PDA

View Full Version : Atlete of The Decade


OddJack
12-07-2009, 08:05 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3297734


A month ago, during simpler times, Tiger Woods was presented with a tricky question: Who would he pick as the athlete of the decade?

Plenty of possible choices - Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, Kobe Bryant, Barry Bonds, Tom Brady, among them. Tiger, too. Told the list of candidates, and leaving himself out of the mix, Woods contemplated their merits for two holes during a pro-am in China before he finally found himself torn between Federer and Bonds.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/baseball/78689912.html

Well, since Tennis is tougher to play than Basketball or Baseball, I would go for Federer.

coyfish
12-07-2009, 08:12 PM
Meh federer definately deserves to be among the top of the list but I really hate sports comparisons. Its just not right. Too many variables and differences. They should at least separate team / individual sports.

President of Serve/Volley
12-07-2009, 08:12 PM
Lance Armstrong or Federer.

OddJack
12-07-2009, 08:16 PM
Meh federer definately deserves to be among the top of the list but I really hate sports comparisons. Its just not right. Too many variables and differences. They should at least separate team / individual sports.

Even comparing eras within tennis is not right, let alone comparing different sports. Yet this is something people cant help doing.

boredone3456
12-07-2009, 08:36 PM
Lance Armstrong or Federer.

I'd agree with this, Bonds sorry no, not even in the discussion. Kobe, as popular as he is, athletically does not stack up to me. Brady, well I will admit I am a huge fan, being from New England, the man is an amazing QB and could probably be argued as the best QB of the decade....but best athlete....mehhhh I wouldn't go that far. He has a good tactical mind when it comes to football, but I would not say athletically he is up there. Armstrong, Fed, and maybe even Phelps or other olympic level athlete's could be in contention, but I would not put Barry Bonds and Fed in the same sentence in terms of athletic ability. My Choice would be either Armstrong, Fed or maybe Phelps. But I am sure there are other athlete's in sports that none of us would or are thinking of that could be up there to, at least further up there than Barry Bonds and Kobe Bryant

Feña14
12-07-2009, 08:45 PM
Federer, Armstrong, Zidane, Woods, Giggs, C. Ronaldo has been the best player in the world since 2006 which is a hell of an achievement also.

AAUS
12-07-2009, 09:14 PM
I'd agree with this, Bonds sorry no, not even in the discussion. Kobe, as popular as he is, athletically does not stack up to me. Brady, well I will admit I am a huge fan, being from New England, the man is an amazing QB and could probably be argued as the best QB of the decade....but best athlete....mehhhh I wouldn't go that far. He has a good tactical mind when it comes to football, but I would not say athletically he is up there. Armstrong, Fed, and maybe even Phelps or other olympic level athlete's could be in contention, but I would not put Barry Bonds and Fed in the same sentence in terms of athletic ability. My Choice would be either Armstrong, Fed or maybe Phelps. But I am sure there are other athlete's in sports that none of us would or are thinking of that could be up there to, at least further up there than Barry Bonds and Kobe Bryant

at the NFL combine, Tom Brady ran a 40 slower than 5 seconds
I dont know what to compare it to but I'll just let you know its absolutely terrible

shaysrebelII
12-07-2009, 10:04 PM
the only viable argument that I can see against Federer is that he won his first slam in 2003. It would stand to reason that if this is an award for a decade's worth of accomplishments, it would count more than just the last 7 years.

that being said, Fed went from completely unknown to almost unanimously thought of as the greatest player to ever step on a court, all in the last ten years. how could you not pick him?

Knightmace
12-07-2009, 11:28 PM
the only viable argument that I can see against Federer is that he won his first slam in 2003. It would stand to reason that if this is an award for a decade's worth of accomplishments, it would count more than just the last 7 years.

that being said, Fed went from completely unknown to almost unanimously thought of as the greatest player to ever step on a court, all in the last ten years. how could you not pick him?
Tru but it was more like last t6 years

Quite Please
12-08-2009, 12:29 AM
No question: Ole Einar Björndalen
But biathlon doesn't get much attention sadly.

OTMPut
12-08-2009, 01:25 AM
Usain BOLT. End of discussion.

tintin
12-08-2009, 04:35 AM
Federer for making ALL 4 majors finals for the 3th time

Tsonga#1fan
12-08-2009, 04:52 AM
Lance Armstrong, Tigger Woods, Roger Federer....in that order. Tigger's personal problems don't have any place in my consideration as his life outside his sport is of no big interest to me anyway. I always thought he was boring at least now he seems human and obviously likes to loosen up and have a little fun. Go Tigger!

Andres
12-08-2009, 04:55 AM
Well, since Tennis is tougher to play than Basketball, I would go for Federer.
Aha. Ehm. Ahum. It's not.

Seany
12-08-2009, 05:09 AM
Decade would suggest from 2000 onwards, which puts fed out of the discussion.

Woods himself is the best candidate.

coyfish
12-08-2009, 09:24 AM
Lance Armstrong, Tigger Woods, Roger Federer....in that order. Tigger's personal problems don't have any place in my consideration as his life outside his sport is of no big interest to me anyway. I always thought he was boring at least now he seems human and obviously likes to loosen up and have a little fun. Go Tigger!

Tigger is from winnie the pooh.

Anyway you just cant compare sports. TOOOOO many variables. What about boxing??? One of the most difficult sports. Its very difficult to dominate for a decade. Manny Paquiao?? Oscar??? Pretty boy Mayweather???

Or sports like soccer where not every player gets recognized. Sure C. Ronaldo can score goals. But R. Kaka is a much better all around player who glues teams together.

Michael phelps . . .

I think its an insult to name a "athlete of the decade" based on sporting performance.

mcshift
12-08-2009, 09:33 AM
100% federer..no question. totally dominating the sport and making it to almost every slam final since 2003. Its easier to pick federer because tennis is an individual sport while kobe and bonds are occasionally carried by their teams.
With Tiger, sure hes a great athelete but i think all the recent events and his horrible sportsmanship should ruin his chances of getting it.

Rhino
12-08-2009, 09:34 AM
Decade would suggest from 2000 onwards, which puts fed out of the discussion.

Woods himself is the best candidate.

Tiger Woods should not even be part of this discussion. He's a golfer not an athlete. Golfers walk slowly around a big field, with lots of rest breaks. That is not athleticism, which is why guys in their 50's and fat guys can be top golfers.

I'd go for Federer, Bolt, and Lance Armstrong (possibly Phelps too).

OddJack
12-08-2009, 09:40 AM
Aha. Ehm. Ahum. It's not.

that's cute, but still say Being a top tennis player is tougher than being a top basketball player. So I put Fed above Jordan.

akv89
12-08-2009, 09:49 AM
that's cute, but still say Being a top tennis player is tougher than being a top basketball player. So I put Fed above Jordan.

Physically, tennis is an easier sport to play than basketball. There is more technique involved in tennis, but you need more stamina and strength for basketball.

akv89
12-08-2009, 09:52 AM
Michael Schumacher has a case as well, despite participating in only 7 of the ten years this decade. In those 7 years, he won 5 driver's championships, came 2nd once, and 3rd once.

Cup8489
12-08-2009, 09:59 AM
Tiger Woods should not even be part of this discussion. He's a golfer not an athlete. Golfers walk slowly around a big field, with lots of rest breaks. That is not athleticism, which is why guys in their 50's and fat guys can be top golfers.

I'd go for Federer, Bolt, and Lance Armstrong (possibly Phelps too).

maybe you should try walking a 54 hole round. don't think youll complain about them anymore.

Rhino
12-08-2009, 10:16 AM
maybe you should try walking a 54 hole round. don't think youll complain about them anymore.

Well my Grandad used to do it, and yes i agree he did get tired sometimes, but I wasn't about to compare him with Lance Armstrong.

OddJack
12-08-2009, 10:25 AM
Physically, tennis is an easier sport to play than basketball. There is more technique involved in tennis, but you need more stamina and strength for basketball.

See, it's not all about physicals. If it was so Pro Wrestlers who frequently die before the age of 40 would be considered the greatest athletes.
If you add skills required, and mental strength needed, the comparison becomes easier.

Changmaster
12-08-2009, 10:39 AM
that's cute, but still say Being a top tennis player is tougher than being a top basketball player. So I put Fed above Jordan.

I definitely think tennis is one of the hardest sports in which to go pro. Basketball is certainly hard as well, but I think that's mainly because if you're short, you have a slim to none chance of playing in the NBA (unless you're an athletic freak like Nate Robinson)

Serendipitous
12-08-2009, 10:40 AM
Nalbandian

OJ ROD
12-08-2009, 10:53 AM
Aha. Ehm. Ahum. It's not.

No. It is.

OJ ROD
12-08-2009, 10:55 AM
Physically, tennis is an easier sport to play than basketball. There is more technique involved in tennis, but you need more stamina and strength for basketball.

What? That's relative.

Cup8489
12-08-2009, 11:01 AM
What? That's relative.

yeah... i dont agree either... basketball have shorter games and players are often rotated out. tennis you have to play the whole time, no one to switch with. and 5-set matches you can easily run a few miles on court..

akv89
12-08-2009, 11:30 AM
See, it's not all about physicals. If it was so Pro Wrestlers who frequently die before the age of 40 would be considered the greatest athletes.
If you add skills required, and mental strength needed, the comparison becomes easier.

I enjoy playing both sports and while tennis is more taxing mentally, basketball is definitely the more physically difficult sport.
There probably are more skills to learn in tennis than in basketball, and I believe this because in general people seem to take a longer time to learn how to play tennis at a respectable level than to learn how to play basketball. However, the skills required to be a good basketball player can't be underestimated either.

So given that both sports have some athletic requriements that the other doesn't, I don't agree with your assessment that tennis is clearly the tougher sport to play.

Pro wrestling? Not a sport. It's more like a tv drama.

fps
12-08-2009, 11:40 AM
I definitely think tennis is one of the hardest sports in which to go pro. Basketball is certainly hard as well, but I think that's mainly because if you're short, you have a slim to none chance of playing in the NBA (unless you're an athletic freak like Nate Robinson)

one of the reasons tennis is so difficult is that only the best make any money. the VERY best.

in football, being one of the top 50 players in the world in your position you can make millions. in tennis you're reliant on yourself and no-one else. basketball too, you can fit into different positions on the pitch/court/whatever.

Changmaster
12-08-2009, 12:32 PM
one of the reasons tennis is so difficult is that only the best make any money. the VERY best.

in football, being one of the top 50 players in the world in your position you can make millions. in tennis you're reliant on yourself and no-one else. basketball too, you can fit into different positions on the pitch/court/whatever.

Right, even if you ARE good enough at tennis to go pro, you'd have to be at least amongst the top 50 in the world if you wanted to have a comfortable living for yourself. Tennis players are underpaid IMO relative to other sports.

Chadwixx
12-08-2009, 12:39 PM
yeah... i dont agree either... basketball have shorter games and players are often rotated out. tennis you have to play the whole time, no one to switch with. and 5-set matches you can easily run a few miles on court..

I would like to play tennis in an air conditioned gym and take breaks every 4-5 mins or whenever i get tired.

Golfers, nascar drivers and bicycle riders shouldnt be in the conversation since they dont play a sport.

People who think basketball is tougher than tennis maybe correct. What people dont realize is the better you get at tennis, the harder it gets. Its based on level, you can play basketball and work your *** off missing shots all day, in tennis you miss the 2nd shot and it doesnt seem very hard.

President of Serve/Volley
12-08-2009, 01:52 PM
Michael Schumacher has a case as well, despite participating in only 7 of the ten years this decade. In those 7 years, he won 5 driver's championships, came 2nd once, and 3rd once.


Senna is better than Schumacher.

Fedex
12-09-2009, 09:04 AM
Usain BOLT. End of discussion.

Ah but if you're not from the good old ultra parochial USA then it doesn't count.
Two that immediately spring to mind would be Kenenisa Bekele and Usain Bolt both freaks of nature and both competing in sports recognised throughout the world unlike baseball and American Football which, practically, no one outside the States is even remotely interested in.
Bekele is the greatest long distance runner of all time and Bolt is the greatest sprinter of all time.

Agassifan
12-09-2009, 09:05 AM
fed. no doubt.

malakas
12-09-2009, 09:19 AM
Michael Schumacher has a case as well, despite participating in only 7 of the ten years this decade. In those 7 years, he won 5 driver's championships, came 2nd once, and 3rd once.

Definitely!That was my first thought actually.

Fedex
12-09-2009, 10:11 AM
Interesting article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/6117774/Kenenisa-Bekele-is-the-Usain-Bolt-of-distance-running.html

"The winner of 24 world and Olympic titles, more than anyone in athletics history; the breaker of six world records; unbeaten in his career over 10,000 metres; undefeated in three years and 26 track races over 3,000m or more; the greatest cross country runner ever with 11 global titles."

To put this into perspective, Bekele's 10,000 m world record time of 26 minutes 17 seconds is equivalent to running an average 100m time of 15.77 seconds.
That means he ran one hundred times 100m sprints back to back at a rate of 15.77 seconds!
Go out to your nearest track and run a sub 16 second 100m then imagine having to do that another 99 times without a break and I guarantee your chin will be on the ground in disbelief.

akv89
12-09-2009, 10:16 AM
Senna is better than Schumacher.

People have their favorites. Who knows what Senna could have done if he didn't die in 94. But Schumacher holds all the records and holds them by a good margin. I can't put one clearly on top of another, but I believe Schumacher to be a better, more complete driver.

AM95
12-09-2009, 10:18 AM
Decade would suggest from 2000 onwards, which puts fed out of the discussion.

Woods himself is the best candidate.

so your saying the 15 majors he won from late 2003-2009 dont count

Quite Please
12-09-2009, 10:21 AM
Interesting article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/6117774/Kenenisa-Bekele-is-the-Usain-Bolt-of-distance-running.html

"The winner of 24 world and Olympic titles, more than anyone in athletics history; the breaker of six world records; unbeaten in his career over 10,000 metres; undefeated in three years and 26 track races over 3,000m or more; the greatest cross country runner ever with 11 global titles."

To put this into perspective, Bekele's 10,000 m world record time of 26 minutes 17 seconds is equivalent to running an average 100m time of 15.77 seconds.
That means he ran one hundred times 100m sprints back to back at a rate of 15.77 seconds!
Go out to your nearest track and run a sub 16 second 100m then imagine having to do that another 99 times without a break and I guarantee your chin will be on the ground in disbelief.

I agree, Bekele has to be taken into consideration as well, anything else would be close to blasphemy.

Cyan
12-09-2009, 10:33 AM
Michael Schumacher.

Andy G
12-12-2009, 11:30 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3297734


A month ago, during simpler times, Tiger Woods was presented with a tricky question: Who would he pick as the athlete of the decade?

Plenty of possible choices - Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, Kobe Bryant, Barry Bonds, Tom Brady, among them. Tiger, too. Told the list of candidates, and leaving himself out of the mix, Woods contemplated their merits for two holes during a pro-am in China before he finally found himself torn between Federer and Bonds.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/baseball/78689912.html

Well, since Tennis is tougher to play than Basketball or Baseball, I would go for Federer.


Way off. Best player is Allison Fisher. 22 years at #1. Thats not a misprint.

This link even has a comparo of Allison, Tiger, and Federer.

http://www.allisonfisher.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=73

Talker
12-12-2009, 11:50 AM
Way off. Best player is Allison Fisher. 22 years at #1. Thats not a misprint.

This link even has a comparo of Allison, Tiger, and Federer.

http://www.allisonfisher.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=73

Wow, never heard of her. Those are some stats!
I was thinking of something more physical, using reflexes, timing with some endurance.

I would have to go with Fed, won all his GS's in the time frame, dominated like no one else. And the pages of other records. Never happened before to such a great extent.
In one stretch he won 6/7 GS's.

Andy G
12-12-2009, 12:01 PM
Wow, never heard of her. Those are some stats!
I was thinking of something more physical, using reflexes, timing with some endurance.

I would have to go with Fed, won all his GS's in the time frame, dominated like no one else. And the pages of other records. Never happened before to such a great extent.
In one stretch he won 6/7 GS's.


Dude, 22, I repeat 22 years as #1. 165 titles, 32 majors. I get what you're saying about physical play, but still, to be the best for that long. These guys careers aren't even as long as she was #1. She was #1 from 1987 to 2009. How many #1's did tennis, or any other sport you want to pick, have in that time. Ivan Lendl was #1 when she first earned her #1.

Talker
12-12-2009, 12:05 PM
Dude, 22, I repeat 22 years as #1. 165 titles, 32 majors. I get what you're saying about physical play, but still, to be the best for that long. These guys careers aren't even as long as she was #1. She was #1 from 1987 to 2009. How many #1's did tennis, or any other sport you want to pick, have in that time. Ivan Lendl was #1 when she first earned her #1.

It's amazing. Just think of all the drinks she could win in a redneck bar. :)

Andy G
12-12-2009, 12:12 PM
It's amazing. Just think of all the drinks she could win in a redneck bar. :)

She was #1 longer than you've been alive. Because by you're comment you must be about 17.

matchmaker
12-12-2009, 12:15 PM
Any one saying Federer is delusional. He is quick for a tennis player, but nothing otherwordly.

He would be absolutely put to shame against other "real" athletes.

The athletes of the decade are Usain Bolt and Lance Armstrong, the former for explosivity, the latter for endurance.

Talker
12-12-2009, 12:15 PM
She was #1 longer than you've been alive. Because by you're comment you must be about 17.

Thank you!!!

Andy G
12-12-2009, 12:24 PM
Any one saying Federer is delusional. He is quick for a tennis player, but nothing otherwordly.

He would be absolutely put to shame against other "real" athletes.

The athletes of the decade are Usain Bolt and Lance Armstrong, the former for explosivity, the latter for endurance.


How could you or anyone else here think Usain Bolt is Athlete of the Decade. Before the last Olympics, no one even knew who he was. He did awesome at one event (the olypics as a whole) at the end of the decade, and some how he qualifies for athlete of the entire decade??? No way, from 2000 to mid 2008 he was just another guy, July 2008 he's great, since then, nothing. What can he show for other than 1 months work. How good will he be at the next Olympics? He'll be the fastest at serving your fries with that burger.

NamRanger
12-12-2009, 12:37 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3297734


A month ago, during simpler times, Tiger Woods was presented with a tricky question: Who would he pick as the athlete of the decade?

Plenty of possible choices - Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, Kobe Bryant, Barry Bonds, Tom Brady, among them. Tiger, too. Told the list of candidates, and leaving himself out of the mix, Woods contemplated their merits for two holes during a pro-am in China before he finally found himself torn between Federer and Bonds.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/baseball/78689912.html

Well, since Tennis is tougher to play than Basketball or Baseball, I would go for Federer.




On what basis? Basketball is a physically more taxing sport, while Baseball requires just as much if not more eye hand coordination.

OddJack
12-12-2009, 12:41 PM
AP Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBTGbOJcQdU

Rippy
12-12-2009, 12:45 PM
Any one saying Federer is delusional. He is quick for a tennis player, but nothing otherwordly.

He would be absolutely put to shame against other "real" athletes.

The athletes of the decade are Usain Bolt and Lance Armstrong, the former for explosivity, the latter for endurance.

To be honest, I would have just assumed "athlete" meant "sportsman".

OddJack
12-12-2009, 01:05 PM
On what basis? Basketball is a physically more taxing sport, while Baseball requires just as much if not more eye hand coordination.

You think it's physically more taxing because all you are comparing is playing tennis vs playing basketball for one day.

If you compare the whole season a tennis player is going through, the fact that they cant rely on any team player, the mental stress, the traveling, tennis's knock out system, the fact that there will be no substitutes, time outs etc. you will notice that tennis is a tougher game to stay fit at.

While basketball results in more injuries, the injuries resulted from tennis players is mostly caused by repeating movements that wear down joints, tendons and muscles. This is why the average retirement age for a NBL player is above 35, which is above the corresponding age for a tennis player.

Andy G
12-12-2009, 02:34 PM
Why must a sport be physically taxing for a person to qualify for athlete of the year? Billiards may not be physical, but it certainly is extremely difficult. Anyone who can be world #1 for the entire decade should automatically qualify for athlete of the decade. Let alone #1 for 2 decades back to back.

http://www.allisonfisher.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=73

Quite Please
12-12-2009, 02:46 PM
How could you or anyone else here think Usain Bolt is Athlete of the Decade. Before the last Olympics, no one even knew who he was. He did awesome at one event (the olypics as a whole) at the end of the decade, and some how he qualifies for athlete of the entire decade??? No way, from 2000 to mid 2008 he was just another guy, July 2008 he's great, since then, nothing. What can he show for other than 1 months work. How good will he be at the next Olympics? He'll be the fastest at serving your fries with that burger.

Hahaha, well spoken. To be in consideration for best of athlete of the decade you have to have dominated your sport for a long time. We still need to see that from Bolt.

killertubbie
12-12-2009, 03:00 PM
Usain BOLT. End of discussion.

you're wrong man!! Federer IS THE athlete of the decades not anyone else...

thalivest
12-12-2009, 03:46 PM
Way off. Best player is Allison Fisher. 22 years at #1. Thats not a misprint.

This link even has a comparo of Allison, Tiger, and Federer.

http://www.allisonfisher.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=73

I watch some womens billiards from time to time. She is AMAZING. Even her look is intimidating to her opponents. She was amazing at snooker before that.

nCode2010
12-12-2009, 06:28 PM
Snooker is not a sport.

nCode2010
12-12-2009, 06:28 PM
you're wrong man!! Federer IS THE athlete of the decades not anyone else...

Agreed. Federer is the greatest true athlete I've ever seen. Nobody has ever made it look so easy for so long as he has at a MAJOR sport.

Serve_Ace
12-12-2009, 06:56 PM
Michael Phelps? He is an awesome athlete!!!! Considering the Olympics occur only every four years. He just accomplished too much and broke too many things in one meet.

dh003i
12-12-2009, 07:05 PM
I'd agree with this, Bonds sorry no, not even in the discussion. Kobe, as popular as he is, athletically does not stack up to me. Brady, well I will admit I am a huge fan, being from New England, the man is an amazing QB and could probably be argued as the best QB of the decade....but best athlete....mehhhh I wouldn't go that far. He has a good tactical mind when it comes to football, but I would not say athletically he is up there. Armstrong, Fed, and maybe even Phelps or other olympic level athlete's could be in contention, but I would not put Barry Bonds and Fed in the same sentence in terms of athletic ability. My Choice would be either Armstrong, Fed or maybe Phelps. But I am sure there are other athlete's in sports that none of us would or are thinking of that could be up there to, at least further up there than Barry Bonds and Kobe Bryant

Barry Bonds shouldn't even be considered a great baseball player. He was just a steroid-enhanced cheat.

IvanisevicServe
12-12-2009, 07:13 PM
Barry Bonds shouldn't even be considered a great baseball player. He was just a steroid-enhanced cheat.

Pre-Steroid Bonds was the best player in baseball during the 90's.

NamRanger
12-12-2009, 09:29 PM
You think it's physically more taxing because all you are comparing is playing tennis vs playing basketball for one day.

If you compare the whole season a tennis player is going through, the fact that they cant rely on any team player, the mental stress, the traveling, tennis's knock out system, the fact that there will be no substitutes, time outs etc. you will notice that tennis is a tougher game to stay fit at.

While basketball results in more injuries, the injuries resulted from tennis players is mostly caused by repeating movements that wear down joints, tendons and muscles. This is why the average retirement age for a NBL player is above 35, which is above the corresponding age for a tennis player.




Tennis matches on average aren't as long as NBA matches. Plus, most NBA teams play back to back multiple days in a row, resulting in more games played total. There are a total of 82 games played in the NBA, not including play-offs.



However, most tennis players do not play 82 matches in a year. In fact, very rarely do they do. Also, there is no substitution, but tennis is an anaerobic sport, that is not played in long spurts such as basketball. Tennis you get a break between every point, every change over, between sets, not including injury timeouts, etc.



Remember, that supposedly marathon match that Nadal and Djokovic played was really only something like 40 minutes of real tennis. Most NBA players clock that amount of time in a single game on the court (the starters do anyways).

OddJack
12-12-2009, 10:20 PM
Tennis matches on average aren't as long as NBA matches. Plus, most NBA teams play back to back multiple days in a row, resulting in more games played total. There are a total of 82 games played in the NBA, not including play-offs.



However, most tennis players do not play 82 matches in a year. In fact, very rarely do they do. Also, there is no substitution, but tennis is an anaerobic sport, that is not played in long spurts such as basketball. Tennis you get a break between every point, every change over, between sets, not including injury timeouts, etc.



Remember, that supposedly marathon match that Nadal and Djokovic played was really only something like 40 minutes of real tennis. Most NBA players clock that amount of time in a single game on the court (the starters do anyways).

Disagree. 82 Team player basketball games is less taxing than 82 tennis matches a year. Top players play as many or very close to that number, and since the discussion here is about the athlete of the decade, the top player would play as many matches a year.
And, you completely ignored my points regarding the types of injuries tennis players suffer and why the retirement age is younger.

DownTheLine
12-12-2009, 10:24 PM
Aha. Ehm. Ahum. It's not.

Tennis is harder. Coming from a person who played basketball for 6-7 years.

The_Steak
12-12-2009, 10:44 PM
Tennis is harder. Coming from a person who played basketball for 6-7 years.

What? 6-7 years rec? Tennis players get to rest every effing 5 seconds. Basketball players have to run back and down the court hundreds of times. I bet you never hustled, or you are most likely just a kid.

Tennis players are generally wussy's. It's the sad truth.

CHOcobo
12-12-2009, 11:05 PM
Tennis matches on average aren't as long as NBA matches. Plus, most NBA teams play back to back multiple days in a row, resulting in more games played total. There are a total of 82 games played in the NBA, not including play-offs.



However, most tennis players do not play 82 matches in a year. In fact, very rarely do they do. Also, there is no substitution, but tennis is an anaerobic sport, that is not played in long spurts such as basketball. Tennis you get a break between every point, every change over, between sets, not including injury timeouts, etc.



Remember, that supposedly marathon match that Nadal and Djokovic played was really only something like 40 minutes of real tennis. Most NBA players clock that amount of time in a single game on the court (the starters do anyways).

i also disagree. more matches are played because one game doesn't suck up much energy when compared. for example football. why don't they play best 3 of 5 like basketball? because football need more stamina. although i do wish they make the playoff best of 5 games in football.

tennis player DO take breaks, but comes back on the court. basketball, there are substitutions, in which they take much more than 5 minute breaks.

if nadal and djokovic really played only 40min of "real tennis", thats 40min of max sprinting/running. in basketball usually they don't do this, most players jog around the court.

basketball in generally is harder than tennis because it's a team sport. team sport are more prone to errors/fouls, ex. football. if you know what i mean.

CHOcobo
12-12-2009, 11:13 PM
What? 6-7 years rec? Tennis players get to rest every effing 5 seconds. Basketball players have to run back and down the court hundreds of times. I bet you never hustled, or you are most likely just a kid.

Tennis players are generally wussy's. It's the sad truth.

and no they don't RUN down the court hundreds of times. they walk n jog....lol. tennis players actually RUN during rallies. bball players won't need to run that fast and they get longer breaks.

tennis is a pretty hard sport. requires a lot of stamina and athleticism. the real wussy's are table tennis players. they're all fat and can't move.

i've never heard or read anything about tennis players being wussy's.....in my life....ever. you probably never hustled playing tennis. lol

back on subject....i wouldn't consider any football players best athlete of the year. to me they just don't stand out that much, athleticism wise, for some reason. the dominant of the sport doesn't mean best athleticism. tiger wood is best at golf......but golf doesn't required any athleticism, just like nascar, fishing, and table tennis.

The_Steak
12-12-2009, 11:20 PM
and no they don't RUN down the court hundreds of times. they walk n jog....lol. tennis players actually RUN during rallies. bball players won't need to run that fast and they get longer breaks.

tennis is a pretty hard sport. requires a lot of stamina and athleticism. the real wussy's are table tennis players. they're all fat and can't move.

i've never heard or read anything about tennis players being wussy's.....in my life....ever. you probably never hustled playing tennis. lol

No.... You are totally wrong. Have you ever played basketball? The most you have to "run" in tennis is a couple steps to hit the ball. The only time you truly run is either a short angle or a dropshot. How many of those do you get a match? Very few. Just watch a real match, they move 5-6 steps maximum in a normal rally, then they get a 15-30 second break. Plus changeover. And "injury" timeouts. Also, when you miss a ball, another free break. Basketball players do not get to break when playing.

Yes, they get longer breaks, but they also have to work harder.

OddJack
12-13-2009, 05:04 AM
What? 6-7 years rec? Tennis players get to rest every effing 5 seconds. Basketball players have to run back and down the court hundreds of times. I bet you never hustled, or you are most likely just a kid.

Tennis players are generally wussy's. It's the sad truth.

First of all, just a kid or no, everyone is entitled to their opinion. One thing I really hate here is personal attacks(unless you're responding to it).

I remember it was estimated Nadal ran 2.1 miles in Verdasco match. Yes, it was an epic match but it was also close to average distance a basketball player runs in a game, 2-3 miles.

Physical aspects aside, lonely as tennis is, it requires a level of mental toughness sports such as basketball does not require. Tennis has no time limits, it is always up to you and only you to win or lose. So, when we talk about toughness of a sport it is not only " effing" how many times they ran back and forth, it's also how they did it.

jazzyfunkybluesy
12-13-2009, 06:19 AM
Whats the point of debating on which sport is tougher?

NamRanger
12-13-2009, 06:30 AM
First of all, just a kid or no, everyone is entitled to their opinion. One thing I really hate here is personal attacks(unless you're responding to it).

I remember it was estimated Nadal ran 2.1 miles in Verdasco match. Yes, it was an epic match but it was also close to average distance a basketball player runs in a game, 2-3 miles.

Physical aspects aside, lonely as tennis is, it requires a level of mental toughness sports such as basketball does not require. Tennis has no time limits, it is always up to you and only you to win or lose. So, when we talk about toughness of a sport it is not only " effing" how many times they ran back and forth, it's also how they did it.




Epic match; remember. It took a what, 6+ hour match for Nadal to run the same distance a basketball player usually runs. Basketball players run that on average 82 games per year.

slice bh compliment
12-13-2009, 06:30 AM
Whats the point of debating on which sport is tougher?

It is so that..... at the end of the debate, we all come to the conclusion that a certain sport is tougher than the others.

[kidding, yeah, it's pointless good clean, healthy fun;....but not as healthy as actually going out and playing any and all of those sports.....and in that spirit, I'm off]

mtr1
12-13-2009, 06:34 AM
and no they don't RUN down the court hundreds of times. they walk n jog....lol. tennis players actually RUN during rallies. bball players won't need to run that fast and they get longer breaks.

tennis is a pretty hard sport. requires a lot of stamina and athleticism. the real wussy's are table tennis players. they're all fat and can't move.
i've never heard or read anything about tennis players being wussy's.....in my life....ever. you probably never hustled playing tennis. lol

back on subject....i wouldn't consider any football players best athlete of the year. to me they just don't stand out that much, athleticism wise, for some reason. the dominant of the sport doesn't mean best athleticism. tiger wood is best at golf......but golf doesn't required any athleticism, just like nascar, fishing, and table tennis.

You are an idiot. All your posts are now worthless because of that statement.

dlk
12-13-2009, 06:40 AM
Fed, Kobe, Lebron, Jeter, Phelps, Manning, that Russian MMA guy; I know I 'm missing some.

CHOcobo
12-13-2009, 07:45 AM
You are an idiot. All your posts are now worthless because of that statement.

i go to table tennis tournys with my friend every monday. they all may not be fat but the majority can't move. really can't move.

Whats the point of debating on which sport is tougher?

debating is the fun part sometimes. :)
off course no ones ever right.

FedSampras1
12-13-2009, 07:53 AM
Tiger is a hypocrite sex addict cheater, and golf shouldn't even be considered a sport.
Phelps is a junkie moron.
Bonds is the Nadal of baseball (biggest cheat in MLB)
And the rest doesn't count (Bolt appeared in 2008 )

So Federer by far

mtr1
12-13-2009, 08:00 AM
i go to table tennis tournys with my friend every monday. they all may not be fat but the majority can't move. really can't move.

Are these people elite level players? In all the other examples given in this thread people such as Phelps and Federer have been talked about, yet for table tennis you give an example of some low level "competition". Watch some real table tennis, the players are far from fat.

pame
12-13-2009, 08:03 AM
Just to set the record straight for those of you saying Usain Bolt only won Olympics in 2008. In fact he won the World Championships (in Berlin) this year, both 100 metres and 200 metres - in each case blitzing the world record by 1 and 1/10th second, and has now run the first sub 9.6-seconds 100 metres (he ran if memory serves me 9.58 secs). Also was part of the winning relay (but that's team, not individual)

Not saying he should be the Athlete of the Decade, just correcting the info given that he only did his stuff in 2008

veroniquem
12-13-2009, 08:16 AM
Tiger is a hypocrite sex addict cheater, and golf shouldn't even be considered a sport.
Phelps is a junkie moron.
Bonds is the Nadal of baseball (biggest cheat in MLB)
And the rest doesn't count (Bolt appeared in 2008 )

So Federer by far


What does sex addict have to do with golf? Does that somehow diminish Tiger's professional achievements? And who knows, maybe his hyperactive sexuality is what gave him the impetus to win everything. (Maybe that's what Fed admires in him ;)). And how is Nadal a cheat in any way, let alone the biggest?

Mansewerz
12-13-2009, 08:35 AM
See, it's not all about physicals. If it was so Pro Wrestlers who frequently die before the age of 40 would be considered the greatest athletes.
If you add skills required, and mental strength needed, the comparison becomes easier.



I enjoy playing both sports and while tennis is more taxing mentally, basketball is definitely the more physically difficult sport.
There probably are more skills to learn in tennis than in basketball, and I believe this because in general people seem to take a longer time to learn how to play tennis at a respectable level than to learn how to play basketball. However, the skills required to be a good basketball player can't be underestimated either.

So given that both sports have some athletic requriements that the other doesn't, I don't agree with your assessment that tennis is clearly the tougher sport to play.

Pro wrestling? Not a sport. It's more like a tv drama.

Tennis matches on average aren't as long as NBA matches. Plus, most NBA teams play back to back multiple days in a row, resulting in more games played total. There are a total of 82 games played in the NBA, not including play-offs.



However, most tennis players do not play 82 matches in a year. In fact, very rarely do they do. Also, there is no substitution, but tennis is an anaerobic sport, that is not played in long spurts such as basketball. Tennis you get a break between every point, every change over, between sets, not including injury timeouts, etc.



Remember, that supposedly marathon match that Nadal and Djokovic played was really only something like 40 minutes of real tennis. Most NBA players clock that amount of time in a single game on the court (the starters do anyways).


In response to all of these: Basketball is definately more physical and taxing of a sport. I would get more tired when I used to play.

Tennis requires more skill and technique, but it also requires lots of athleticism.

When we talk about best athlete of the decade, we're talking the Player who did the best at their own sport. So Federer may not be as athletic as Usain Bolt, but he may still be a better athlete in the sense of what he has accomplished.

The debate is more about what's a sport or not.

Personally, I find baseball a pretty lazy sport. When half of the players are picking their *** waiting for an easy fly ball to catch, that's definately not as much of a sport as tennis or basketball.

Azzurri
12-13-2009, 02:49 PM
Agreed. Federer is the greatest true athlete I've ever seen. Nobody has ever made it look so easy for so long as he has at a MAJOR sport.

lance Armstrong, ever hear of him?

nCode2010
12-13-2009, 03:10 PM
lance Armstrong, ever hear of him?

Armstrong was as TDF-*****. He never could win a Vuelta or Giro. That's a big strike against him.

slice bh compliment
12-13-2009, 03:31 PM
... big strike against him.

Total cheeseball, too. Weak personal integrity. What a smug little twerp. [his persona, family life, interaction with single women while drunk, etc]

But, I do not question his status as one of the most accomplished athletes of the decade.

Azzurri
12-13-2009, 04:26 PM
Armstrong was as TDF-*****. He never could win a Vuelta or Giro. That's a big strike against him.

i admit I am not a bike fan, then why has no one ever won 7 TDF in a row like Lance? sounds like he was the best rider. what is different about the Giro or Vuelta.

Azzurri
12-13-2009, 04:27 PM
Total cheeseball, too. Weak personal integrity. What a smug little twerp. [his persona, family life, interaction with single women while drunk, etc]

But, I do not question that his status as one of the most accomplished athletes of the decade.

I have heard a few things and I know from personal experience he can be a diXk. he is NOT what he seems in the least.

pame
12-13-2009, 04:43 PM
i admit I am not a bike fan, then why has no one ever won 7 TDF in a row like Lance? sounds like he was the best rider. what is different about the Giro or Vuelta.

It's like if Fed won 6 Wimbledons and no other slam.

thalivest
12-13-2009, 05:07 PM
i admit I am not a bike fan, then why has no one ever won 7 TDF in a row like Lance? sounds like he was the best rider. what is different about the Giro or Vuelta.

TDF is more alot about your team more than your individual ability. Armstrong was fortunate for a long time to be the leader of the most dominant overall team.

Azzurri
12-13-2009, 05:15 PM
It's like if Fed won 6 Wimbledons and no other slam.

so these other events are as big as the TDF? why is it never mentioned on tv around here. ESPN and some other sports stations always talk about the TDF, but none other.

Azzurri
12-13-2009, 05:16 PM
TDF is more alot about your team more than your individual ability. Armstrong was fortunate for a long time to be the leader of the most dominant overall team.

i see. but he still has to ride. sorry guys, but the TDF gets so much press while the others getting nothing to the normal masses, so how big could these other tourneys be??

nCode2010
12-13-2009, 05:19 PM
Yup, the Giro, Vuelta and TDF are the 3 "Grand Tours" of bicycling. It's important to win all of them to be considered a truly all time great. This is why I consider Alberto Contador superior to Armstrong, as he has already won a "career slam" in cycling by winning a Giro, Vuelta and TDF(2x).

Azzurri
12-13-2009, 06:05 PM
Yup, the Giro, Vuelta and TDF are the 3 "Grand Tours" of bicycling. It's important to win all of them to be considered a truly all time great. This is why I consider Alberto Contador superior to Armstrong, as he has already won a "career slam" in cycling by winning a Giro, Vuelta and TDF(2x).

I see. thanks for the info.

Fedex
12-14-2009, 01:38 AM
Chris Hoy would certainly be a candidate if we're talking cycling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hoy

See Odd Jack. There's still a world outside the USA.
Even a wee country like Scotland can produce great athletes.

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 01:46 AM
Armstrong and Bonds have both used PEDs, I don't understand how anyone wants them to win.

It's between Woods and Federer.

malakas
12-14-2009, 01:57 AM
I don't understand how Shumacher isn't even in contention.

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 02:00 AM
I don't understand how Shumacher isn't even in contention.

Probably because Formula1-racing is the most boring sport since competitive-"watching grass grow".

I can't believe how often Eurosport wastes its airtime for it when at the same time some good tennis is going on.

malakas
12-14-2009, 02:04 AM
Probably because Formula1-racing is the most boring sport since competitive-"watching grass grow".

I can't believe how often Eurosport wastes its airtime for it when at the same time some good tennis is going on.

how is it possible that "watching paint dry" game of golf is with Tiger and not "watching grass grow" game of F-1?

F-1 is very popular in europe at least.Much much more popular than golf.

If the problem is that F-1 isn't a real sport well golf is neither.

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 02:08 AM
how is it possible that "watching paint dry" game of golf is with Tiger and not "watching grass grow" game of F-1?

F-1 is very popular in europe at least.Much much more popular than golf.

If the problem is that F-1 isn't a real sport well golf is neither.

I agree, Golf is just as boring. Unfortunately Woods' popularity and achievements make him near impossible to ignore.

malakas
12-14-2009, 02:10 AM
Shumacher is much more popular than Woods worldwide.Or at least of equal stardom.
Who makes this contest again?

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 02:16 AM
Shumacher is much more popular than Woods worldwide.Or at least of equal stardom.
Who makes this contest again?

Americans, I suppose.

That's why I wouldn't be surprised if some NFL player whose name most people in Europe have never heard of gets voted best athelete of the decade.

CMM
12-14-2009, 02:24 AM
Federer wasn't voted as Swiss athlete of the year. The winner is Didier Cuche.

malakas
12-14-2009, 02:25 AM
Americans, I suppose.

That's why I wouldn't be surprised if some NFL player whose name most people in Europe have never heard of gets voted best athelete of the decade.

yeah :roll:

What is funny is that even they know and admit that their own american contestant are cheaters and drug users.lol

But not even the inclusion of Sumi in this,makes the contest lose all credibillity from the beginning no matter who makes it.You can't be too selfcentered and ignorant and make that competition and expect then ppl to take it seriously.

malakas
12-14-2009, 02:26 AM
Federer wasn't voted as Swiss athlete of the year. The winner is Didier Cuche.

thanx for the info.I don't know how it is in anyway related to this thread..but thanx.:)

CMM
12-14-2009, 02:28 AM
thanx for the info.I don't know how it is in anyway related to this thread..but thanx.:)

You're welcome.

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 02:35 AM
Federer wasn't voted as Swiss athlete of the year. The winner is Didier Cuche.

Yes, and it's not the first time that happened.

In 2005 (one of the greatest seasons of the open era) Federer was runner-up to Tom Lüthi.
That year Federer was voted the worlds best athlete, but just 2nd best of Switzerland :rolleyes:.

The majority of the swiss public seems to be stupid, and not just about Federer, also in politics (bans of minarets).

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 02:38 AM
yeah :roll:

What is funny is that even they know and admit that their own american contestant are cheaters and drug users.lol

But not even the inclusion of Sumi in this,makes the contest lose all credibillity from the beginning no matter who makes it.You can't be too selfcentered and ignorant and make that competition and expect then ppl to take it seriously.

I just hope that for once the best athlete wins, and not the most popular athlete in the States.

Fedex
12-14-2009, 03:46 AM
I just hope that for once the best athlete wins, and not the most popular athlete in the States.

Again BEKELE! Why is he not mentioned?

Sorry for copying my own previous post.
It's very ignorant not to include him.
We are currently witnessing the greatest middle distance runner of all time.
Unless you're from the US

""The winner of 24 world and Olympic titles, more than anyone in athletics history; the breaker of six world records; unbeaten in his career over 10,000 metres; undefeated in three years and 26 track races over 3,000m or more; the greatest cross country runner ever with 11 global titles."

To put this into perspective, Bekele's 10,000 m world record time of 26 minutes 17 seconds is equivalent to running an average 100m time of 15.77 seconds.
That means he ran one hundred times 100m sprints back to back at a rate of 15.77 seconds!
Go out to your nearest track and run a sub 16 second 100m then imagine having to do that another 99 times without a break and I guarantee your chin will be on the ground in disbelief."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/6117774/Kenenisa-Bekele-is-the-Usain-Bolt-of-distance-running.html

nCode2010
12-14-2009, 05:32 AM
Swiss have amazing sportsman that Fed doesn't win in 2005/2009.

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 06:02 AM
Swiss have amazing sportsman that Fed doesn't win in 2005/2009.

I wish...

Fact is, most swiss have absolutely no idea where Federer ranks amonst other elite athletes.
The skier that got voted swiss sportsman of the year started his acceptance speak with a short apology to Federer!

Spider
12-14-2009, 06:16 AM
Interesting competition. I am inclined to vote for Federer for achieving the ultimate prize which other's haven't achieved in their sport - winning a career slam (that puts him above Tiger).

Schumacher benefitted from being associated with Ferrari and besides Formula One isn't even an athletic sport, therefore you can't categorize them as athletes).

It should be either Federer or Woods for the win.

malakas
12-14-2009, 06:19 AM
Interesting competition. I am inclined to vote for Federer for achieving the ultimate prize which other's haven't achieved in their sport - winning a career slam (that puts him above Tiger).

Schumacher benefitted from being associated with Ferrari and besides Formula One isn't even an athletic sport, therefore you can't categorize them as athletes).

It should be either Federer or Woods for the win.

how can you possibly in the same post say that F1 is not an athletic sport and then say Woods should be for the win?

slice bh compliment
12-14-2009, 06:19 AM
...
....
The skier that got voted swiss sportsman of the year started his acceptance speak with a short apology to Federer!

That's hilarious! Thanks for posting it.

malakas
12-14-2009, 06:21 AM
I wish...

Fact is, most swiss have absolutely no idea where Federer ranks amonst other elite athletes.
The skier that got voted swiss sportsman of the year started his acceptance speak with a short apology to Federer!

well I like this.They are level headed and not getting fanatical and crazy like other nations would.They have shown him appreciation-the stamp-only living person to get one-the Halle..the cows.If it was like any other country,the boards would be flooded with loud ******* alpinists.

Spider
12-14-2009, 06:24 AM
how can you possibly in the same post say that F1 is not an athletic sport and then say Woods should be for the win?

How can you call Formula One an athletic sport? If Schumacher was driving for some other team, he wouldn't have had half the success that he had with Ferrari. Both Federer and Woods have mastered their sports with their own skill.

Only after Lewis Hamilton entered the competition, more people have started considering F1 as a sport, before that, not many cared about it.

Golf isn't athletic but it requires your own skill to master the sport.

malakas
12-14-2009, 06:27 AM
How can you call Formula One an athletic sport? If Schumacher was driving for some other team, he wouldn't have had half the success that he had with Ferrari. Both Federer and Woods have mastered their sports with their own skill.

Only after Lewis Hamilton entered the competition, more people have started considering F1 as a sport, before that, not many cared about it.
Golf isn't athletic but it requires your own skill to master the sport.

ALL HAIL the UK ethnocentrism and sauvinism!And I thought americans are bad!:roll: roflmao
Do you know that there are countries out of Great Britain?Or not yet?

and as you said Golf only requires skills same as F1 requires driving skills.What's the difference?

slice bh compliment
12-14-2009, 06:30 AM
ALL HAIL the UK ethnocentrism and sauvinism!And I thought americans are bad!:roll: roflmao
Do you know that there are countries out of Great Britain?...

Heyyy now, where do you think we learned ethnocentrism?
Naturally, you know, Sani, it's originally a Grrreek word, LOL!

Spider
12-14-2009, 06:31 AM
ALL HAIL the UK ethnocentrism and sauvinism!And I thought americans are bad!:roll: roflmao
Do you know that there are countries out of Great Britain?Or not yet?

and as you said Golf only requires skills same as F1 requires driving skills.What's the difference?

The difference is if you give a person a Ferrari, obviously he has the advantage, and that isn't a level playing field. That isn't the case with either Tennis or Golf, it is a level playing field, and both Federer and Woods are standing out because of their excellence.

And about the popularity of F1, you can confirm anywhere that Lewis Hamilton had a major impact during his short time, more than Schumacher (in terms of popularity and not achievement).

malakas
12-14-2009, 06:34 AM
Heyyy now, where do you think we learned ethnocentrism?
Naturally, you know, Sani, it's originally a Grrreek word, LOL!

heh well I apologise I shouldn't have said it,but well..it happens that the american idiots are the idiots most shown on international television.So you can excuse me...?:)

malakas
12-14-2009, 06:36 AM
The difference is if you give a person a Ferrari, obviously he has the advantage, and that isn't a level playing field. That isn't the case with either Tennis or Golf, it is a level playing field, and both Federer and Woods are standing out because of their excellence.

And about the popularity of F1, you can confirm anywhere that Lewis Hamilton had a major impact during his short time, more than Schumacher (in terms of popularity and not achievement).

When Shumi had the Ferrari he never stop winning,when others got the Ferrari they lost.Same equipment different driver.

I can confirm that the most famous and beloved driver was and is Shumi.Internationally.

Spider
12-14-2009, 06:43 AM
When Shumi had the Ferrari he never stop winning,when others got the Ferrari they lost.Same equipment different driver.

I can confirm that the most famous and beloved driver was and is Shumi.Internationally.

You give "X" a Ferrari, and "Y" some other car, irrespective of whether "Y" is more talented than "X", "X already has the advantage. How is that a fair sport when we talk about overrall greatness? No, it isn't.

Your second point is debatable but that is not what this thread is about, so I won't continue debating on that. We can continue it some place else if you would like.

slice bh compliment
12-14-2009, 06:43 AM
heh well I apologise I shouldn't have said it,but well..it happens that the american idiots are the idiots most shown on international television.So you can excuse me...?:)

Hhaha no worries. Most of us are not that guy....but we need to own it. Really, I was mostly saying that ethnocentrism has been around since ancient times.

When Shumi had the Ferrari he never stop winning,when others got the Ferrari they lost.Same equipment different driver.

I can confirm that the most famous and beloved driver was and is Shumi.Internationally.

Not that it matter, but, as an American;-) who doesn't follow any kind of automobile racing, I agree. I'd also add Ayrton Senna and Mario Andretti to the top of the list. Oh, and Ricky Bobby, of course.

nCode2010
12-14-2009, 06:43 AM
BTW, Tiger has 3 career slams to Roger's 1.

malakas
12-14-2009, 06:47 AM
You give "X" a Ferrari, and "Y" some other car, irrespective of whether "Y" is more talented than "X", "X already has the advantage. How is that a fair sport when we talk about overrall greatness? No, it isn't.

Your second point is debatable but that is not what this thread is about, so I won't continue debating on that. We can continue it some place else if you would like.

Equipment sure plays a very important role,but skills as much if not more.We both agree that golf is not real sport but only game where skills are needed.Therefore both golf and F1 belong in the same category of games.If Woods is in contention by the same logic should be Shumi.Shumi is much more famous than Woods worldwide,so I can't understand this.

Hhaha no worries. Most of us are not that guy....but we need to own it. Really, I was mostly saying that ethnocentrism has been around since ancient times.

of course.Do you know what the term barbarian meant?Anyone who isn't Greek.(and first it was even better-everyone who was not Athenian)

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 06:57 AM
well I like this.They are level headed and not getting fanatical and crazy like other nations would.They have shown him appreciation-the stamp-only living person to get one-the Halle..the cows.If it was like any other country,the boards would be flooded with loud ******* alpinists.

I'm glad we don't hype our athletes like they do in the States, but Federer isn't getting the respect he deserves from the public.

Swiss athletes and a part of the public apprechiate him, that's why he the stamp was made, but for the vast rest of the swiss population there's not much (if any) difference between some swiss skier winning a race and Federer reaching 4 slam finals and getting a career slam.

Fedex
12-14-2009, 07:03 AM
Do you know what the term barbarian meant?Anyone who isn't Greek.(and first it was even better-everyone who was not Athenian)

Yes and they haven't changed.
My cousin took me to see Olympiakos in the Champions League recently. The gate of hell no 7 and all that.
If you aren't one of them look out.
In the domestic league now no Athens supporters travel to Thesaloniki and vice versa the rivalry is so dangerous.

Azzurri
12-14-2009, 07:08 AM
I don't understand how Shumacher isn't even in contention.

the driver?? drivers are far from being athletes. Nerve and determination yes, but athletic...not even close.

Azzurri
12-14-2009, 07:09 AM
how is it possible that "watching paint dry" game of golf is with Tiger and not "watching grass grow" game of F-1?

F-1 is very popular in europe at least.Much much more popular than golf.

If the problem is that F-1 isn't a real sport well golf is neither.

F1 is more popular than golf in Europe? please show me any type of statistic that shows this. I doubt it.

Azzurri
12-14-2009, 07:12 AM
Shumacher is much more popular than Woods worldwide.Or at least of equal stardom.
Who makes this contest again?

LOL...you are sniffin some glue if you think Shumacher is anywhere near Woods's status. This may be my new signature. Everyone knows Tiger Woods is a global phenom...most people probably never heard of Shumacher or maybe they know he drives a car. But for whom, where and what he looks like...not a chance.

Again show me a statistic that shows sports people popularity. I would bet Shumacher is not even top 10.

OddJack
12-14-2009, 07:34 AM
LOL...you are sniffin some glue if you think Shumacher is anywhere near Woods's status. This may be my new signature. Everyone knows Tiger Woods is a global phenom...most people probably never heard of Shumacher or maybe they know he drives a car. But for whom, where and what he looks like...not a chance.

Again show me a statistic that shows sports people popularity. I would bet Shumacher is not even top 10.

The best statistic would be the ad contracts. The money companies are willing to pay has direct relationship with the popularity of the name, looks, language spoken and other factors that makes someone marketable. All these considered, Shumacher does not come anywhere close to Woods.

Azzurri
12-14-2009, 08:08 AM
The best statistic would be the ad contracts. The money companies are willing to pay has direct relationship with the popularity of the name, looks, language spoken and other factors that makes someone marketable. All these considered, Shumacher does not come anywhere close to Woods.

that is one way to look at it. Woods is heads above anyone else in yearly endorsement fees. I admit I was off on Shumachers popularity, but no way is he above Woods.

http://www.famouswhy.com/List/Top_10_Famous_Athletes/318.html

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/25/sports-tiger_woods-biz-sports-cz_kb_1026athletes_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=15000
(this proves Tiger is heads above anyone else)

akv89
12-14-2009, 08:14 AM
The best statistic would be the ad contracts. The money companies are willing to pay has direct relationship with the popularity of the name, looks, language spoken and other factors that makes someone marketable. All these considered, Shumacher does not come anywhere close to Woods.

Schumacher was the highest paid sportsman (even higher than Woods) while he was still driving, earning about 100 million dollars a year during his peak. Outside of the US, his name is almost universally known.

People who think F1 drivers are not athletic should look into the kind of training and diet regimen that these guys get into. The average human being can't spend 5 laps in an F1 car without severe getting neck cramps because of all the G forces from the car. These guys are also supremely conditioned, able to withstand a loss of 2-3L of water in the form of sweat over the course of a race.

malakas
12-14-2009, 08:17 AM
Yes and they haven't changed.
My cousin took me to see Olympiakos in the Champions League recently. The gate of hell no 7 and all that.
If you aren't one of them look out.
In the domestic league now no Athens supporters travel to Thesaloniki and vice versa the rivalry is so dangerous.

great cousin..he took you to the most important match of the season in the gate of the fanatics.lol But still strange comming from you who live in Britain since you have your more than fair share of hooligans?Anyway,Olympiacos are idiots don't put it on all of us.(i'm pao):)

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 08:19 AM
Schumacher might not be very famous in the States, but Tiger Woods isn't that big in europe either.

Maybe 5% of Europeans have actually seen Woods play golf, most of them are golfers themselves.

Schumacher was the 2nd highest paid athlete in 2004, so it's delusional to think that he had no international fame.
He had earned a billion $ a few years before Woods did, in 2005 to be exact. I've no idea why american media says Woods was the first.

malakas
12-14-2009, 08:20 AM
F1 is more popular than golf in Europe? please show me any type of statistic that shows this. I doubt it.

yes.I would like to find statistic but no time to look or where to find? Let's ask every european member here.All will answer the same without ANY hesitation.
and yes Shumi is more famous.usa= not the whole world.

In eastern Europe-that I live and know better of- I doubt the average person knows Woods.Most haven't even heard of him.

But everybody in the world knows of Shumacher.even just by name.

Azzurri
12-14-2009, 08:22 AM
Schumacher was the highest paid sportsman (even higher than Woods) while he was still driving, earning about 100 million dollars a year during his peak. Outside of the US, his name is almost universally known.

People who think F1 drivers are not athletic should look into the kind of training and diet regimen that these guys get into. The average human being can't spend 5 laps in an F1 car without severe getting neck cramps because of all the G forces from the car. These guys are also supremely conditioned, able to withstand a loss of 2-3L of water in the form of sweat over the course of a race.

please show any statistic that had Shumacher earning 100+ million in a year.

Azzurri
12-14-2009, 08:24 AM
yes.I would like to find statistic but no time to look or where to find? Let's ask every european member here.All will answer the same without ANY hesitation.
and yes Shumi is more famous.usa= not the whole world.

In eastern Europe-that I live and know better of- I doubt the average person knows Woods.Most haven't even heard of him.

But everybody in the world knows of Shumacher.even just by name.

OK, then in China more people know Woods than some race car driver (do they even have F1 in Asia?). Again, you made a claim, please show proof. I showed that Woods is far more popular regarding his money from companies that want him to represent them.

Azzurri
12-14-2009, 08:24 AM
Schumacher might not be very famous in the States, but Tiger Woods isn't that big in europe either.

Maybe 5% of Europeans have actually seen Woods play golf, most of them are golfers themselves.

Schumacher was the 2nd highest paid athlete in 2004, so it's delusional to think that he had no international fame.
He had earned a billion $ a few years before Woods did, in 2005 to be exact. I've no idea why american media says Woods was the first.





http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_popular_sport_in_the_world

I did find a site that noted over 40 billion watch F1 annually on TV. This makes F1 the most popular watched sport. I would need to see some other bit of prrof, but it seems at least the "sport" of F1 is very popular to watch...my apologies Malakas.

SempreSami
12-14-2009, 08:28 AM
LOL...you are sniffin some glue if you think Shumacher is anywhere near Woods's status. This may be my new signature. Everyone knows Tiger Woods is a global phenom...most people probably never heard of Shumacher or maybe they know he drives a car. But for whom, where and what he looks like...not a chance.

Again show me a statistic that shows sports people popularity. I would bet Shumacher is not even top 10.

At least he doesn't drive his car into fire hydrants. :roll:

malakas
12-14-2009, 08:29 AM
OK, then in China more people know Woods than some race car driver (do they even have F1 in Asia?). Again, you made a claim, please show proof. I showed that Woods is far more popular regarding his money from companies that want him to represent them.

I believe F1 is very popular in Asia?Anyway,I made a claim and you came here and doubted it.So why don't you show me the statistic that I'm wrong?I don't care what you believe or not afterall.You may not believe it but not even the contention of Shumacher makes this contest a joke to every neutral's persons' eyes.

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 08:33 AM
show the stats. until then I disagree.

So you removed me from your ignore list? I bet you missed my amazing posts :D.

You can check Schumacher's numbers yourself, either on the link below or with google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schumacher#Family_and_off-track_life

Azzurri
12-14-2009, 08:38 AM
I believe F1 is very popular in Asia?Anyway,I made a claim and you came here and doubted it.So why don't you show me the statistic that I'm wrong?I don't care what you believe or not afterall.You may not believe it but not even the contention of Shumacher makes this contest a joke to every neutral's persons' eyes.

you made the claim, so you should be able to provide proof. that is the way it works.

Azzurri
12-14-2009, 08:39 AM
So you removed me from your ignore list? I bet you missed my amazing posts :D.

You can check Schumacher's numbers yourself, either on the link below or with google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schumacher#Family_and_off-track_life

no, you are back on. I meant to respond to Malakas. But you are back on. sorry.

no mention of money or popularity. you are a moron.

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 08:42 AM
no, you are back on. I meant to respond to Malakas. But you are back on. sorry.
No need to be sorry as there's no loss on my end.

no mention of money or popularity. you are a moron.
LMAO. You can't even read and comprehend a short text like that and you call me a moron?

malakas
12-14-2009, 08:46 AM
you made the claim, so you should be able to provide proof. that is the way it works.

nope.I made a claim and then you doubted.haha that's like a child's game now.

Anyway,I am not going to waste my time searching.Dropshot already gave you a link,if you're really interested you can find info.I don't care about who wins this internet argument.really.

OddJack
12-14-2009, 09:08 AM
Schumacher was the highest paid sportsman (even higher than Woods) while he was still driving, earning about 100 million dollars a year during his peak. Outside of the US, his name is almost universally known.

People who think F1 drivers are not athletic should look into the kind of training and diet regimen that these guys get into. The average human being can't spend 5 laps in an F1 car without severe getting neck cramps because of all the G forces from the car. These guys are also supremely conditioned, able to withstand a loss of 2-3L of water in the form of sweat over the course of a race.

Shumacher retired in 2006, this is from 2004:

http://www.forbes.com/2004/06/23/04athletesland_print.html

I am a fan of formula 1 and Shumacher myself and I have to add that looking at money recieved is only one of the indicators of popularity. Had F1 been as popular as golf in US, Michael could have surpassed Tiger in ad money.

We are all being absolutists here I think, Looking back at Shumacher I have to admit he was extremely popular also. But let's not get too far away from the topic.
I personally dont consider any of the two the athlete of the decade.

akv89
12-14-2009, 09:11 AM
Shumacher retired in 2006, this is from 2004:

http://www.forbes.com/2004/06/23/04athletesland_print.html

I am a fan of formula 1 and Shumacher myself and I have to add that looking at money recieved is only one of the indicators of popularity. Had F1 been as popular as golf in US, Michael could have surpassed Tiger in ad money.

We are all being absolutists here I think, Looking back at Shumacher I have to admit he was extremely popular also. But let's not get too far away from the topic.
I personally dont consider any of the two the athlete of the decade.

For the record, I don't believe for certain that Schumacher is more popular than Woods. But I think it's foolish to consider him a joke contender for the title whether you're assessing his merit by his popularity, his achievements, or his athleticism.

malakas
12-14-2009, 09:11 AM
Shumacher retired in 2006, this is from 2004:

http://www.forbes.com/2004/06/23/04athletesland_print.html

I am a fan of formula 1 and Shumacher myself and I have to add that looking at money recieved is only one of the indicators of popularity. Had F1 been as popular as golf in US, Michael could have surpassed Tiger in ad money.

We are all being absolutists here I think, Looking back at Shumacher I have to admit he was extremely popular also. But let's not get too far away from the topic.
I personally dont consider any of the two the athlete of the decade.

hey oddjack,point is that even if they don't win it-they're both in the top 5 but to consider Woods but NOT shumacher is unacceptable.

chanee
12-14-2009, 09:18 AM
Bare in mind Tiger Woods is still playing Golf while Shumacher retired 4 years ago and is still almost as widely recognized globally.

clayman2000
12-14-2009, 09:30 AM
Its clearly between:
Tiger Woods -- 14 slams, 81 titles, no 1 all but 1 year
Roger Federer -- 15 slams, 60+ titles, no 1 5 years
Lance Armstrong -- 6 straight Tour de France's (7 if u include 99)
Zidane -- 2 twice Fifa Player of Year, in top 3 5 times.
Kobe Bryant -- 2 time scoring champ and MVP, all star every year, highest PPG avg
Lebron James

tacou
12-14-2009, 09:44 AM
if you are talking pure athleticism, it has to be someone from a triathlon or some event like that.
otherwise, comparing sports never works, especially on these boards where many people think throwing a 100mph fast-ball in the strike zone is unimpressive.
you might not like other sports as much as tennis but come one, saying there is no comparison between Bryant and Federer is an insult.

dropshot winner
12-14-2009, 09:48 AM
Its clearly between:
Tiger Woods -- 14 slams, 81 titles, no 1 all but 1 year
Roger Federer -- 15 slams, 60+ titles, no 1 5 years
Lance Armstrong -- 6 straight Tour de France's (7 if u include 99)
Zidane -- 2 twice Fifa Player of Year, in top 3 5 times.
Kobe Bryant -- 2 time scoring champ and MVP, all star every year, highest PPG avg
Lebron James
Pretty good list, but I'd replace EPO-Armstrong with Schumacher.

OddJack
12-14-2009, 05:50 PM
I just heard Shumacher is coming back for 2010 F1

asafi2
12-14-2009, 06:41 PM
Its clearly between:
Tiger Woods -- 14 slams, 81 titles, no 1 all but 1 year
Roger Federer -- 15 slams, 60+ titles, no 1 5 years
Lance Armstrong -- 6 straight Tour de France's (7 if u include 99)
Zidane -- 2 twice Fifa Player of Year, in top 3 5 times.
Kobe Bryant -- 2 time scoring champ and MVP, all star every year, highest PPG avg
Lebron James

Why would Kobe Bryant, a guy who has 1 regular season MVP, 1 NBA finals MVP and a guy who only won 1 championship as the leader of a team, and Lebron James, who has won absolutely nothing, be considered top athlete?

If you look at a lot of the polls, they have Tim Duncan listed for the NBA. He has been, by far, the best NBA player of the decade and is considered by most experts as the greatest power forward that ever lived. He has won THREE championships as the leader of his team, 2 NBA finals MVP's, 2 NBA regular season MVP's, and the best big defender of the decade.

Just because Kobe and Lebron are flashier they should be nominees? Hell Kobe would have 1 ring without Shaq (who is the second best player of this decade).

But I can't argue with the rest (although Ronaldo, not Christiano) would give Zidane a run for his money...

nCode2010
12-14-2009, 06:44 PM
1. Tiger
2. Roger
3. Schumacher
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Lance Armstrong

Breaker
12-14-2009, 06:56 PM
Why would Kobe Bryant, a guy who has 1 regular season MVP, 1 NBA finals MVP and a guy who only won 1 championship as the leader of a team, and Lebron James, who has won absolutely nothing, be considered top athlete?

If you look at a lot of the polls, they have Tim Duncan listed for the NBA. He has been, by far, the best NBA player of the decade and is considered by most experts as the greatest power forward that ever lived. He has won THREE championships as the leader of his team, 2 NBA finals MVP's, 2 NBA regular season MVP's, and the best big defender of the decade.

Just because Kobe and Lebron are flashier they should be nominees? Hell Kobe would have 1 ring without Shaq (who is the second best player of this decade).

But I can't argue with the rest (although Ronaldo, not Christiano) would give Zidane a run for his money...

Henry and Ronaldinho should get in before Ronaldo and Zidane.

malakas
12-14-2009, 08:04 PM
I just heard Shumacher is coming back for 2010 F1

are you sure?He said he was coming back this year,but then after some trials he changed his mind because he said he was too unprepared.Even the rumour of him coming back raised the interest in F1 worldwide.

Anyway,I'm not even a big F1 fan but I believe that Shumi deserves this recognition.

leeroy85
12-14-2009, 08:30 PM
Usain BOLT. End of discussion.

I second this opinion. But wasn't Jamacian track teams involved in doping scandals after Olympics. Was Bolt found to be drug free?

DMan
12-14-2009, 09:48 PM
1. Tiger
2. Roger
3. Schumacher
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Lance Armstrong

To be an Athlete, you must play a sport
Golf is not a sport.
Hence Tiger does not qualify for this list.

And what, only 14 majors in golf, and he was supposed to be so dominant? And how many of those 14 majors came prior to 2000? Fed won 15 majors in 7 years!

PS - nobody's voting for Tiger anyway? LOL!!!:???:

Feña14
12-14-2009, 10:16 PM
Henry and Ronaldinho should get in before Ronaldo and Zidane.

Ronaldinho was recently voted player of the decade, so you'd say he'd be the one representing football in the debate.

great cousin..he took you to the most important match of the season in the gate of the fanatics.lol But still strange comming from you who live in Britain since you have your more than fair share of hooligans?Anyway,Olympiacos are idiots don't put it on all of us.(i'm pao):)

Malakas! You've been living in 1970 for as long as I can remember, hooligans in British football? Not really these days. Every now and then you get a domestic incident but they really are rare, i've travelled all over the Country watching the game and have never experienced anything of the sort.

The domestic game in Europe is alot worse, it's no coincidence that FA's around Europe (Italy in particular) look to copy what we do over here to combat hooliganism. You can never stamp it out 100% but if you want to go to see a game of football and be as safe as possible, England is where you'd go. It's interesting to read interviews Ancelotti and Capello have given to Italian newspapers saying how great the atmosphere is and how far behind their homeland is, yet you still make unfair and incorrect comments about the English game? Not good.

RelentlessAttack
12-14-2009, 10:33 PM
otherwise, comparing sports never works, especially on these boards where many people think throwing a 100mph fast-ball in the strike zone is unimpressive.
you might not like other sports as much as tennis but come one, saying there is no comparison between Bryant and Federer is an insult.

It's pretty funny to watch people say things like that, especially when you see in other threads they have no idea of training and little understanding of other sports. Same kinds of statements are being made on MTF.

pame
12-14-2009, 11:20 PM
F1 is more popular than golf in Europe? please show me any type of statistic that shows this. I doubt it.

Spoken like a true citizen of a country which calls the finals of a largely parochial game a "World Series"

TennisandMusic
12-14-2009, 11:35 PM
To be an Athlete, you must play a sport
Golf is not a sport.
Hence Tiger does not qualify for this list.

And what, only 14 majors in golf, and he was supposed to be so dominant? And how many of those 14 majors came prior to 2000? Fed won 15 majors in 7 years!

PS - nobody's voting for Tiger anyway? LOL!!!:???:

Only 14?

It is much harder to win a major in golf. You must beat every single entrant. Imagine if Tiger has to beat 150+ golfers, for every major he wins, Federer only needs to beat 7 players, and many times not even a good player, since there are so few these days outside of Nadal.

It just doesn't compare. This means for Tiger's 14 majors he has beaten WELL over 1000 opponents.

Roger has had to beat 105. Not even close.

Fedex
12-15-2009, 12:15 AM
great cousin..he took you to the most important match of the season in the gate of the fanatics.lol But still strange comming from you who live in Britain since you have your more than fair share of hooligans?Anyway,Olympiacos are idiots don't put it on all of us.(i'm pao):)

No he wouldn't take me into Gate 7. It was the Alkmar match and I realised that hooligans are hooligans wherever you go but I am sure the Greeks are even more fanatical. Man it's in the blood.
Some of my other cousins are Panathinaikos fans and it's funny to watch the banter.
I like AEK because they are the small team and they had good runs in Europe. Remember them with Temuri Ketsbaia giving Rangers a football lesson at Ibrox a few years ago.

dropshot winner
12-15-2009, 12:15 AM
Only 14?

It is much harder to win a major in golf. You must beat every single entrant. Imagine if Tiger has to beat 150+ golfers, for every major he wins, Federer only needs to beat 7 players, and many times not even a good player, since there are so few these days outside of Nadal.

It just doesn't compare. This means for Tiger's 14 majors he has beaten WELL over 1000 opponents.

Roger has had to beat 105. Not even close.

A golfer can afford off-days, a tennis player can't. And technically Woods didn't really beat anyone except the course, his opponents have no effect on his "game", they wouldn't even need to play on the same continent if they had the same course twice.

Also, there's no 60 year old tennis player that nearly wins a slam.

Fedex
12-15-2009, 12:36 AM
Malakas! You've been living in 1970 for as long as I can remember, hooligans in British football? Not really these days. Every now and then you get a domestic incident but they really are rare, i've travelled all over the Country watching the game and have never experienced anything of the sort.

The domestic game in Europe is alot worse, it's no coincidence that FA's around Europe (Italy in particular) look to copy what we do over here to combat hooliganism. You can never stamp it out 100% but if you want to go to see a game of football and be as safe as possible, England is where you'd go. It's interesting to read interviews Ancelotti and Capello have given to Italian newspapers saying how great the atmosphere is and how far behind their homeland is, yet you still make unfair and incorrect comments about the English game? Not good.

Fena is correct and here in Scotland there is no major problem but in the 70s it was really bad.
At the Olympiakos match it was the most uncomfortable time I can remember since, strangely enough, being a child in the 70s at a big Dundee FC vs Hibs match where missiles of near full beer cans were fizzing past our heads.
Those days have changed in Scotland and Britain but in Greece it feels different. Intimidating and menacing.
They are unashamedly up for a fight.
It really was uncomfortable and frightening at times.
God knows what it's like when they play the local rivals or a big European team.

malakas
12-15-2009, 02:09 AM
Malakas! You've been living in 1970 for as long as I can remember, hooligans in British football? Not really these days. Every now and then you get a domestic incident but they really are rare, i've travelled all over the Country watching the game and have never experienced anything of the sort.

The domestic game in Europe is alot worse, it's no coincidence that FA's around Europe (Italy in particular) look to copy what we do over here to combat hooliganism. You can never stamp it out 100% but if you want to go to see a game of football and be as safe as possible, England is where you'd go. It's interesting to read interviews Ancelotti and Capello have given to Italian newspapers saying how great the atmosphere is and how far behind their homeland is, yet you still make unfair and incorrect comments about the English game? Not good.

Fena is correct and here in Scotland there is no major problem but in the 70s it was really bad.
At the Olympiakos match it was the most uncomfortable time I can remember since, strangely enough, being a child in the 70s at a big Dundee FC vs Hibs match where missiles of near full beer cans were fizzing past our heads.
Those days have changed in Scotland and Britain but in Greece it feels different. Intimidating and menacing.
They are unashamedly up for a fight.
It really was uncomfortable and frightening at times.
God knows what it's like when they play the local rivals or a big European team.

Yes of course it's not now,but this comments to come from you who live in the country that hooliganism was BORN is at least ironic.Also the reason why it is safe now it is because of the steps and the severe punishment the governement took-which is what we should do as well by ALL MEANS- and that's why when the english fans slash hooligans at bay leave their country you always end up with english stabbing other fans and fighting.

Yes Fedex the situation is bad,but you went to the wolf's mouth!You went to the gate of the fanaticals in one of their most important matches!
In derbies-like pao-oly there is no fans from the other team allowed.
I hate greek football I never watch it-except for the occasional derbies-and the situation sucks and I would rather they ban football than have to watch the fanaticals scream and shout and act like barbarians.

But when british Fedex makes comments like "it's in their blood to act like fanatical and stupid like that" give me a break!:roll: who in their right mind makes conclusions for a whole nation from some lunatics in a stadium?

pame
12-15-2009, 04:05 AM
Only 14?

It is much harder to win a major in golf. You must beat every single entrant. Imagine if Tiger has to beat 150+ golfers, for every major he wins, Federer only needs to beat 7 players, and many times not even a good player, since there are so few these days outside of Nadal.

It just doesn't compare. This means for Tiger's 14 majors he has beaten WELL over 1000 opponents.

Roger has had to beat 105. Not even close.

Talk about a spurious argument! Anyone would think yu play a knockout match in golf with each participant; in reality, you need to finish the course in less holes, therefore quite frankly you could be playing against 7 or 700 competitors, it's precisely the same requirement - finish the course in the least holes you can.... and even if you play badly the first two days, as long as you play barely well enough to make the cut, you still have a chance. Play a bad match in tennis in any round and you're out - no second chance comeback Saturdays or Sundays. Get real!!

And whatever you may think about Federer's competition, at least they're good, bona fide athletes - no pot-bellied, can-barely-walk-far-less-run competitors among them

Fedex
12-15-2009, 05:01 AM
But when british Fedex makes comments like "it's in their blood to act like fanatical and stupid like that" give me a break!:roll: who in their right mind makes conclusions for a whole nation from some lunatics in a stadium?

My mother is Greek. I have been to Greece many times.
I have many relatives in Greece. I can speak with some authority.
The Greeks are fanatical, temperamental and proud.
You should try arguing with my mother.

malakas
12-15-2009, 05:07 AM
My mother is Greek. I have been to Greece many times.
I have many relatives in Greece. I can speak with some authority.
The Greeks are fanatical, temperamental and proud.
You should try arguing with my mother.


lol
I pity your wife who will have a greek mother-in law.Now that's true torture.:p

Temperamental yes,proud yes fanatical no.Passionate yes.It's just a problem of learning the right behaviour.I mean these people that go in the stadiums,except from the usual scum that gathers in there too, know that this is the usual and accepted behaviour to act like in a football match.Lawers,doctors respectful and nice people who are always nice and civilised when they get on the stadium they join the behaviour of the mass.
It's like a good and nice kid who just hasn't learned from his family to have good manners on the table,to go and say he's uncivilised and make false assumptions.
Yes you have been in Greece.I live in Greece.I can judge better.And if you think I'm biased go around check my post history to see how many times haven't I said some bad things that I find wrong about my country.

Fedex
12-15-2009, 05:27 AM
lol
I pity your wife who will have a greek mother-in law.Now that's true torture.:p

Temperamental yes,proud yes fanatical no.Passionate yes.It's just a problem of learning the right behaviour.I mean these people that go in the stadiums,except from the usual scum that gathers in there too, know that this is the usual and accepted behaviour to act like in a football match.Lawers,doctors respectful and nice people who are always nice and civilised when they get on the stadium they join the behaviour of the mass.
It's like a good and nice kid who just hasn't learned from his family to have good manners on the table,to go and say he's uncivilised and make false assumptions.
Yes you have been in Greece.I live in Greece.I can judge better.And if you think I'm biased go around check my post history to see how many times haven't I said some bad things that I find wrong about my country.

Yes well maybe its the fanatics that give people a bad name.
You make a very interesting point about the pyschology of the masses.
When the masses follow the lead of the fanatics, does that make them fantical too?
As for passionate yes, of course, they are the most passionate.

Fedex
12-15-2009, 05:33 AM
lol
I pity your wife who will have a greek mother-in law.Now that's true torture.:p



Ha ha and yes my girlfriend/future wife does find it very difficult to deal with my mother at times but she is understanding her more with time.
And me too. I am still learning to understand my mother, and my father, he will never understand her ha ha
I exagerate of course.

malakas
12-15-2009, 05:43 AM
Yes well maybe its the fanatics that give people a bad name.
You make a very interesting point about the pyschology of the masses.
When the masses follow the lead of the fanatics, does that make them fantical too?
As for passionate yes, of course, they are the most passionate.

Were the millions of Germans that were manipulated and told lies from Hittler all resposible?It's an interesting question.

Ha ha and yes my girlfriend/future wife does find it very difficult to deal with my mother at times but she is understanding her more with time.
And me too. I am still learning to understand my mother, and my father, he will never understand her ha ha
I exagerate of course.

Heh,a greek mother-in law(especially the mother of the sonny ) is a many headed beast.:p Tell your gf my condolenses.I'm looking to marry an orphan myself.

Andy G
12-15-2009, 04:54 PM
Only 14?

It is much harder to win a major in golf. You must beat every single entrant. Imagine if Tiger has to beat 150+ golfers, for every major he wins, Federer only needs to beat 7 players, and many times not even a good player, since there are so few these days outside of Nadal.

It just doesn't compare. This means for Tiger's 14 majors he has beaten WELL over 1000 opponents.

Roger has had to beat 105. Not even close.


No, you don't have to beat everyone on the field in golf. Majors last 4 days, you can not have the best score each day and still win the event by having to lowest overall score. This would be like a tennis major having the winner be the one to not lose the most games or sets. Golfers don't have other players hitting their balls to places they can't play from. I am not making an argument that tennis is harder, just that it's really hard to compare the two. And for Formula 1. I am an American and I love F1. But I have always felt that any kind of auto or motorcycle racing is not a sport because the machine is doing all the work. And yes, it may take a lot of stamina and coordination to do what needs to be done to win, but in the end, the car did all the work.

CHOcobo
12-15-2009, 05:15 PM
Are these people elite level players? In all the other examples given in this thread people such as Phelps and Federer have been talked about, yet for table tennis you give an example of some low level "competition". Watch some real table tennis, the players are far from fat.

your right these guys are low level. compare that to low level tennis players, tennis players are more athletic. you seem to be okay with "tennis players are wussies" but not table tennis players. lol.

nCode2010
12-15-2009, 06:16 PM
To be an Athlete, you must play a sport
Golf is not a sport.
Hence Tiger does not qualify for this list.

And what, only 14 majors in golf, and he was supposed to be so dominant? And how many of those 14 majors came prior to 2000? Fed won 15 majors in 7 years!

PS - nobody's voting for Tiger anyway? LOL!!!:???:

ONLY 14 majors in golf? That's 2nd most in history and 12 in the entire decade is most ever for a decade. Also he won 4 in a row(a record), 7/11(a record) and has the greatest margin of victory at a major(2000 US Open, 15 shots).

thalivest
12-15-2009, 06:22 PM
Only 14?

It is much harder to win a major in golf. You must beat every single entrant. Imagine if Tiger has to beat 150+ golfers, for every major he wins, Federer only needs to beat 7 players, and many times not even a good player, since there are so few these days outside of Nadal.

It just doesn't compare. This means for Tiger's 14 majors he has beaten WELL over 1000 opponents.

Roger has had to beat 105. Not even close.

You say there are few good players in mens tennis right now but what would you then say about the field in mens golf. This is certainly not a strong time for mens golf if Tiger didnt exist. His main career competitors are inconsistent chokers like Mickelson and Els, and a hard working but only moderate talent like Singh. Love and Goosen who are even bigger pretenders or if TW were a golf forum guys that would be termed as "clowns". Then the ridiculously overhyped up and comers that never were like Garcia and Scott. Heck the weakness of these players is such that someone like Padrick Harrington to win 3 majors in a year and half, something the likes of him would never would be able to do in any field other than the recent one. Even worse someone like Angel Cabrera has actually won 2 majors in the last couple years alone. Even more laughable those are his only 2 wins on the entire PGA tour, basically the current group are such big event chumps they allow a guy who cant even win regular tour events to win a major not once by fluke but TWICE. None of these players would be greats in the games history even if Tiger didnt exist. If you compare it to when Player, Nicklaus, Watson, Nicklaus, and others were all on top at once it is a total joke apart from Tiger in fact.

Atleast the mens field in tennis is not at the horrible low the field in mens golf is currently at. I am pretty sure the golfing equivalent of Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Del Potro, and Murray would be alot better than anything apart from Tiger out there on the PGA tour these days.

slice bh compliment
12-15-2009, 06:23 PM
]....Lawers[/B],doctors respectful and nice people who are always nice and civilised when they get on the stadium they join the behaviour of the mass.......

Lawyers? Nah. Can't really put them in the same class as hooligans. They're much, much worse.

thalivest
12-15-2009, 06:35 PM
Why would Kobe Bryant, a guy who has 1 regular season MVP, 1 NBA finals MVP and a guy who only won 1 championship as the leader of a team, and Lebron James, who has won absolutely nothing, be considered top athlete?

If you look at a lot of the polls, they have Tim Duncan listed for the NBA. He has been, by far, the best NBA player of the decade and is considered by most experts as the greatest power forward that ever lived. He has won THREE championships as the leader of his team, 2 NBA finals MVP's, 2 NBA regular season MVP's, and the best big defender of the decade.

Just because Kobe and Lebron are flashier they should be nominees? Hell Kobe would have 1 ring without Shaq (who is the second best player of this decade).

But I can't argue with the rest (although Ronaldo, not Christiano) would give Zidane a run for his money...

I agree listing Kobe and LeBron (at this point in his career) as candidates for athlete of the decade is a joke. Tim Duncan was the best basketball player of the decade I agree. All the stats are in his favor, both individual and team, whether or not he is the most exciting player or popular player. Shaq I would say was even clearly better than both this decade as well. Heck even someone like Steve Nash who is hardly a major great of the sport has won more MVP titles this decade than Kobe and LeBron (I am not saying he should rank higher this decade, just putting things into perspective a bit).

So no Kobe and LeBron would not be in the mix for athlete of the decade at all.

thalivest
12-15-2009, 06:36 PM
if you are talking pure athleticism, it has to be someone from a triathlon or some event like that.
otherwise, comparing sports never works, especially on these boards where many people think throwing a 100mph fast-ball in the strike zone is unimpressive.
you might not like other sports as much as tennis but come one, saying there is no comparison between Bryant and Federer is an insult.

No way would it be an Olympic distance only triathlete. However I could easily see a top Ironman triathlete getting consideration. What they do is insane.

dropserve
12-16-2009, 12:19 AM
Comparing golf and tennis, is like comparing apples and bannanas...

slice bh compliment
12-16-2009, 04:49 AM
^Valid point. Let's explore this.^

Well with apples, you've got a longer shelf life.
With bananas, there's the peel and the softer inside, so bruising and durability are definite issues.

With apples, well, there's the core that you can either compost or give as a gift to a local family of birds.

With bananas, you can really pull off a good sight gag on a nice, slick floor. Make sure you've got a video camera handy.

Apples can grow more easily in a variety of climates (especially in the northern hemisphere). Bananas are more of a tropical fruit.

In terms of nutrition, I think you're getting more calories for the buck with the banana. Apples probably contain a little more fiber, gram for gram....but that's if you eat the whole thing. A peeled apple is just not the same.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Bananas imply a degree of craziness, which is kind of cool. ALso you can pretend a banana is a six-shooter. Or use it in health class as a prop.

You can make caramel apples for the kids. That's kind of fun. Add some chopped nuts, too.

You can also put a banana on a stick and dip it in chocolate and nuts.

Hmmm, this is a neverending debate.

Bananas Foster? Banana Splits?

Apple Cobbler? Apple Pie?

THis is just like comparing tenns and golf!

Okay, off to make a smoothie.

nCode2010
12-16-2009, 10:42 AM
Well Tiger was named:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34446037/ns/sports-golf/

Hardly surprising as Tiger was already in his prime at the beginning of the decade, while Roger was still a young pup learning.

Talker
12-16-2009, 10:46 AM
I guess if Fed wasn't good enough to make it then tennis will never have a honor like this.

True that Tiger was good but he still has a way to go to break his sports all time record.

OddJack
12-16-2009, 11:14 AM
Tiger over Rodge, a Joke?
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2009-12-16/2798.php

I have to agree. All things considered, Rodge still comes on top.

Well, maybe not. Consider his nationality.

FlamEnemY
12-16-2009, 11:23 AM
^Valid point. Let's explore this.^

Well with apples, you've got a longer shelf life.
With bananas, there's the peel and the softer inside, so bruising and durability are definite issues.

With apples, well, there's the core that you can either compost or give as a gift to a local family of birds.

With bananas, you can really pull off a good sight gag on a nice, slick floor. Make sure you've got a video camera handy.

Apples can grow more easily in a variety of climates (especially in the northern hemisphere). Bananas are more of a tropical fruit.

In terms of nutrition, I think you're getting more calories for the buck with the banana. Apples probably contain a little more fiber, gram for gram....but that's if you eat the whole thing. A peeled apple is just not the same.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Bananas imply a degree of craziness, which is kind of cool. ALso you can pretend a banana is a six-shooter. Or use it in health class as a prop.

You can make caramel apples for the kids. That's kind of fun. Add some chopped nuts, too.

You can also put a banana on a stick and dip it in chocolate and nuts.

Hmmm, this is a neverending debate.

Bananas Foster? Banana Splits?

Apple Cobbler? Apple Pie?

THis is just like comparing tenns and golf!

Okay, off to make a smoothie.

Lol, you certainly went apples with this issue.


By the way, I believe Phelps should be considered the 'best athlete'. Not that I don't like Roger, of course :) I just believe that as far as pure athleticism goes, it's Phelps who's on top. Not that Federer isn't amazing, of course.

nCode2010
12-16-2009, 11:42 AM
Why is Phelps are better "pure athlete" then Rog? Rog uses different muscles to move laterally, stop and start something Phelps doesn't have to. Phelps literally has to go in a straight line over and over again.

FlamEnemY
12-16-2009, 11:55 AM
There's a reason why swimmers' bodies are so well developed in all aspects - 'going in straight line' isn't what they do. They have to use their whole bodies from start to finish, with perfect technique. I can only wonder what strain that puts on them. What Federer does relies IMO more on skills/technique/hand-eye coordination than on athleticism. He is, of course, also very athletic.

Andy G
12-16-2009, 03:15 PM
Would you consider athlete of the decade a person who was world #1 all 520 weeks? Would that be enough in and of itself?

anointedone
12-16-2009, 03:20 PM
Of course Woods won when it was an American group voting. Hence why someone like Usian Bolt finished right at the bottom. OK granted he was only around for a few years this decade but still. And a guy who achieved things even more incredible than either Federer or Woods like Phelps, but in a non viewer friendly sport outside the Olympics like swimming, finishes far behind both too. These type of awards are a joke anyway.

Chadwixx
12-16-2009, 03:25 PM
Poker player will probably win it next year.

AP's athlete of the * is now up there with nobel peace prize.

Serve_Ace
12-16-2009, 03:28 PM
Why is Phelps are better "pure athlete" then Rog? Rog uses different muscles to move laterally, stop and start something Phelps doesn't have to. Phelps literally has to go in a straight line over and over again.

Every stroke uses every muscle of your body. And Phelps maximizes every muscle to swim as fast as he can. So yes I would agree Phelps is a better "pure athlete" just looking at the way his body is built. He was made to be a better athlete.

anointedone
12-16-2009, 03:32 PM
Every stroke uses every muscle of your body. And Phelps maximizes every muscle to swim as fast as he can. So yes I would agree Phelps is a better "pure athlete" just looking at the way his body is built. He was made to be a better athlete.

Phelps is easily physically stronger and more athletic than either Woods or Federer. Federer actually isnt physically that impressive as far as size and strength although he is athletic in many other ways. Woods is a great athlete for a golfer but in any actual sport he would be a joke comparatively as far as sheer athletic ability. His athleticsm stands out so much in his sport only since the rest are fat old men.

Serve_Ace
12-16-2009, 03:32 PM
Of course Woods won when it was an American group voting. Hence why someone like Usian Bolt finished right at the bottom. OK granted he was only around for a few years this decade but still. And a guy who achieved things even more incredible than either Federer or Woods like Phelps, but in a non viewer friendly sport outside the Olympics like swimming, finishes far behind both too. These type of awards are a joke anyway.

I know it's a shame, swimming should be showed more!!!! It's such a great sport.

anointedone
12-16-2009, 03:34 PM
I know it's a shame, swimming should be showed more!!!! It's such a great sport.

Yeah and if Phelps doing the most incredible things of any Olympic athlete ever from 2003-2009 doesnt make the sport more popular I am not sure what ever will. Sadly I wouldnt be surprised if Phelps is nearing the end of his prime too, and then swimming will be even more back towards the bottom marketability wise in the U.S again.

Andy G
12-16-2009, 03:38 PM
Every stroke uses every muscle of your body. And Phelps maximizes every muscle to swim as fast as he can. So yes I would agree Phelps is a better "pure athlete" just looking at the way his body is built. He was made to be a better athlete.

Phelps competed for 2 weeks out of the entire decade. You're trying to claim that this is greater than everything Fed has worked for over the last 10 years? My same feelings for anyone who think Usain Bolt is athlete of the decade.

Serve_Ace
12-16-2009, 03:40 PM
Yeah and if Phelps doing the most incredible things of any Olympic athlete ever from 2003-2009 doesnt make the sport more popular I am not sure what ever will. Sadly I wouldnt be surprised if Phelps is nearing the end of his prime too, and then swimming will be even more back towards the bottom marketability wise in the U.S again.

Well some of the super national meets I think are aired somewhere on TV, the finals that is. Haha theres no way he's near his prime, he's only 24. Plus he just broke another world record a few months ago in the 100m butterfly. He is going to still show constant improvement, since he still has a passion for the sport.

anointedone
12-16-2009, 03:42 PM
Phelps competed for 2 weeks out of the entire decade. You're trying to claim that this is greater than everything Fed has worked for over the last 10 years? My same feelings for anyone who think Usain Bolt is athlete of the decade.

LOL 2 weeks over the entire decade. So 2 outrageous Olympics (well 3 although he was only 15 years old and naturally did nothing at the 1st), 5 World Championships (multiple golds in all of them, most of them historic totals), multiple Pan Pacific Championships, many Summer and Winter Nationals, many World Cup short course meets, countless other meets, is just 2 weeks an entire decade? You really know what you are talking about there. :confused:

I would totally rate Federer over Woods in something like this for the simple fact golf is a very complex game, not even a true sport, but Phelps clearly rates over both on merit.

Andy G
12-16-2009, 03:44 PM
Yeah and if Phelps doing the most incredible things of any Olympic athlete ever from 2003-2009 doesnt make the sport more popular I am not sure what ever will. Sadly I wouldnt be surprised if Phelps is nearing the end of his prime too, and then swimming will be even more back towards the bottom marketability wise in the U.S again.

Therer were only 2 Olympics from those years, 2004 & 2008. What about 03, 05, 06, 07, 09?? What was he doing all those years, while Fed was winning majors?? He was swimming laps, 4 years of practice for 2 weeks of work.

Serve_Ace
12-16-2009, 03:44 PM
Phelps competed for 2 weeks out of the entire decade. You're trying to claim that this is greater than everything Fed has worked for over the last 10 years? My same feelings for anyone who think Usain Bolt is athlete of the decade.

Phelps has won everything possible that he could in two weeks that he competes in the Olympics. Roger did not win everything that he worked for over the last 10 years. Include beating his own rival. And Phelps does not just compete in the Olympics there are swim meets that occur. Which Phelps just dominates in getting a gold medal nearly every single time.

Serve_Ace
12-16-2009, 03:46 PM
Therer were only 2 Olympics from those years, 2004 & 2008. What about 03, 05, 06, 07, 09?? What was he doing all those years, while Fed was winning majors?? He was swimming laps, 4 years of practice for 2 weeks of work.

No he was also competing in swim meets. Swimming Championships. Pretty much like Grand Slams in the swimming world, except no one knows about it because swimming isn't as popular.

Serve_Ace
12-16-2009, 03:49 PM
LOL 2 weeks over the entire decade. So 2 outrageous Olympics (well 3 although he was only 15 years old and naturally did nothing at the 1st), 5 World Championships (multiple golds in all of them, most of them historic totals), multiple Pan Pacific Championships, many Summer and Winter Nationals, many World Cup short course meets, countless other meets, is just 2 weeks an entire decade? You really know what you are talking about there. :confused:

I would totally rate Federer over Woods in something like this for the simple fact golf is a very complex game, not even a true sport, but Phelps clearly rates over both on merit.

Go Anointedone!!!!! You know your stuff!!!! Respect, respect.

Andy G
12-16-2009, 03:56 PM
LOL 2 weeks over the entire decade. So 2 outrageous Olympics (well 3 although he was only 15 years old and naturally did nothing at the 1st), 5 World Championships (multiple golds in all of them, most of them historic totals), multiple Pan Pacific Championships, many Summer and Winter Nationals, many World Cup short course meets, countless other meets, is just 2 weeks an entire decade? You really know what you are talking about there. :confused:

I would totally rate Federer over Woods in something like this for the simple fact golf is a very complex game, not even a true sport, but Phelps clearly rates over both on merit.

Yeah, those draw spectator records. Fact is, everyone here refers to his (and Bolt's) Olympic records when they talk about them and you know this. I made the point of Allison Fisher being world #1 in billiards for 22, yes 22 years, and it means nothing because it isn't physical enough. But in my opinion, anyone who has been world #1 for over 1100 weeks and all 520 of the decade is the athlete of the decade. But to you, I'm sure its meaningless. Just like the Olympics are to me.

Swimming you don't even break a sweat. Just like billiards.

Serve_Ace
12-16-2009, 04:01 PM
Yeah, those draw spectator records. Fact is, everyone here refers to his (and Bolt's) Olympic records when they talk about them and you know this. I made the point of Allison Fisher being world #1 in billiards for 22, yes 22 years, and it means nothing because it isn't physical enough. But in my opinion, anyone who has been world #1 for over 1100 weeks and all 520 of the decade is the athlete of the decade. But to you, I'm sure its meaningless. Just like the Olympics are to me.

Fact is, if people expanded their knowledge a little bit more, beyond just the Olympics. The whole Athlete of the Year debate just got a whole lot bigger.

anointedone
12-16-2009, 04:01 PM
Therer were only 2 Olympics from those years, 2004 & 2008. What about 03, 05, 06, 07, 09?? What was he doing all those years, while Fed was winning majors?? He was swimming laps, 4 years of practice for 2 weeks of work.

What was he doing those years. Ok here you are:

2002- won 3 golds and 3 silvers at the Pan Pacific Swimming Champions (all the top Americans and Australians, the main powers in mens swimming were there).
Set his 3rd and 4th World records.

2003- won 4 golds and 2 silvers at the World Swimming Championships. Set EIGHT more individual World records this year alone across 4 different events.

2004- won 6 golds and 2 bronzes at the Olympic Games. Set his 13th and 14th World records.

2005- Off year for Phelps. Merely won 5 golds and 1 silver at the World Swimming Championships out of 8 events entered and set no new World records (nearly all of those his own). A year anyone else would kill for but below his own usual standards.

2006- 5 golds and 1 silver out of 6 events entered at the Pan Pacific Champoinships. 3 more World records.

2007- 7 golds at the World Swimming Championships, the greatest performance ever at the event. Missed out on an 8th only since his teammate got the team DQed in the medley relay.

2008- 8 golds at the Summer Olympics, an all time record for any sport. Bringing his career total to 14 now, also a record in any sport. His medal total now at 16, a mens record. 9 more World records.

2009- 5 golds and 1 silver in 6 events entered at the World Swimming Championships. 5 more World records.

Swimmers compete in many other meets besides Olympics, Worlds, and Pan Pacs too. The Winter and Summer Nationals for Americans which Phelps often enters, World cup meets at the short course distance, Duel in the Pool meets, alot of invitationals, you name it. Phelps has kept long winning streaks in many different events competing year round.

Andy G
12-16-2009, 04:02 PM
Phelps has won everything possible that he could in two weeks that he competes in the Olympics. Roger did not win everything that he worked for over the last 10 years. Include beating his own rival. And Phelps does not just compete in the Olympics there are swim meets that occur. Which Phelps just dominates in getting a gold medal nearly every single time.

Are you really gonna compare 2 weeks to 10 years of work?

Serve_Ace
12-16-2009, 04:03 PM
Are you really gonna compare 2 weeks to 10 years of work?

Phelps has done more than just those 2 weeks.

anointedone
12-16-2009, 04:03 PM
Yeah, those draw spectator records. Fact is, everyone here refers to his (and Bolt's) Olympic records when they talk about them and you know this. I made the point of Allison Fisher being world #1 in billiards for 22, yes 22 years, and it means nothing because it isn't physical enough. But in my opinion, anyone who has been world #1 for over 1100 weeks and all 520 of the decade is the athlete of the decade. But to you, I'm sure its meaningless. Just like the Olympics are to me.

Swimming you don't even break a sweat. Just like billiards.

Well this thread is about "ATHLETE" of the decade so yes on that subject I disregard someone who is dominating an activity that isnt truly a sport. Heck I dont even fully credit golf as being a sport, there is no way I would say billiards is.

That doesnt mean I downplay what Fishcher has accomplished. She is simply incredible, probably just as incredible as any of those we are speaking of if not more in her own right. She however is playing a game requiring no athletic skills at all, not a sport, so the right term for her would not be a top athlete.

Fisher has also not been #1 in Billiards for 22 years. She came over to the U.S transferring from Snooker to 9 Ball in the mid 90s and there have been some years (not many mind you) she hasnt ended the year as the player of the year. You obviously are misreading some of the stats listed on her when saying that.

Andy G
12-16-2009, 04:12 PM
Allison Fisher, 22 years #1. Tiger + Fed= 14 total
Allison 32 majors, Tiger + Fed= 29
Allison 165 world titles, Tiger + Fed= 152

She has done more than the 2 "best" put together.

And don't read me wrong, I am in no way saying swimming isn't hard or isn't a sport. I don't want you to think that. I just don't think how (or not) physical something is, should matter. Billiards is a sport and no one in any sport has dominated their respective sport the way she has.

anointedone
12-16-2009, 04:12 PM
Billiards is not a "sport". Calling it is a sport is a true joke. It is a terrific game.

Andy G
12-16-2009, 04:15 PM
Well this thread is about "ATHLETE" of the decade so yes on that subject I disregard someone who is dominating an activity that isnt truly a sport. Heck I dont even fully credit golf as being a sport, there is no way I would say billiards is.

That doesnt mean I downplay what Fishcher has accomplished. She is simply incredible, probably just as incredible as any of those we are speaking of if not more in her own right. She however is playing a game requiring no athletic skills at all, not a sport, so the right term for her would not be a top athlete.

Fisher has also not been #1 in Billiards for 22 years. She came over to the U.S transferring from Snooker to 9 Ball in the mid 90s and there have been some years (not many mind you) she hasnt ended the year as the player of the year. You obviously are misreading some of the stats listed on her when saying that.


Actually "billiards" is the all general term of all these games. Technically though, billiards is actually "French Billiards" and the table have no pockets and 3 balls, 2 red and 1 white. You will see this game all over Vietnam. "Pocket Billiards" is the term for all games where tables have pockets, so yes, she has been #1 for 22 years.

Andy G
12-16-2009, 04:19 PM
Billiards is not a "sport". Calling it is a sport is a true joke. It is a terrific game.

Poker is a game.

Andy G
12-16-2009, 04:21 PM
Billiards is not a "sport". Calling it is a sport is a true joke. It is a terrific game.

This is how I feel about auto racing. The car does all the work. Sure, there is human input, but in the end, its not a sport.

nCode2010
12-16-2009, 04:34 PM
Sorry guys, snooker is not a sport.

nCode2010
12-16-2009, 04:35 PM
This is how I feel about auto racing. The car does all the work. Sure, there is human input, but in the end, its not a sport.

That's not totally true. Drivers experience huge G-forces and while the tech allows them to have to "handle" the car less then in previous times it's still quite a physical effort to get through a race. Also just the sheer courage to pilot that vehicle at high speeds knowing the slightest mistake could mean death.

FlamEnemY
12-17-2009, 08:43 AM
This is how I feel about auto racing. The car does all the work. Sure, there is human input, but in the end, its not a sport.

I don't like auto racing at all. I find it dull and uninteresting, at least for now.
BUT I'd like to see anyone try to maintain focus for tens of laps, driving at hundreds kmph. Plus, like nCode said, drivers experience huge G-force.

crackbillionair
12-17-2009, 11:36 AM
I'd agree with this, Bonds sorry no, not even in the discussion. Kobe, as popular as he is, athletically does not stack up to me. Brady, well I will admit I am a huge fan, being from New England, the man is an amazing QB and could probably be argued as the best QB of the decade....but best athlete....mehhhh I wouldn't go that far. He has a good tactical mind when it comes to football, but I would not say athletically he is up there. Armstrong, Fed, and maybe even Phelps or other olympic level athlete's could be in contention, but I would not put Barry Bonds and Fed in the same sentence in terms of athletic ability. My Choice would be either Armstrong, Fed or maybe Phelps. But I am sure there are other athlete's in sports that none of us would or are thinking of that could be up there to, at least further up there than Barry Bonds and Kobe Bryant



As an athlete, i.e., having athletic ability, Kobe Bryant is far better than Federer or Woods. Tiger Woods hits a ball in a cup. And Roger wasn't about to make that shot against Milwaukee last night.

The man is a lot faster than the counterparts mentioned here, can jump a lot higher, and is also well accomplished in his sport.

Cross sport comparisons are a waste of time. Kobe though, is one of the best athletes to come around in many years. In any test of athletic ability, strength, speed, vertical/horizontal leap, Kobe would surely best Tiger Woods and ANY tennis player.

There may be some olympic athletes like Bolt and Phelps who are on par with Kobe Bryant. Surely no golfers or tennis players.

OddJack
12-17-2009, 11:59 AM
As an athlete, i.e., having athletic ability, Kobe Bryant is far better than Federer or Woods. Tiger Woods hits a ball in a cup. And Roger wasn't about to make that shot against Milwaukee last night.

The man is a lot faster than the counterparts mentioned here, can jump a lot higher, and is also well accomplished in his sport.

Cross sport comparisons are a waste of time. Kobe though, is one of the best athletes to come around in many years. In any test of athletic ability, strength, speed, vertical/horizontal leap, Kobe would surely best Tiger Woods and ANY tennis player.

There may be some olympic athletes like Bolt and Phelps who are on par with Kobe Bryant. Surely no golfers or tennis players.

All you said was...he is better, vertical, horizontal, speed, leap... I can simply repeat that for Federer. If fast is your measure, then why are you not choosing Bolt? . I am almost certain that Federer would outrun Bryant in a marathon match.
Consistency and dominance over a long period of time are two good criteria to choose the best imo.

crackbillionair
12-17-2009, 12:38 PM
All you said was...he is better, vertical, horizontal, speed, leap... I can simply repeat that for Federer. If fast is your measure, then why are you not choosing Bolt? . I am almost certain that Federer would outrun Bryant in a marathon match.
Consistency and dominance over a long period of time are two good criteria to choose the best imo.


I chose Bryant because he is being assailed ridiculously. He plays a team sport and because of him, his team is an elite team just about every year.

Dominance over a long period of time? If you don't think Kobe has proven that, I don't know what to tell you. He's been the best in his class every year since he was about 12 years old.

I am not choosing Bolt since I only just heard of him last summer. I've known about Kobe for 15-16 years. A summer does not a decade a make. That said, Bolt and Bryant and Phelps are in the same class of athlete. For Roger and Tiger, I can't say that.

nCode2010
12-17-2009, 12:53 PM
Federer is the GOAT of his sport. Can any of the others make the same claim?

djokovicgonzalez2010
12-17-2009, 12:57 PM
This is ridiculous. It was done just for the controvercy. Phelps had more of a legitamate claim than any1 but Federer.

asafi2
12-17-2009, 01:16 PM
I chose Bryant because he is being assailed ridiculously. He plays a team sport and because of him, his team is an elite team just about every year.

Dominance over a long period of time? If you don't think Kobe has proven that, I don't know what to tell you. He's been the best in his class every year since he was about 12 years old.

I am not choosing Bolt since I only just heard of him last summer. I've known about Kobe for 15-16 years. A summer does not a decade a make. That said, Bolt and Bryant and Phelps are in the same class of athlete. For Roger and Tiger, I can't say that.

As I wrote earlier.....

Why would Kobe Bryant, a guy who has 1 regular season MVP, 1 NBA finals MVP and a guy who only won 1 championship as the leader of a team, and Lebron James, who has won absolutely nothing, be considered top athlete?

If you look at a lot of the polls, they have Tim Duncan listed for the NBA. He has been, by far, the best NBA player of the decade and is considered by most experts as the greatest power forward that ever lived. He has won THREE championships as the leader of his team, 2 NBA finals MVP's, 2 NBA regular season MVP's, and the best big defender of the decade.

Just because Kobe and Lebron are flashier they should be nominees? Hell Kobe would have 1 ring without Shaq (who is the second best player of this decade).

Explain to me how he has been dominant every year? You do realize once Shaq left he couldn't get out of the first round of the playoffs until they stole Gasol from the Grizzlies right?

thalivest
12-17-2009, 02:46 PM
Bingo! Kobe and LeBron are not even the best or for that matter 2nd best basketball players of this decade. Thus they have no consideration in this topic. You cant be the best athlete when you arent the best in your own sport.

Tennis_Hands
12-17-2009, 06:36 PM
My list.

Roger Federer
Lance Armstrong
Julien Absalon
Ole Einar Björndalen
Kenenisa Bekele
Michael Schumacher
Valentino Rossi
Sebastien Loeb
Tiger Woods.

My preferences are to athletes who have the ballance between domination, achievements, rewards, recognition within the sport (since worldwide popularity can be hugely influenced by the nature of the sport, viewing audience's numbers, commercial influence etc.), recognition outside of the sport, personal preferences and all are athletes in individual sports.

I give slight preference to those athletes who compete in sports, where there are less chances for winning real awards (for example - in MTB bicycling you do not get very many chances to win big awards, compared to, say, Tennis, Cross Country running etc.). Sports, where equipment is essential part of success, get less recognition than those, with more influence of the equipment).

Tiger Woods gets last place not because he is not an outstanding athlete, but because the sport, in which he competes, is in its own league, compared to all other sports, the sport itself is less demanding on the body, so it is hard to compare careerwise (diminishing the meaning of such estimates as dominance and career achievements) and the fact, that part of his achievements were not in this decade.

Also, an offtopic remark to this poster.

.. no mention of money or popularity. you are a moron.

You, Sir, are lacking some good manners. Heavily. I do not know how exactly this kind of attitude is being tolerated, but, regardless of whether you are going to be warned or else, I wanted to let you know that.

On the subject you have been discussing with Malakas and some other poster - not only is F1 more popular than Golf in Europe, but Michael Schumacher is more popular here (Europe) than Tiger Woods EVEN NOW, A COUPLE of years after he retired. In fact, this comparison doesn't make justice to what exactly his popularity in Europe is. He is one of the FEW athletes WORLDWIDE, who can rise the interest of the general public to certain sport by just announcing, that he might consider returning. As far as I remember that thing happened for the last time in USA when Michael Jordan announced his returning in the game. Tiger Woods is NOWHERE near this and will never be.

Also, Tiger Woods, and any other professional golfer, for that matter, has never been popular to the general (both interested in sports or not) public in Europe. Golf is considered elitist sport, that has turned into recreational, and most of the people do not even consider it a "real" sport. It falls in the category of such sports as snooker, polo etc.

All in all. You are wrong on both accounts:

F1 is more popular in Europe than Golf
Michael Schumacher is more popular, influential etc. than Tiger Woods, and I would say that achievementwise he is far superior too. That means moneywise too :twisted: .Worldwide.

BTW, I was enjoying your "logic".

JennyS
12-17-2009, 06:57 PM
the only viable argument that I can see against Federer is that he won his first slam in 2003. It would stand to reason that if this is an award for a decade's worth of accomplishments, it would count more than just the last 7 years.

that being said, Fed went from completely unknown to almost unanimously thought of as the greatest player to ever step on a court, all in the last ten years. how could you not pick him?

Tiger went almost three years between majors (2002 US Open-2005 Masters) and didn't win one in 2009. So that could be used against him.

slice bh compliment
12-17-2009, 07:09 PM
Tiger went almost three years between majors (2002 US Open-2005 Masters) and didn't win one in 2009. So that could be used against him.

Yeah, but, nah....I'd say there's more than enough being used against him these days.

''Leeeave Tigggerrr alooonnnne, sniff, sniff.;-)''

tlm
12-17-2009, 07:52 PM
This award must not be for real sports because golf+riding a bike do not qualify!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thalivest
12-17-2009, 07:54 PM
This award must not be for real sports because golf+riding a bike do not qualify!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I disagree about biking. I wouldnt pick Armstrong as you winner for the decade of the athlete for several reasons but cyling is definitely a physically demanding and very athletic sport.

tlm
12-17-2009, 08:00 PM
Cycling is very physically demanding,so is running up a mountain or digging a ditch but that does not make it a sport.

AndrewD
12-17-2009, 09:16 PM
maybe you should try walking a 54 hole round. don't think youll complain about them anymore.

Anything where John Daley can beat you ISN'T an athletic event.

crackbillionair
12-17-2009, 09:17 PM
As I wrote earlier.....

Why would Kobe Bryant, a guy who has 1 regular season MVP, 1 NBA finals MVP and a guy who only won 1 championship as the leader of a team, and Lebron James, who has won absolutely nothing, be considered top athlete?

If you look at a lot of the polls, they have Tim Duncan listed for the NBA. He has been, by far, the best NBA player of the decade and is considered by most experts as the greatest power forward that ever lived. He has won THREE championships as the leader of his team, 2 NBA finals MVP's, 2 NBA regular season MVP's, and the best big defender of the decade.

Just because Kobe and Lebron are flashier they should be nominees? Hell Kobe would have 1 ring without Shaq (who is the second best player of this decade).

Explain to me how he has been dominant every year? You do realize once Shaq left he couldn't get out of the first round of the playoffs until they stole Gasol from the Grizzlies right?




This is amusing. Look man, I watched Kobe drop 62 on my Knicks...I don't think Roger could have thrown in 62 @ msg that night. Who knows what would happen if someone had put a tennis raquet in kobe bryant's hands when he was a child and gave him proper coaching (1-hand backhand). Kobe could've had a ridiculous serve, and would've been able to cover the entire net, no problem. Kobe would be spiking tennis balls like they were volley balls...serve angles...quickness....

nCode2010
12-17-2009, 09:47 PM
I don't think Kobe could double-bagel Leyton Hewitt @US Open either.

Tennis_Hands
12-17-2009, 10:07 PM
Cycling is very physically demanding,so is running up a mountain or digging a ditch but that does not make it a sport.

Oh, really?:roll: and when was the last time when you survived your mental fatigue and went on a rampage against your opponents after 12 or 24 hour MTB race or led ANY bicycling event in the last 100 meters to the finish like, let's say Robbie McEwen or Marc Cavendish?

:twisted:

dropshot winner
12-18-2009, 12:39 AM
Oh, really?:roll: and when was the last time when you survived your mental fatigue and went on a rampage against your opponents after 12 or 24 hour MTB race or led ANY bicycling event in the last 100 meters to the finish like, let's say Robbie McEwen or Marc Cavendish?

:twisted:

Cycling is definately a tough sport, but not because most people are unable to handle a 12 hour MTB race.

Most people can't eat 100 hotdogs either, but that doesn't mean competitive eating is a real sport.

big bang
12-18-2009, 03:54 AM
the award will probably go to either Lance"the master of juice"armstrong or some NFL or NBA idiot who 99% of ppl outside US dont even know or gives a s... about!
please give it someone who deserves it and please choose an athlete from a sport not full of juice and one thats being practiced worldwide.. or you might as well give it to some russian chess-player..

Quite Please
12-18-2009, 04:01 AM
My list.

Roger Federer
Lance Armstrong
Julien Absalon
Ole Einar Björndalen
Kenenisa Bekele
Michael Schumacher
Valentino Rossi
Sebastien Loeb
Tiger Woods.

My preferences are to athletes who have the ballance between domination, achievements, rewards, recognition within the sport (since worldwide popularity can be hugely influenced by the nature of the sport, viewing audience's numbers, commercial influence etc.), recognition outside of the sport, personal preferences and all are athletes in individual sports.

I give slight preference to those athletes who compete in sports, where there are less chances for winning real awards (for example - in MTB bicycling you do not get very many chances to win big awards, compared to, say, Tennis, Cross Country running etc.). Sports, where equipment is essential part of success, get less recognition than those, with more influence of the equipment).

Tiger Woods gets last place not because he is not an outstanding athlete, but because the sport, in which he competes, is in its own league, compared to all other sports, the sport itself is less demanding on the body, so it is hard to compare careerwise (diminishing the meaning of such estimates as dominance and career achievements) and the fact, that part of his achievements were not in this decade.

Also, an offtopic remark to this poster.



You, Sir, are lacking some good manners. Heavily. I do not know how exactly this kind of attitude is being tolerated, but, regardless of whether you are going to be warned or else, I wanted to let you know that.

On the subject you have been discussing with Malakas and some other poster - not only is F1 more popular than Golf in Europe, but Michael Schumacher is more popular here (Europe) than Tiger Woods EVEN NOW, A COUPLE of years after he retired. In fact, this comparison doesn't make justice to what exactly his popularity in Europe is. He is one of the FEW athletes WORLDWIDE, who can rise the interest of the general public to certain sport by just announcing, that he might consider returning. As far as I remember that thing happened for the last time in USA when Michael Jordan announced his returning in the game. Tiger Woods is NOWHERE near this and will never be.

Also, Tiger Woods, and any other professional golfer, for that matter, has never been popular to the general (both interested in sports or not) public in Europe. Golf is considered elitist sport, that has turned into recreational, and most of the people do not even consider it a "real" sport. It falls in the category of such sports as snooker, polo etc.

All in all. You are wrong on both accounts:

F1 is more popular in Europe than Golf
Michael Schumacher is more popular, influential etc. than Tiger Woods, and I would say that achievementwise he is far superior too. That means moneywise too :twisted: .Worldwide.

BTW, I was enjoying your "logic".

Great list, at least it contains more than just Americans and Federer. You could ad to the list:
Elena Isinbayeva
Zinedine Zidane (a bit diffucult because his dominance was around the century shift (98-02))
The Female Norwegian Handball Team

widmerpool
12-18-2009, 06:08 AM
this always boils down to two competing ideas of athleticism:

1. "Track and Field" athleticism

versus

2. "Skill set" athleticism

Tom Brady is a great athlete even if he can't bench 400lbs or run a 4.4 40.

Usain Bolt is a great athlete even if he can't hit a topsin backhand.

Tennis_Hands
12-18-2009, 02:49 PM
Define "real sport". Why is not cycling (MTB and road pro cycling) worth of including in the list of sports, that "produce" contenders for this award?


Cycling is definately a tough sport, but not because most people are unable to handle a 12 hour MTB race.

Most people can't eat 100 hotdogs either, but that doesn't mean competitive eating is a real sport.