Laureus World Sportsman of the Year: Federer 4 - Nadal 0

AAAA

Hall of Fame
The Laureus sports awards are like the Oscars of the film world. To be awarded a sportsperson must achieve outstanding achievements greater in magnitude that all others in other sports. From the official website:

The Laureus World Sports Awards is the premier global sports awards honouring the greatest sportsmen and women across all sports each year. The winners are selected by the ultimate sports jury - the 46 members of the Laureus World Sports Academy, the living legends of sport honouring the great athletes of today.

There is a two-part voting process to find the winners of the Laureus World Sports Awards. Firstly, a Selection Panel of the world’s leading sports editors, writers and broadcasters have voted to create a shortlist of six nominations in each of five categories – Laureus World Sportsman of the Year, Laureus World Sportswoman of the Year, Laureus World Team of the Year, Laureus World Breakthrough of the Year and Laureus World Comeback of the Year. The nominations for two additional categories - the Laureus World Action Sportsperson of the Year and the Laureus World Sportsperson of the Year with a Disability are produced by Specialist Panels. The members of the Laureus World Sports Academy then vote by secret ballot to select the Award winners in all seven categories. Other Awards such as the Laureus Sport for Good Award and Laureus Lifetime Achievement Award are presented by the Academy on a discretionary basis.


Federer has been awarded the 'Laureus World Sportsman of the Year' four times; 2005,2006,2007, and 2008.

Will Nadal's achievements this year be considered 'good' enough for the honour compared to other athletes in other sports?

Will Nadal do enough in the coming years to gain wider recognition across the sporting world and emulate Federer?

Discuss.
 

PSNELKE

Legend
2005-2007 was well deserved and developed.
That´s really a shame giving him the award in 2008 which was really not deserved.
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
He's got one of those




Last year, Federer won RG and Wimbledon, beat Pete's GS record and it looks like it wasn't enough.
THat's because Usain Bolt was even more outstanding in his events imo and that of the Laureus Acedemy.
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
Totally undeserved for Fedclown to get it in 2008. Just shows how anti-Nadal everyone is.
So what does Nadal 'need' to do to be recognised more liked by the wider international professional sporting community?

Does he need to become more of an Ambassador for sport like Federer?
 

luckyboy1300

Hall of Fame
Totally undeserved for Fedclown to get it in 2008. Just shows how anti-Nadal everyone is.
2005-2007 was well deserved and developed.
That´s really a shame giving him the award in 2008 which was really not deserved.
Roger Federer won the award in 2008? I try to be fair and balanced, but is this a ****ing JOKE?
LMAO at these people. fed won the award in 2008 from his accomplishments in 2007!!!
 

akv89

Hall of Fame
Totally undeserved for Fedclown to get it in 2008. Just shows how anti-Nadal everyone is.
2005-2007 was well deserved and developed.
That´s really a shame giving him the award in 2008 which was really not deserved.
Roger Federer won the award in 2008? I try to be fair and balanced, but is this a ****ing JOKE?
2008 was an ongoing year. Every year the awards are given based on the athletes performance the previous year (like the ATP awards, which were given at Indian Wells this year based on the results from last year).
 

RF007

Rookie
This
2008 was an ongoing year. Every year the awards are given based on the athletes performance the previous year (like the ATP awards, which were given at Indian Wells this year based on the results from last year).

It means then that he was awarded for his performances from 2004-2007. Well deserved.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That’s another one of Rafa’s blemish for not having one. It goes to show us how far Rafa is behind Roger.
 

nadal era

New User
the laureus awards are a popularity contest, not a true reflection of great sporting achievement.

too much bias towards elitists like federer and armstrong and woods
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
The Laureus sports awards are like the Oscars of the film world. To be awarded a sportsperson must achieve outstanding achievements greater in magnitude that all others in other sports. From the official website:

The Laureus World Sports Awards is the premier global sports awards honouring the greatest sportsmen and women across all sports each year. The winners are selected by the ultimate sports jury - the 46 members of the Laureus World Sports Academy, the living legends of sport honouring the great athletes of today.

There is a two-part voting process to find the winners of the Laureus World Sports Awards. Firstly, a Selection Panel of the world’s leading sports editors, writers and broadcasters have voted to create a shortlist of six nominations in each of five categories – Laureus World Sportsman of the Year, Laureus World Sportswoman of the Year, Laureus World Team of the Year, Laureus World Breakthrough of the Year and Laureus World Comeback of the Year. The nominations for two additional categories - the Laureus World Action Sportsperson of the Year and the Laureus World Sportsperson of the Year with a Disability are produced by Specialist Panels. The members of the Laureus World Sports Academy then vote by secret ballot to select the Award winners in all seven categories. Other Awards such as the Laureus Sport for Good Award and Laureus Lifetime Achievement Award are presented by the Academy on a discretionary basis.


Federer has been awarded the 'Laureus World Sportsman of the Year' four times; 2005,2006,2007, and 2008.

Will Nadal's achievements this year be considered 'good' enough for the honour compared to other athletes in other sports?

Will Nadal do enough in the coming years to gain wider recognition across the sporting world and emulate Federer?

Discuss.

I prefer the javelin.

This is Olympic level straw-clutching you're displaying here mate.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Rafa will never get one because he doesn't give a ---- about the biased commentators who lobby for certain players. Oh, and before you say it's the players, give me a break. With the way they lobby in the booth constantly telling us how classy the former world #1 is, it's no wonder some people are blinded, like the 91%. Sorry, I'll go by the evidence that I see.

Laureus Awards? Yeah, that means a lot in the world of tennis. Wonder if anyone can off the top of their head name who won the past (worthless) awards since 2000.

Probably not, since it's a big zero some people are holding onto now, that their boy has lost. Talk about grasping for straws, lol.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
the laureus awards are a popularity contest, not a true reflection of great sporting achievement.

too much bias towards elitists like federer and armstrong and woods
There's no bias b/c it's global. It's the Sport Illustrated Sportsman of The Year that is bias since they mostly target American athletes. Capiche?
 

HAL9001

New User
That’s another one of Rafa’s blemish for not having one. It goes to show us how far Rafa is behind Roger.
One can only hope roger federer is given the award for his 2009 displays. It will only add to the awards legitimacy.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The award is given sometime in the Spring of 2008 so is based mostly upon 2007 achievements.
So what? The fact is the award is given out once per year and Roger has 4 and Nadal has nothing. If you don't have anything nice things to say ro compliment all of his awards then just be quiet!
 

viduka0101

Hall of Fame
The Laureus sports awards are like the Oscars of the film world.
the Oscars are a flashy and worthless award IMO
if the Lauresus is like the Oscars then it isn't much of an award
I've heard about it but I never gave much attention to it,I guess it's nice to get it
 
the laureus awards are a popularity contest, not a true reflection of great sporting achievement.

too much bias towards elitists like federer and armstrong and woods
And with the paycheck your Rafy receives for winning tournaments and sponsorships, then he too in a sense would be considered an elitist.
 

luckyboy1300

Hall of Fame
and another basic ******* behavior: declare the awards that nadal hasn't won as worthless. basically the true definition of sour graping.
 

davey25

Banned
So what? The fact is the award is given out once per year and Roger has 4 and Nadal has nothing. If you don't have anything nice things to say ro compliment all of his awards then just be quiet!
I was only explaining why it was reasonable Federer actually won the award in 2008 you reading comprehension challenged idiot. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
and another basic ******* behavior: declare the awards that nadal hasn't won as worthless. basically the true definition of sour graping.
Or you could look at it like **** behavior by fans bringing up something completely irrelevant to try to maintain some sort of superiority.

Some people seem to think awards are huge, and some people think nothing at all of them.

Personally, I don't get into any awards shows, (Academy, Golden Globes, Tony, et al.) as I find all awards to be subjective and biased.

To me bringing up this award just seemed like a pitiful attempt to grasp at straws. And for the record, if Nadal was to win one you wouldn't see me bragging about it anyway. It's a worthless award imo, no sour grapes at all.
 

luckyboy1300

Hall of Fame
Or you could look at it like **** behavior by fans bringing up something completely irrelevant to try to maintain some sort of superiority.

Some people seem to think awards are huge, and some people think nothing at all of them.

Personally, I don't get into any awards shows, (Academy, Golden Globes, Tony, et al.) as I find all awards to be subjective and biased.

To me bringing up this award just seemed like a pitiful attempt to grasp at straws. And for the record, if Nadal was to win one you wouldn't see me bragging about it anyway. It's a worthless award imo, no sour grapes at all.
lol sorry, but it IS sour graping. but hey, whatever. :)
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
For the "OMFG HE WON IT IN 2008 WTF?!?!?!?1111" people, as far as I'm aware, it was awarded to him in 2008, therefore it was for his achievements in the year 2007.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
So Nadal has 4 years to catch Roger’s remarkable achievement. Let see if he can win it 4 years in a row. Perhaps Roger should take time off to give him a good chance.
 

davey25

Banned
So Nadal has 4 years to catch Roger’s remarkable achievement. Let see if he can win it 4 years in a row. Perhaps Roger should take time off to give him a good chance.
So now their historical place in tennis is based on the # of Laureus's. Comical. And there is a certain someone named Usian Bolt who is going to be hard for anyone to beat to win a Laureus for many years probably.
 
So Nadal has 4 years to catch Roger’s remarkable achievement. Let see if he can win it 4 years in a row. Perhaps Roger should take time off to give him a good chance.
Its funny how you use some petty award to get a cheap shot over Nadal and praise Federer. You're a complete joke!
 

powerangle

Legend
Totally undeserved for Fedclown to get it in 2008. Just shows how anti-Nadal everyone is.
2005-2007 was well deserved and developed.
That´s really a shame giving him the award in 2008 which was really not deserved.
Roger Federer won the award in 2008? I try to be fair and balanced, but is this a ****ing JOKE?
Wow now you´re intelligent cause you know the way Laureus gives his awards right?
LMAO at you.
the laureus awards are a popularity contest, not a true reflection of great sporting achievement.

too much bias towards elitists like federer and armstrong and woods
Rafa will never get one because he doesn't give a ---- about the biased commentators who lobby for certain players. Oh, and before you say it's the players, give me a break. With the way they lobby in the booth constantly telling us how classy the former world #1 is, it's no wonder some people are blinded, like the 91%. Sorry, I'll go by the evidence that I see.

Laureus Awards? Yeah, that means a lot in the world of tennis. Wonder if anyone can off the top of their head name who won the past (worthless) awards since 2000.

Probably not, since it's a big zero some people are holding onto now, that their boy has lost. Talk about grasping for straws, lol.
Talk about *******s being desperate. As had alerady been stated before (multiple times) in this thread, Federer's 2008 award was based on his 2007 accomplishments. Similar to the ESPY's, these awards are given out in the beginning half the year and are based mostly on the previous year. You can all get your panties out of a wad now.

And the OP is either a troll, or just insecure in his man Fed. Maybe both. These awards are nice but nothing to write home about as a tennis "accomplishment" (the number one ranking will already reflect "tennis man of the year").
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
So now their historical place in tennis is based on the # of Laureus's. Comical. And there is a certain someone named Usian Bolt who is going to be hard for anyone to beat to win a Laureus for many years probably.
What are you talking about? Awards are part of an athlete legacy. You think M. Jordans 5 times most valuable doesn’t add to his legacy? Get real.

Nadal is not Usian, he’s competing with Roger in the SAME sport. No one has any advantage, except Roger is more capable than Nadal. Of course, Nadal must step up to the plate and collect these awards. No more time to stall.
 
Achilles, darling, your hero Borg was well-respected and received numerous awards. Are you sorry he's not gotten any lately or what? Why are you so bitter...:)
Because Federer and Nadal are hyped by the media too much. There is no "Rivalry". Federer is too mentally weak. That is the one thing I like about Nadal, he exposed the phony that is Roger Federer. GOAT my behind...
 

Outbeyond

Legend
Because Federer and Nadal are hyped by the media too much. There is no "Rivalry". Federer is too mentally weak. That is the one thing I like about Nadal, he exposed the phony that is Roger Federer. GOAT my behind...
Well, I'm not sure where you're getting your info about Fed. I'm not sure how he could've won 16 grand slams without a little bit of mental edge there.;-)

But some hate Fed for odd reasons. I guess you're just one of them!
 

KingOfTennis

Professional
Because Federer and Nadal are hyped by the media too much. There is no "Rivalry". Federer is too mentally weak. That is the one thing I like about Nadal, he exposed the phony that is Roger Federer. GOAT my behind...
AHAHAHA. Rafa may be better then Roger now but if you were actually born and alive during 2004-2007 you would know how Roger was way better then Rafa back then. Achilles2010 is a classic example of a *********.
 
AHAHAHA. Rafa may be better then Roger now but if you were actually born and alive during 2004-2007 you would know how Roger was way better then Rafa back then. Achilles2010 is a classic example of a *********.
lHAHAH! You really love talking out your other end. I *HATE* Nadal. I cant stand his game at all. I would be happy to hear if he gets a career ending injury.
 

KingOfTennis

Professional
I dont hate nadal. I like his groundstrokes and he seems to be a good guy. I just hate your stupid claims without any logic or facts.
 
Top