different from the course your competitor plays with an afternoon tee time.

In tennis, you have to defeat someone else, man-to-man or woman-to-woman. The conditions for both are the same. And often, you have to defeat three players in the top 10 in the world, and likely at least five in the top 50, to win the event.

A bad day in golf can put you out of contention, with a chance to recover.

A bad day in tennis puts you out.

A Federer in his prime can survive a bad day at every stage except for a final, perhaps a semi.

 

[GB-Hack]

Which is why he's been so freaking dominant over the past decade.

He has been streets ahead of everyone save for pre-injury Nadal.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Which is why he's been so freaking dominant over the past decade.

He has been streets ahead of everyone save for pre-injury Nadal.

If Tiger has a bad day, 143 other players are ahead of him potentially.

Solely comparing formats, Golf majors are MUCH more difficult to win.

 

[GB-Hack]

Really?

That wouldn't be borne out by Woods' record in the WGC Matchplay.

11 times the tournament has been held, three times Tiger has won.

But that's an easier format to win, right?

 

[lone star scribe]

The key word is decade. Long-term dominance.

1. Tiger
2. Brady
3. Federer

 

[friend of the friendless]

Mr Hack,

Really?

That wouldn't be borne out by Woods' record in the WGC Matchplay.

11 times the tournament has been held, three times Tiger has won.

But that's an easier format to win, right?

And less than great in Ryder Cup.

I'd still go with Federer. Re the decade aspect: All of RF's majors are in this decade. He emerged in this decade while TW was already established by 2K. TW = 12 of 14 in this decade (so long as we're going 00-09).

o-<

 

[Gues#t]

If overall impact is part of the definition, I'll go with Tiger. IMO, he had much to do with preparing the American public for a non-white president. He's an athlete, he's tough mentally and physically, and on good days he's better than Nicklaus.

And, does the lack of interest re Pujols say more about the current status of baseball in the U.S.--it's certainly popular in many countries--or more about suspicions about Pujols? Absent Cubs fans, he should get a lot of consideration, I'd think.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Darren Rovell reports Tiger won. Armstrong next, then Federer in third.

No vote totals yet.

 

[DanOregon]

Tiger Woods - his golfing is just a bonus.

 

[Songbird]

Dumb.