Athlete of the Decade: Who ya got?

[Mizzougrad96]

It's Woods, Armstrong or Federer.

No one else is even close.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Woods got 56 of 142 votes.
Armstrong 33
Federer 25
Phelps 13
Brady 6
Bolt 4
Five others got 1 vote each.

 

[Jay August]

Has AP moved any agate with the list of previous athletes of the decade? Haven't seen it.

 

[JC]

Dumb.

Why?

 

[Songbird]

I already chronicled Federer's accomplishments. And I don't buy for a second that he didn't start winning all of his stuff til 2003, while Tiger was winning from the start of the decade; those 2-plus years don't make a difference. What Federer did from '03 to the end of this year is phenomenal. Same could be said with Armstrong, and even Tiger.

Just saying my vote would've been Federer. Still haven't seen the Tiger version of the list I put up about Federer.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

I just want to know who the five were that got one vote each.

 

[Den1983]

I would've gone with Federer, definitely, simply because of the argument GB-Hack made. Much more difficult to go against man-to-man than a course.

 

[JC]

I already chronicled Federer's accomplishments. And I don't buy for a second that he didn't start winning all of his stuff til 2003, while Tiger was winning from the start of the decade; those 2-plus years don't make a difference. What Federer did from '03 to the end of this year is phenomenal. Same could be said with Armstrong, and even Tiger.

Just saying my vote would've been Federer. Still haven't seen the Tiger version of the list I put up about Federer.

I can buy Federer, was just curious as to why you thought the Tiger vote was dumb.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

If they have a trophy for this, he ain't showing up to collect it.

 

[Songbird]

I already chronicled Federer's accomplishments. And I don't buy for a second that he didn't start winning all of his stuff til 2003, while Tiger was winning from the start of the decade; those 2-plus years don't make a difference. What Federer did from '03 to the end of this year is phenomenal. Same could be said with Armstrong, and even Tiger.

Just saying my vote would've been Federer. Still haven't seen the Tiger version of the list I put up about Federer.

I can buy Federer, was just curious as to why you thought the Tiger vote was dumb.

Maybe dumb isn't the right word. I understand why he won it. Nothing against his fans voters. He had a great decade. But was it better than Fed's? Tough one to answer.

 

[John]

I'd go Federer, Woods, Phelps.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

I already chronicled Federer's accomplishments. And I don't buy for a second that he didn't start winning all of his stuff til 2003, while Tiger was winning from the start of the decade; those 2-plus years don't make a difference. What Federer did from '03 to the end of this year is phenomenal. Same could be said with Armstrong, and even Tiger.

Just saying my vote would've been Federer. Still haven't seen the Tiger version of the list I put up about Federer.

I can buy Federer, was just curious as to why you thought the Tiger vote was dumb.

Maybe dumb isn't the right word. I understand why he won it. Nothing against his fans voters. He had a great decade. But was it better than Fed's? Tough one to answer.

If it was athlete of 2004-07, he's the slam-dunk winner.

However, he was a sports nobody in the first three years of the decade.