Laureus World Sportsman of the Year: Federer 4 - Nadal 0
- Thread starter AAAA
- Start date
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Lets be real. Fed deserved the award because from 04-06 he was the most dominant sportsman, and maybe the most dominant period of any sport, of all time.
07 was also special because he dominated the slams, and had ruthless performances at the Aussie and in NYC
07 was also special because he dominated the slams, and had ruthless performances at the Aussie and in NYC
davey25
Banned
Federer was a worthy winner of the event but I was always shocked Phelps didnt win it even once. The guy is freaking incredible, he did things never done before in swimming, even much moreso than Bolt in track. Yet he didnt win it even once. And I am not just referring to the years Federer won, but the 2009 award (for the year 2008 ) where Bolt beat out Nadal and Phelps. The guy won more gold medals than any man in the history of the Olympics in one of the most incredible swimming fields ever and still doesnt win it?! :shock:
How many swimmers have ever won the award. I guess swimming is viewed as less sexy a sport than football, track and field, tennis and many others.
How many swimmers have ever won the award. I guess swimming is viewed as less sexy a sport than football, track and field, tennis and many others.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
This award isn't given to 'tennis man of the year'. It's given to the outstanding sportsman of the year. To earn the accolade the sportsman must have a 'greater' year than all other athletes in all other sports. Thus 'tennis man of the year' doesn't automatically earn the Laureus award. If Nadal can have as good a year or better than Federer's best years then Nadal he might be in the running for the award.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Well, he can start by stop picking his butt.
Li Ching Yuen
Legend
True, but there have been amazing achievements like this in other sports, more unpopular ones, like swimming is, and the same happened.
The "Phelps" situation was brought out of proportions, I assume by the Americans. They know how to "appreciate" their champions. At some point I think the ass-kissing got a little bit disgusting, even for me, as an outsider. :|
Anyway...
On topic I would say Nadal will win this award in case he achieves something really big, like 3 slams in one year, or maybe when he gets the USO if he will... He doesn't have Federer's charisma and flair, so it's gonna take a little bit more for him to clinch it.
I think in Federer's case, the fact that he won Wimbledon in every year helped quite a lot.
Let's face it here, Wimbledon is much more prestigious than Roland Garros.
Nadal got it this year, so he definitely has a chance.
Achilles2010
Banned
Nah, the 2008 trophy was given by fed fanboys for his achievements in 2007.
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
Dude...who gives a crap about a useless hunk of tin won by votes from a faceless committee? Nadal earns his awards. Might as well form an "Übermensch Athlete of the Millennium" committee and give it to Nadal every six months. Then some internet goofballs could go around "bragging" about it for some reason.
Nadal can rip the number 1 ranking, Wimbledon, the Australian, and the French, from Federer, as well as capture the Olympic SINGLES Gold...and Federer can keep his "Laureus" awards. :lol:
I can't believe anyone at all cares about this, or puts thought into it. :lol:
Nadal can rip the number 1 ranking, Wimbledon, the Australian, and the French, from Federer, as well as capture the Olympic SINGLES Gold...and Federer can keep his "Laureus" awards. :lol:
I can't believe anyone at all cares about this, or puts thought into it. :lol:
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
lol sorry, but it IS sour graping. but hey, whatever.
No need for sour grapes. Nadal won Wimbledon. I'm happy.
powerangle
Legend
I know that. What I meant was that Federer doesn't become any greater of a tennis player by winning this laureus award 4 times. He, and any other tennis player, gets "awarded" with the #1 ranking to acknolwedge greatness in his respective sport. The Laureus award is just "nice", that's it.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
How many Laureus did Laver have? How about Gonzalez? Did Jesus have any?
I rest my case (what I wonder about, is why I even bothered.)
P.S.: Is the "Laureus" better than the Teenage Choice Awards? LOL.
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
i see. staying on topic is quite difficult, right?
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
It is on topic.
You say sour grapes.
I say I'm not sour.
Nadal won Wimbledon, picked up almost a 4,000 point lead over the #2 and #3.
Why on earth would I be sour? That's illogical.
I think someone trying to brag about a worthless award is the one being sour, but I guess we disagree. I guess the Laureus is very important to you, lol.
Seriously, I wish you could see the smile on my face.
I guess I'll use the emoticon, although the smile pales in comparison to mine
.Obviously, it's bothering you. You're the one who keeps responding to me. I had forgotten about you, but you can't forget can you? And you're telling me I'm the one with sour grapes.
That's rich, real rich.
Everyone else has moved on. I suggest you do the same.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
It is on topic.
You say sour grapes.
I say I'm not sour.
Nadal won Wimbledon, picked up almost a 4,000 point lead over the #2 and #3.
Why on earth would I be sour? That's illogical.
I think someone trying to brag about a worthless award is the one being sour, but I guess we disagree. I guess the Laureus is very important to you, lol.
Seriously, I wish you could see the smile on my face.
I guess I'll use the emoticon, although the smile pales in comparison to mine
Obviously, it's bothering you. You're the one who keeps responding to me. I had forgotten about you, but you can't forget can you? And you're telling me I'm the one with sour grapes.
That's rich, real rich.
Everyone else has moved on. I suggest you do the same.
methinks you really don't know what sour graping means.
here, for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes
and again, if the topic is not about wimbledon, then you ARE staying out of topic by mentioning it. we're talking about the Laureus award here.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
The what award?? Nadal won Wimbledon.
Nadal won Wimbledon.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
so did Penelope cruz. your point?
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
It is on topic.
You say sour grapes.
I say I'm not sour.
Nadal won Wimbledon, picked up almost a 4,000 point lead over the #2 and #3.
Why on earth would I be sour? That's illogical.
I think someone trying to brag about a worthless award is the one being sour, but I guess we disagree. I guess the Laureus is very important to you, lol.
Seriously, I wish you could see the smile on my face.
I guess I'll use the emoticon, although the smile pales in comparison to mine
Obviously, it's bothering you. You're the one who keeps responding to me. I had forgotten about you, but you can't forget can you? And you're telling me I'm the one with sour grapes.
That's rich, real rich.
Everyone else has moved on. I suggest you do the same.
methinks you really don't know what sour graping means.
here, for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes
and again, if the topic is not about wimbledon, then you ARE staying out of topic by mentioning it. we're talking about the Laureus award here.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Either you don't understand the Award or I didn't explain it clearly enough
I wrote
This award isn't given to 'tennis man of the year'. It's given to the outstanding sportsman of the year. To earn the accolade the sportsman must have a 'greater' year than all other athletes in all other sports. Thus 'tennis man of the year' doesn't automatically earn the Laureus award. If Nadal can have as good a year or better than Federer's best years then Nadal he might be in the running for the award.
The part I highlighted in bold is the key part. The award doesn't highlight greatness in an athlete's respective sport. If that was the case every athlete in every sport achieving a great year would be awarded 'Sportsman of the year'. That doesn't happen. There is only one award for 'Sportsman of Year'. The athlete who wins the award is the one with the greatest achievements as decided by the academy.
A tennis player who becomes year end #1 on the back of just one Major title and several Masters just isn't that stellar and will probably be surpassed by achievements in other sports.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
When someone uses the word like you shouldn't read that as identical.
Ambivalent
Hall of Fame
The what award??
Cool. Federer still has three times more of them and has a better H2H at wimbledon.
J
Justdoit10
Guest
Yep. Roger was injured as well this year so Nadals wimbledon has an asterick. lulz
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
Do people really care about this award?
vortex1
Banned
Federer's RG 2009 is the most tainted slam in existence. He played like crap and got his pigeon in finals. If Nadal's Wimbledon 2010 has an asterisk next to it, then Fedclown's RG 2009 should at least half a dozen.
J
Justdoit10
Guest
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Isn't wikipedia a website that anyone can post on? It's hardly credible. But, I do understand what sour grapes means, and in imo opinion whoever is trying to hold the Laureus up as some kind of ultimate standard is the one sour graping.
We are in the Post Wimbledon phase and that's pretty much the topic of conversation. The Laureus is a red herring from a disgruntled fan.
Not that it matters, but I think you're sour graping like crazy to keep responding to me about a stupid award that surfaces so infrequently on this board.
Nobody cares about the Laureus, the Academy, the Oscars, or any other stupid award given based on opinion.
The issue here is about winning Wimbledon. Before the tournament many said Nadal wouldn't win. He wouldn't get past the big hitters, yada, yada, yada. He went out won the seven matches needed. End of story.
Gosh, can this be over? I don't care about the Laureus and I stated that. That's my opinion. Why must we keep going back and forth over this trivial issue.
Like I have time to look up wikipedia. Why would I do that? Sheesh!
Like is a comparison....or should be used as such
eg tennis balls are like soccer balls in that they are both balls.
I don't think they teach grammar anymore. Pity.
powerangle
Legend
I fully understand what the Laureus awards is, thank you. I know an athlete who wins it is deemed to have achieved greater things across ALL sports. Not just tennis. Yes, I get that. However, the Laureus awards is based on a panel of judges, and at the end of the day, is still largely subjective, no matter how great the accomplishments. The Grand Slams, titles, weeks at #1, etc...those are the things that are objective and are of prime importance to me. Laureus, ESPY awards, et al. are just a footnote for me.
Also, what's even more important: the Laureus award is highly circumstantial. For example: Player A has the exact same tennis titles and stats as Player B, but achieved it in different years (let's say both won 3 slams, 15 titles that year, but in different years). But Player A has won the "Laureus Award" once, player B never won the Laureus. Upon examination, there were no other notable things happening in other sports in the year that player A is nominated for the Laureus, so Player A "wins" the Laureus Award. Player B, having achieved the EXACT same things on the court as Player A, however, doesn't win the Laureus award, because record breaking times are being made in other more high profile sports. Does that make Player A any greater than Player B? No. They achieved the exact same things on the court. Player A just happened to be "luckier" by circumstance and won the Laureus due to weaker things/lack of record breaking stuff from other sports (that he/she had no influence on). Heck, Player B could have achieved even more than Player A (like player B winning the Calendar Grand Slam), but still not win the Laureus, because some other record breaking things are happening in other sports that the panel of judges deem to be even more impressive. Get the picture?
That is why I consider Laureus awards to be more trivial. It is contingent on other sports and what's happening/lack of happening around the world. If Usain Bolt had his record breaking times during one of the years Fed had won the Laureus, Fed probably wouldn't have won the Laureus that year. Does that make what Fed has achieved any less great because he got one less Laureus? No. He still achieved what he did (same stats), but by circumstance didnt' win the Laureus (due to Usain Bolt breaking records in that particular year, instead of another year).
At the end of the day, Federer's great on court records speak for themselves, he doesn't need a circumstantial/subjective award to booster his status.
You're free of course to put a lot of weight on circumstantial awards. I don't. We will just have to disagree.
Last edited:
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Great analysis. I agree.
Winning an award is probably nice, but Fed's done so much in the last six years, this is the least of his accomplishments.
Regardless of what the record books state, Federer's name will be remembered forever, just like Laver, Tilden, Hoad, and the rest of the legends. Why isn't that enough for his fans?
Anyway, enjoyed your post.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
LOL.
Rafa actually holds his laureus newcomer of the year award in very high esteem.
I'm sure rafa would be very honored to receive such a fantastic award. It is just a pity that someone in his sport was just a little bit better almost every year than him. But this year might be different.
laureus awards mean a lot in the world of sport, not just the world of tennis. The biggest sportsmen from schumacher to woods to bolt have won.
I hope rafa wins this award next year.
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
LOL you cannot be serious!! look, if you don't trust wikipedia i can give other links for more in-depth definition of sour graping. in fact, you can choose any links from here: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=sour+graping&aq=f&aqi=g-p1g3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=c401d881a5ff002f. the bolded part alone tells me you still haven't got a clue what it is. and the rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic, so stay on topic please. read the thread title if you must.
Ambivalent
Hall of Fame
The same "pigeon" that he totally beat at the FO this year, right?????
ksbh
Banned
Come on now, TT ... stop whining and give the award it's due. I have no doubt this award is more precious than the discarded toe-nail edges of my neighbors dog! ROFL!
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
It is very easy to see who is Pro Federer and Pro Nadal in this thread. Or is some cases, who is Anti Federer and Anti Nadal.
Pro Federer (Anti Nadal) - The award is meaningful, it covers all sports and because.........
Pro Nadal (Anti Federer) - The award doesn't mean anything, Nadal won Wimbledon! Nadal doesn't want it because......
It sad to see some people so full of hate.
Pro Federer (Anti Nadal) - The award is meaningful, it covers all sports and because.........
Pro Nadal (Anti Federer) - The award doesn't mean anything, Nadal won Wimbledon! Nadal doesn't want it because......
It sad to see some people so full of hate.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Sources of information on the Internet range from the reputable (such as the Library of Congress) to the flamboyant (such as the National Enquirer). This fact underscores the need for thinking critically about everything you see online.
Peer edited sites such as Wikipedia do not employ editors to screen out errors and scrutinize questionable material before publication.
Ellis, D. (2009). Becoming a Master Student).
Wikipedia was not allowed at my college. People who turned in papers from online sites that were not (professionally) peer reviewed, with a list of the author and their credentials were thrown in the trash.
If you insist on addressing me in such a negative manner I am going to report you. I have pretty much had it with people like you coming after me for no apparent reason with your unprovoked and hostile remarks. You have been doing this for awhile, and I have simply wearied of the mindless attacks. My suggestion is that you move on, put me on ignore, or learn how to restrain yourself. I will not deal with the likes of you anymore.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
LMFAO. Discarded toe-nail edges of my neighbors dog! LOL!
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Honestly, I don't believe in awards. I don't watch award shows, because imo, they're usually political in nature with undisclosed criteria. I just don't get into that all. So, to me they are worthless, and definitely not a talking point. I try to avoid subjective practices like GOAT, the best, future predictions, awards, etc.
