# FEDERER vs WOODS~~ which dominator to win 06/07 WORLD SPORTSMAN [Laureus]..??? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

# FEDERER vs WOODS~~ which dominator to win 06/07 WORLD SPORTSMAN [Laureus]..???

CmonAussie
10-14-2006, 06:49 PM
Howdy folks:wavey:

2006 Roger Federer wins: 12-tournaments incl~ 3-Grand Slams, 4-Masters Series, 1 Masters Cup, 4-other ATP tour, #1 ranking, FO final.:worship:

2006 Tiger Woods wins; 10-tournaments incl~ 2-Majors, 2-World Championships, 4-other US Tour, 1-other Euro Tour, 1-other Hawaii,#1 ranking.:worship:
................
...........
In 2004 & 2005 ~ Federer was awarded World Sportsman of the Year at the Laures awards in Monte Carlo. Woods is also a multi winner of the prestigious award. Although the two were seemingly mates at the US Open final it`s clear that they are in fact rivals;) ....Especially this year ~2006 it seems that they are both in a league of their own & both equal favourites to win the award for 2006 World Sportsman of the Year:cool: .,.....SO who do you think it will be:confused:

Of course we at MTF would probably favor Federer:angel: , but remember that Woods has just won his last 6-successive US Tour titles [equals his own personal best & 2nd on the all time list]. Also Tiger`s father died earlier this year & despite missing the cut at the US Open he rebounded by winning the next two majors~ taking him to 2nd on the all-time list of major winners ... Federer is naturally younger but he`s alread outright 6th on the list of all-time GS winners..

[B]Tiger might get the sentimental vote because his dad died but I honestly rate Federer`s 2006 slightly better~~ what do you guys/gals think:confused: ...Can Fed get his 3rd successive World Sportsman of the Year award????

Boris Franz Ecker
10-14-2006, 08:06 PM
Since golf is no real sport, Federer should win easily.

Fed-Express
10-14-2006, 08:12 PM
Stop talking shit :retard:
Woods is a great sportsman, give him credit.

prima donna
10-14-2006, 08:32 PM
Tiger might get the sentimental vote because his dad died but I honestly rate Federer`s 2006 slightly better~~
Uh, no.

robinhood
10-14-2006, 09:02 PM
~~**Federah ^^*&~~~ because he won 3 *#*~~ slams. ^^!@~###

Boris Franz Ecker
10-14-2006, 09:43 PM
Stop talking shit :retard:
Woods is a great sportsman, give him credit.

He can't be compared to real athletes.
Same with chess champion Kramnik.
Wouldn't be Ok to promote those guys to "sportsman of the year".

CmonAussie
10-15-2006, 02:52 AM
~~**Federah ^^*&~~~ because he won 3 *#*~~ slams. ^^!@~###
:wavey:
Are you taking the piss mate:sad:

What`s wrong with discussing who will win World Sportsman for 2006~~ esp since the sporting year is about to end:confused:

robinhood
10-15-2006, 03:37 AM
:wavey:
Are you taking the piss mate:sad:

What`s wrong with discussing who will win World Sportsman for 2006~~ esp since the sporting year is about to end:confused:

:lol:
Sorry Aussie.
I've noticed that you add a lot of these !*&@#$^&%~# in your thread titles or posts, so I thought I might do the same in my reply.

But Federer and three slams, I was serious about.

CmonAussie
10-15-2006, 03:38 AM
He can't be compared to real athletes.
Same with chess champion Kramnik.
Wouldn't be Ok to promote those guys to "sportsman of the year".
:wavey:
Golf is a mental & physical endurance test

Have you ever played 18-holes of golf:confused:

Chess is a game;) ~ whereas golf is a fair dinkum sport:cool:

World Beater
10-15-2006, 03:42 AM
:wavey:
Golf is a mental & physical endurance test

Have you ever played 18-holes of golf:confused:

Chess is a game;) ~ whereas golf is a fair dinkum sport:cool:

for sure mate...i am in total awe at the competition that woods has been able to beat easily...what great athletes and physical specimens mickelson and singh are...oooooh!:)

golf, a sport? sure its every bit a sport as curling is.

CmonAussie
10-15-2006, 03:42 AM
:lol:
Sorry Aussie.
I've noticed that you add a lot of these !*&@#$^&%~# in your thread titles or posts, so I thought I might do the same in my reply.

But Federer and three slams, I was serious about.
:wavey:
No worries mate:cool:

Federer with 3-Slams seems like an obvious pick I`ll agree;)

However Woods is currently on a streak of winning 6-successive tourneys on the US-Tour:eek: ~ only one other man has won more in a row>> Byron Nelson nearly 60-years ago:angel:

Also since Woods father died some people may consider Tiger`s performance under the circumstances to be more impressive:confused:

CmonAussie
10-15-2006, 03:50 AM
for sure mate...i am in total awe at the competition that woods has been able to beat easily...what great athletes and physical specimens mickelson and singh are...oooooh!:)

golf, a sport? sure its every bit a sport as curling is.
:rolleyes:
Why are you being mean about Singh:confused: ....Vijay is freakin legend:worship: ....>> grew up on Fiji where there was only one golf course, worked in the jungles of Borneo as a club pro, got kicked off the Asian Tour, played the African Tour, worked as a nightclub bouncer in Scotland &..>> finally ends up on the US Tour~~ winning 30-tournaments, $30 million & 3-majors:cool: ....... If you`re saying he`s not an athlete then maybe you should see him in the gym-->> he`s absolutely fanatical about his fitness & strength training~~ Singh could bench press a couple of Federers & Nadals simultaneously:p

robinhood
10-15-2006, 03:51 AM
Are Fed and Tiger officially the top two candidates for Laureus, by the way??
Schumacher is retiring, so maybe he will be a sentimental pick.
Or they will have forgotten that Lance Armstrong is already retired and nominate him, too.
Or perhaps there is some mountain climber we don't know about.

When it comes to Laureus, it is for sure a great honor, but half the nominees are so foreign to me that I always go 'who?'
But between Fed and Tiger right now, I will stay biased and choose Fed.

World Beater
10-15-2006, 03:52 AM
:rolleyes:
Why are you being mean about Singh:confused: ....Vijay is freakin legend:worship: ....>> grew up on Fiji where there was only one golf course, worked in the jungles of Borneo as a club pro, got kicked off the Asian Tour, played the African Tour, worked as a nightclub bouncer in Scotland &..>> finally ends up on the US Tour~~ winning 30-tournaments, $30 million & 3-majors:cool: ....... If you`re saying he`s not an athlete then maybe you should see him in the gym-->> he`s absolutely fanatical about his fitness & strength training~~ Sing could bench press a couple of Federers & Nadals simultaneously:p


:haha:

yes, i know. i just felt like taking the piss out of golf...i do think its an inferior sport to tennis, and despite what singh or woods can benchpress, it still doesnt mean they are better athletes? They may be strong, but i dont think they have as much stamina as any tennis player. i dont think they could run a marathon.

barry bonds can benchpress woods, singh and nadal all at once.

do you think he is a better athlete?

CmonAussie
10-15-2006, 03:56 AM
:haha:

yes, i know. i just felt like taking the piss out of golf...i do think its an inferior sport to tennis, and despite what singh or woods can benchpress, it still doesnt mean they are better athletes? They may be strong, but i dont think they have as much stamina as any tennis player. i dont think they could run a marathon.

barry bonds can benchpress woods, singh and nadal all at once.

do you think he is a better athlete?
:cool:
Okie dokies mate ~ I`ll give you this win on a technichal knockout:sad:

robinhood
10-15-2006, 03:57 AM
barry bonds can benchpress woods, singh and nadal all at once.

do you think he is a better athlete?

:haha::haha:

Barry is the best athlete eva!!!

World Beater
10-15-2006, 03:58 AM
:cool:
Okie dokies mate ~ I`ll give you this win on a technichal knockout:sad:

listen, i am still impressed with singh, woods and all great golfers...but i wouldnt consider them better "athletes". perhaps what woods is doing is more impressive because of the difficulty of golf...this is debatable.

nobama
10-15-2006, 05:15 AM
No way are they giving this to Fed three years in a row. Tiger will get the nod.

Fed-Express
10-15-2006, 08:07 AM
Well, not all sports require stamina. Hammerthrowing for example, or broad jump. Are they inferior therefore?
Nonetheless tennis is one of the sports that require the most complete package.

radics
10-15-2006, 09:10 AM
Since Federer won the last two (?) Laureus trophies, it might go to Tiger Woods (or someone else) this year. I don't think they want the same guy winning it over and over again.

JMG
10-15-2006, 09:30 AM
Woods.

Eden
10-15-2006, 09:33 AM
Are Fed and Tiger officially the top two candidates for Laureus, by the way??
Schumacher is retiring, so maybe he will be a sentimental pick.


I don't think that the nominations for Laureus are already out. Federer and Woods will be among the candidates for sure.
I guess Schumacher would have been only nominated when he had won the Formula One this year and I'm quite sure that he would have got the Laureus then.

CmonAussie
10-15-2006, 04:55 PM
I don't think that the nominations for Laureus are already out. Federer and Woods will be among the candidates for sure.
I guess Schumacher would have been only nominated when he had won the Formula One this year and I'm quite sure that he would have got the Laureus then.
:wavey:
Yeah it`s obvious Federer & Woods will both be nominated ~~ also Schumacher would have had a very good chance of winning had he won the Championship this year.. In that case Alonso might me nominated. Ronaldino may also be an outside chance though I seriously think it`ll come down to Federer v Woods:angel: :devil:

pinky
10-15-2006, 11:15 PM
...Or they will have forgotten that Lance Armstrong is already retired and nominate him, too...


Lance Armstrong could be nominated for the Dope r us award, not the Laureus... Seriously, he was among top contenders last year after his 6th TF (or is that 7 even?) but the main reason he didn't get it is because of the doping suspicions, and of course beside the Tour he basically did nothing else...

adee-gee
10-15-2006, 11:32 PM
Ah the old golf isn't a proper sport argument, very good :)

I'll put my hatred of Federer to the side. Winning 3 slams is an incredible achievement, but I still feel it takes a lot more to win a golf major than a tennis major. Throw in the fact he's dealt with not only his father's death, but the man who was the absolute inspiration for his golfing career. He's had to change his swing and gone through some lean times and ended up the best by a mile again. If Federer won all 4 slams, he'd deserve it but nobody comes close to Woods.

denisgiann
10-16-2006, 12:15 AM
He can't be compared to real athletes.
Same with chess champion Kramnik.
Wouldn't be Ok to promote those guys to "sportsman of the year".

Hahaha yes i agree. Bring on the "athletes" of the darts and the snooker also.These are games people not sports.
In that logic maybe they give the award to an MTF member:Τrollmaster of the year.It takes more physical energy to troll the MTF forums than to play golf anyway;) .

robinhood
10-16-2006, 01:11 AM
Hahaha yes i agree. Bring on the "athletes" of the darts and the snooker also.These are games people not sports.
In that logic maybe they give the award to an MTF member:?rollmaster of the year.It takes more physical energy to troll the MTF forums than to play golf anyway;) .

:o Too many possible nominees. Impossible to choose one!

veri
12-04-2006, 01:08 AM
federer

deliveryman
12-04-2006, 01:14 AM
For those of you who believe that golfers aren't real atheletes, are just plain ignorant.

DrJules
12-04-2006, 01:15 AM
Ah the old golf isn't a proper sport argument, very good :)

I'll put my hatred of Federer to the side. Winning 3 slams is an incredible achievement, but I still feel it takes a lot more to win a golf major than a tennis major. Throw in the fact he's dealt with not only his father's death, but the man who was the absolute inspiration for his golfing career. He's had to change his swing and gone through some lean times and ended up the best by a mile again. If Federer won all 4 slams, he'd deserve it but nobody comes close to Woods.

In other threads you write Federer is bad for tennis owing to his domination and now you are saying Woods is a clear winner; obviously Federer is not as dominant as you claim. You need to be more consistent in what you are saying.

JustmeUK
12-04-2006, 01:35 AM
I think Woods just shades it. It's hard to compare the two sports. Tennis is a one on one where the playing environment is pretty much level for the two vying to win the match whereas golf is so much more variable in that aspect which makes Tiger's year to me that little bit more special. But both have dominated this year and I am a huge fan of both and it's very hard to choose between the two.

aussie_fan
12-04-2006, 04:38 AM
for sure mate...i am in total awe at the competition that woods has been able to beat easily...what great athletes and physical specimens mickelson and singh are...oooooh!:)

golf, a sport? sure its every bit a sport as curling is.

sport doesn't have to involve physical endurance like running. It involves many other aspects such as mental, technique etc. I hate when people say golf isn't a sport because they don't have to be fit, sport's not all about that. Golf is such a hard game that because your have to have your technique perfect and have to be mentally switched on all the time. Mentally it's not really any different from tennis.

As far as the actual question goes, it's hard to judge. I think Tiger would be slightly ahead.

CmonAussie
12-04-2006, 05:14 AM
:wavey:
BUMP~~>> Just decided to quote myself for the update;)

...BTW, Federer definitely seems to have the edge with the way his season ended:worship: .. Especially winning Madrid, Basel, & TMC might give him the edge over Woods~> who only won once in his last three starts:p .

#As you can see Fed finished with 12-titles, whereas Woods got 10!!

Howdy folks:wavey:

2006 Roger Federer wins: 12-tournaments incl~ 3-Grand Slams, 4-Masters Series, 1 Masters Cup, 4-other ATP tour, #1 ranking, FO final.:worship:

2006 Tiger Woods wins; 10-tournaments incl~ 2-Majors, 2-World Championships, 4-other US Tour, 1-other Euro Tour, 1-other Hawaii,#1 ranking.:worship:
................
?[/B]

kronus12
12-04-2006, 05:43 AM
Im a huge Woods fan but golf is not a sport i mean a physical sense of it.
Mentally and one swing and walking 18 holes is not what i call a sport just my opinion.
And yes i have played golf and no it does not make me physically tired or mentally exhaustered, its just makes me feel good participating in it that its.
And if walking 18 holes does make you tired then i think you need to go for more morning runs.

deliveryman
12-04-2006, 06:55 AM
Im a huge Woods fan but golf is not a sport i mean a physical sense of it.
Mentally and one swing and walking 18 holes is not what i call a sport just my opinion.
And yes i have played golf and no it does not make me physically tired or mentally exhaustered, its just makes me feel good participating in it that its.
And if walking 18 holes does make you tired then i think you need to go for more morning runs.

Can you even grasp how well golfer's hand-eye coordination have to be at that level? How well they have to time their swings, to put various spins on the ball. And how fast they have to swing their club to generate power to drive a ball 350 yards.

If that isn't "physical" then I don't know what is. :rolleyes:

People seem to think, that just because a sport doesn't require "running" means it isn't a sport. Give me a break you ignorant, ignorant people.

CmonAussie
12-04-2006, 06:58 AM
Im a huge Woods fan but golf is not a sport i mean a physical sense of it.
Mentally and one swing and walking 18 holes is not what i call a sport just my opinion.
And yes i have played golf and no it does not make me physically tired or mentally exhaustered, its just makes me feel good participating in it that its.
And if walking 18 holes does make you tired then i think you need to go for more morning runs.
:wavey:
Whether you or i consider golf to be a sport is beside the point:cool: .. For what it`s worth i do consider golf a sport~> but anyway;)

What I wanted to discuss is "who will win Laures World Sportsman of the Year [WSOTY] for 2006":confused:
#
Since Tiger has already won the Laures award previously then golf is clearly considered a sport.. or atleast officially recognised as one:p

Both Woods & Federer have won the WSOTY award twice~>> so again we can see they are rivals in a sense, which one of them will be the 1st to win the award an unprecedented 3rd time:confused: [ps. Schumacher has also won twice]!

R.Federer
12-04-2006, 07:11 AM
Tough call, they both set themselves so far ahead of their peers. Federer's having won it two years in a row will go against him. Tiger's being American will go in Tiger's favor in my opinion. Tiger has had to surmount personal problems as well, I think it tips in his favor overall.

oz_boz
12-04-2006, 09:33 AM
Fed easily. Woods is outstanding but Fed's 2006 tops everything in the sport, arguably including Laver's 1969.

CmonAussie
12-04-2006, 09:44 AM
Tough call, they both set themselves so far ahead of their peers. Federer's having won it two years in a row will go against him. Tiger's being American will go in Tiger's favor in my opinion. Tiger has had to surmount personal problems as well, I think it tips in his favor overall.
:wavey:
#So you think the Laureus board don`t want to give Federer the hat-trick:eek: :confused:
""
*Considering that Roger won last year with a 2-Slam, 11-title winning season~~>> you`d think this year`s 3-Slam, 12-title winning season would virtually guarantee him of getting WSOTY for the 3rd straight year;)

Actually I was more worried that Schumacher was going to win again... if he had nabbed the overall drivers F1 Championship then i think he`d get the sentimental vote [considering his retirement].. Fortunately Alonso got him at the last hurdle, thereby virtually ruling the German out of the race for WSOTY 06:p

Allstar
12-04-2006, 10:40 AM
Both unbelieveable athletes but too hard to compare

Federer dominates tennis more than Woods golf but its harder to dominate golf.

Boris Franz Ecker
12-04-2006, 11:37 AM
Federer dominates tennis more than Woods golf but its harder to dominate golf.

Maybe. In Golf you have opponents from 18 to 55. In tennis you have only young unexperienced guys as opponents.

megadeth
12-04-2006, 03:57 PM
do you think fernando alonso will also be nominated in the mix? has it happened before that laureus made an athlete a 3-straight winner as sportsman of the year?

CmonAussie
12-04-2006, 04:21 PM
do you think fernando alonso will also be nominated in the mix? has it happened before that laureus made an athlete a 3-straight winner as sportsman of the year?
:wavey:
Yeah Alonso will be nominated;)

No sportsman has ever won 3-straight WSOTY awards;)
In fact no sportsman has won 3-WSOTY awards period:p
... Federer, Woods, & Schumacher are all tied with TWO each:cool:

~>> I hope & think Federer will become the 1st to get THREE:angel:

Dancing Hero
12-04-2006, 05:18 PM
Federer just edges it on merit I'd say, but Tiger might get the award nonetheless. They might not give it to Federer three years in a row and Woods would be a worthy winner as well. They want a different winner sometimes.

Kip
12-04-2006, 05:37 PM
No contest!

Roger! :cool:

nobama
12-04-2006, 06:52 PM
Federer dominates tennis more than Woods golf but its harder to dominate golf.How so?

Andre'sNo1Fan
12-04-2006, 07:28 PM
yes, i know. i just felt like taking the piss out of golf...i do think its an inferior sport to tennis, and despite what singh or woods can benchpress, it still doesnt mean they are better athletes? They may be strong, but i dont think they have as much stamina as any tennis player. i dont think they could run a marathon.

Inferior in what way? :rolleyes: All sports require different skills, and yeh golf is actually more difficult to dominate, because you have to play against a whole field, whereas in tennis you play 7 matches at most, and at least 3 of them are against very average players.

Hugh Jaas
12-04-2006, 07:53 PM
How so?

hmm...While we are fortunate enough to witness the greatest tennis player ever in action, we should also talk about if Federer is receiving his due among world's elite athletes.

Tiger Woods earns $98M, $10 of which coming from prize money.

Agassi retired at 36 and still makes $25M, mostly in endorsements. That is after his $140M over 10 year deal with Nike ended.

After all the struggles over equal prize money Sharapova makes $25M with only 2 grand slam titles.

Even Roddick makes more than Federer.

Isn't that a shame.

Roger Federer is most closely comparable to Tiger Woods in terms of being the best player ever. Tennis and Golf are comparable in terms of worldwide appeal.

Tennis is a more widely played global sport than golf is, but golf has more money at the moment.

And given Roger is not American, discounting Tiger's earnings by 25%, Roger is worth at least $75M.

But guess what Roger earns today - a measly $22M, $7 of which comes from prize money.

Isn't this the inequity of all time?

Eden
12-04-2006, 08:56 PM
Does anyone know when the nominations for the LAUREUS will be announced?

r2473
12-04-2006, 09:10 PM
:haha:

yes, i know. i just felt like taking the piss out of golf...i do think its an inferior sport to tennis, and despite what singh or woods can benchpress, it still doesnt mean they are better athletes? They may be strong, but i dont think they have as much stamina as any tennis player. i dont think they could run a marathon.

barry bonds can benchpress woods, singh and nadal all at once.

do you think he is a better athlete?

Yes, Bonds is a better athlete.

Andre'sNo1Fan
12-04-2006, 09:42 PM
hmm...While we are fortunate enough to witness the greatest tennis player ever in action, we should also talk about if Federer is receiving his due among world's elite athletes.

Tiger Woods earns $98M, $10 of which coming from prize money.

Agassi retired at 36 and still makes $25M, mostly in endorsements. That is after his $140M over 10 year deal with Nike ended.

After all the struggles over equal prize money Sharapova makes $25M with only 2 grand slam titles.

Even Roddick makes more than Federer.

Isn't that a shame.

And given Roger is not American, discounting Tiger's earnings by 25%, Roger is worth at least $75M.

But guess what Roger earns today - a measly $22M, $7 of which comes from prize money.

Isn't this the inequity of all time?

Not really. $22 million is pretty good, and you have to realise Tiger Woods is a much more global icon than Federer. Your average person will probably know who Tiger is, whereas they may likely have never heard of Federer. Part of this is to do with personality (Tiger Woods comes across as a charasmatic guy, Federer less so), part to do with the phenom factor (Tiger Woods was destined for stardom at a very early age, Federer much less so), and part to do with marketing.

If Roddick earns more - ask yourself why? He's a crowd pleaser, he plays with the crowd. Roger is just totally focused on tennis, and I'm not saying thats wrong, but I think Roddick is definately more marketable. Sometimes us tennis fans wanna see emotion when playing, rather than just staring at your shoes.

allero
12-04-2006, 10:54 PM
Personally I think Landis will be the run away winner this year.

Byrd
12-05-2006, 12:39 AM
Personally I think Landis will be the run away winner this year.

He has some competition in Gatlin :)

Duchova
12-05-2006, 01:26 AM
I'd like to see Fernando Alonso win this time.

Polikarpov
12-05-2006, 06:07 AM
Actually Roger already won the 2006 Laureus World Sports Awards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laureus_World_Sports_Awards#2006

Woods and Fed are vying for the 2007 awards.

CmonAussie
12-05-2006, 08:14 AM
Actually Roger already won the 2006 Laureus World Sports Awards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laureus_World_Sports_Awards#2006

Woods and Fed are vying for the 2007 awards.
:wavey:
Thanks Captain Obvious Right Said Fred smarty pants:p
#
Yeah well Federer won the 2006 award based on his 2005 results;)
...
Naturally the 2007 WSOTY award will be based on 2006 results:eek:
...
This thread is obviously a debate over who should win the next award based on their respective seasons this year [2006]:p

Allstar
12-05-2006, 11:42 AM
How so?

Tennis is a 1 vs 1 shootout. It's easier to beat what is put in front of you than have to indirectly beat a whole field of people. If Fed has a bad day in the early rounds he will still come through, just like Woods would be ahead of most of the field on a bad day but that could still mean he is 8 or so shots off the lead.

its.like.that
12-05-2006, 11:48 AM
are you kidding?

Woods is 1/10th the dominant athlete Federer is

nobama
12-05-2006, 12:22 PM
Tennis is a 1 vs 1 shootout. It's easier to beat what is put in front of you than have to indirectly beat a whole field of people. If Fed has a bad day in the early rounds he will still come through, just like Woods would be ahead of most of the field on a bad day but that could still mean he is 8 or so shots off the lead.
Yeah, and then he has a really good day and the rest of the field is stagnent or falls back and he's right up there at the top. I'm not suggesting what he does is easy, but I don't think it's more difficult than in tennis. Yes, more often than not Federer will come through even if he's not playing his best, but it's the same in golf. Tiger can shoot even par one day and then the next day come out and shoot 8 under and be right up at the top. He's done it countless times.

its.like.that
12-05-2006, 12:23 PM
Personally I think Landis will be the run away winner this year.

:rocker:

Vamos Floyd!

nobama
12-05-2006, 12:31 PM
Not really. $22 million is pretty good, and you have to realise Tiger Woods is a much more global icon than Federer. Your average person will probably know who Tiger is, whereas they may likely have never heard of Federer. Part of this is to do with personality (Tiger Woods comes across as a charasmatic guy, Federer less so), part to do with the phenom factor (Tiger Woods was destined for stardom at a very early age, Federer much less so), and part to do with marketing.

If Roddick earns more - ask yourself why? He's a crowd pleaser, he plays with the crowd. Roger is just totally focused on tennis, and I'm not saying thats wrong, but I think Roddick is definately more marketable. Sometimes us tennis fans wanna see emotion when playing, rather than just staring at your shoes.Please don't try to present your opinion as fact. :rolleyes: Tiger is more charasmatic? Your opinion. Roddick more marketable? Your opinion. Don't forget that Federer went nearly 2 years without representation by a big agency (SFX, IMG). The people running the show were basically his family, a lawyer, and an accountant. So obviously earning $$ off court was not something he was overly concerned about. But as he started to dominate the tour and become well known globally I'm sure team Fed realized they couldn't manage his affairs on their own anymore and that's why he hooked up with IMG again. And understood that how one is percieved, in terms of success, is due in large part to how much money they make - on and off the court.

Allstar
12-05-2006, 12:38 PM
Yeah, and then he has a really good day and the rest of the field is stagnent or falls back and he's right up there at the top. I'm not suggesting what he does is easy, but I don't think it's more difficult than in tennis. Yes, more often than not Federer will come through even if he's not playing his best, but it's the same in golf. Tiger can shoot even par one day and then the next day come out and shoot 8 under and be right up at the top. He's done it countless times.

Yeah but because of the nature of golf everything is carried over. Fed can have a few bad days and still come through because he is only up against lesser opponents and gets a clean slate for the next match (I know this is a sign of his dominance but..). Woods is directly competiting against the whole field. Thats just my view

Bilbo
12-05-2006, 03:09 PM
I think Deep Fritz will make it ;)

CmonAussie
12-05-2006, 03:38 PM
#
BTW!!!
Golf may not be the most athletic sport~> yet it is undoubtedly a SPORT... Therefore I have no problem with Woods & he is an exceptional talent<:) However I find Tiger`s so called charisma to be rather superficial><.. On the other hand Federer is said to be boring by some, yet I find Roger`s character to be much more honest & vulnerable & thereby charismatic [just an opinion]!

Fernando Alonso is a very exciting F1 driver & Schumacher was clearly the king of that for more than 10-years!! However I do NOT consider F1 to be a SPORT!! Therefore I don`t think either Alonso or Schumacher should be in the running for WSOTY [2006/07]!!

Polikarpov
12-05-2006, 05:18 PM
:wavey:
Thanks Captain Obvious Right Said Fred smarty pants:p
#
Yeah well Federer won the 2006 award based on his 2005 results;)
...
Naturally the 2007 WSOTY award will be based on 2006 results:eek:
...
This thread is obviously a debate over who should win the next award based on their respective seasons this year [2006]:p

Sorry!!!:p

propi
12-05-2006, 09:58 PM
Fernando Alonso :D

JustmeUK
12-05-2006, 11:23 PM
Yeah, and then he has a really good day and the rest of the field is stagnent or falls back and he's right up there at the top. I'm not suggesting what he does is easy, but I don't think it's more difficult than in tennis. Yes, more often than not Federer will come through even if he's not playing his best, but it's the same in golf. Tiger can shoot even par one day and then the next day come out and shoot 8 under and be right up at the top. He's done it countless times.

actually that's part and parcel of what makes it harder to dominate at golf. in tennis if you have a bad day you do enough to beat your opponent and come back tomorrow for another day and the slate is wiped clean. in golf, your bad day today is 1 of 4 days and you have to make up for it. true enough everyone in the field can have a bad day thrown into it but statistically speaking, it's more than likely that someone will shoot under par all 4 rounds. look at the history of golf. apart from jones and the amateur slam and tiger and his tiger slam, there have only been two other people to win 3 majors in one year - hogan in 53 and woods in 2000. however you cut it there have been a lot more tennis players (9) to win 3 gs titles in one year.

nobama
12-06-2006, 02:32 AM
actually that's part and parcel of what makes it harder to dominate at golf. in tennis if you have a bad day you do enough to beat your opponent and come back tomorrow for another day and the slate is wiped clean. in golf, your bad day today is 1 of 4 days and you have to make up for it. true enough everyone in the field can have a bad day thrown into it but statistically speaking, it's more than likely that someone will shoot under par all 4 rounds. look at the history of golf. apart from jones and the amateur slam and tiger and his tiger slam, there have only been two other people to win 3 majors in one year - hogan in 53 and woods in 2000. however you cut it there have been a lot more tennis players (9) to win 3 gs titles in one year.Ok, but if you're Tiger Woods you'd have to have a really bad day to not make the cut or be in contention for the title. That's why when his streak of consecutive cuts made was broken it was big news. Maybe it is harder to dominate in golf, but it's not harder for Woods as he's far superior to the rest of the field and a bad day for him doesn't mean shit because he can turn around the next day and shoot the low round of the day.

JustmeUK
12-06-2006, 09:53 AM
Ok, but if you're Tiger Woods you'd have to have a really bad day to not make the cut or be in contention for the title. That's why when his streak of consecutive cuts made was broken it was big news. Maybe it is harder to dominate in golf, but it's not harder for Woods as he's far superior to the rest of the field and a bad day for him doesn't mean shit because he can turn around the next day and shoot the low round of the day.

actually that's not quite true because as I've said before statistically speaking someone is going to be under par all 4 rounds and we're not talking 1/2 under but someone is going to be under par by a long way. as for woods missing the cut it can happen as in this year's US Open (admittedly the first time he's missed a cut in the majors since 1996). and let's not forget that he didn't win a major through 2003/2004 (this after winning 6 majors in 3 years between 2000-2002). bottom line? golf is just a game that is hard to dominate (partly because of the longevity of the golf career).

I'm not saying Roger's dominance is any less impressive. the kind of records he's put together for the last 3 years is nothing short of complete but Tiger's play this year just shades it for me. Both have put together years that will be a part of their legacies.

CmonAussie
12-07-2006, 09:27 AM
Pretty well-written excerpt from a US college newspaper:

by Aaron Brenner
Thursday, December 7, 2006

My 2006 Sportsman of the Year: Roger Federer
Federer is arguably the most dominating athlete on the planet (and by arguably, I mean Tiger is the only foe who comes close). My colleagues at the Herald and I have had a few heated debates over who’s the greatest of them all, Roger or Tiger.

However, there are a few reasons why Federer is clearly superior. For one, Tiger’s won Sportsman of the Year twice, in 1996 and 2000. It’s time to give Roger his due.

Second, Tiger’s had a few lapses in brilliance (re: missing the cut at the U.S. Open, albeit in mourning), while Federer barely broke a sweat to the tune of a 92-5 record and three more Grand Slam titles to his repertoire. This hasn’t just been 2006: In the last three years, Federer has gone 247-15 (an unbelievable 94.3 percent success rate).

Lastly, I won’t ignore Tiger’s humble personality, as he is truly a role model for us all with his clean record and astonishingly genuine aura. But Federer has accomplished so much without saying or doing one wrong thing. How a man can achieve so much without ever losing his temper, his passion for the game or his unending respect for everyone around him, is beyond me.

Tiger may exude greatness and brilliance. But Roger Federer represents perfection.

CmonAussie
12-15-2006, 02:25 AM
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=3900351
How do you find an Athlete of the Year?
By Christopher Clarey
Thursday, December 14, 2006

BOSTON
The sports year is not quite over. England isn't finished burning in the Ashes. Kobe Bryant could score 60 any night now and Andriy Shevchenko might actually start scoring one or two for his new and not necessarily long-term employer, Chelsea, in the English Premier League.

But the business of picking the athletes of the year is well under way, and it is indeed a business, a time-tested manner of recycling old news into something shiny and salable again.

Sports Illustrated, the venerable American publication, has already made the very debatable announcement (debate is good in this business) that in what appeared to be the year of Roger Federer or Tiger Woods, its Sportsman of the Year is Dwyane Wade, the flashy shooting guard who carried the Miami Heat to the National Basketball Association title.

On Sunday, the BBC announced its latest Sports Personality of the Year during its annual television extravaganza. Most expected a big evening for the grieving yet persevering golfer Darren Clarke, who helped defend the Ryder Cup shortly after the death of his wife, Heather, of breast cancer. But, Clarke ended up second in the viewer poll behind Zara Phillips, a world champion in a minor sport — equestrian eventing — who requires no introduction to the British public because she is Queen Elizabeth's eldest granddaughter and the daughter of Princess Anne, a former Olympian and BBC sports personality of the year.

Sports fans have come to expect such Oscars-style closure, and the convergence of the sports world with the entertainment world has only hustled along the process. If actors playing athletes can get statuettes — Hilary Swank, Cuba Gooding Jr. — why not athletes playing themselves?

And so they hand out the commemorative hardware, from Argentina to Zambia, from local leagues to FIFA.

Not everybody rushes to judgment. The comparatively new Laureus World Sports Awards, which date from 1999 and actually bill themselves as the Oscars of sports, will not make their pronouncements on the sports figures of this year until May.
But most of the separating of the wheat from the wheat gets done in a harvest rush between now and the new year, although the way the wind and dollars are blowing, we might all have to switch to the Chinese New Year as our deadline in the future.

It is a global rite, this annual ordering of the athletes. Yet it is more local than global, as the BBC's choice of Phillips and Sports Illustrated's picking the very American Wade have made clear. (Wade's smiling face will surely move more magazines in the United States than Federer's.)

In Sweden, for example, the annual prize that matters most is the Svenska Dagbladet Gold Medal, awarded by the newspaper since 1925 for the most significant Swedish sports achievement of the year and presented this week to Anja Paerson, the Alpine skier who in February finally won an Olympic gold medal.

Canada's equivalent is the Lou Marsh Trophy, awarded by a panel of journalists to the basketball star Steve Nash in 2005 and to the speed skater Cindy Klassen this year for her five medals in Turin.

In France, the sports newspaper l'Équipe does the honors for French athletes. Its brain trust will soon have to decide whether Zinédine Zidane's red card in the World Cup final excludes him from the award. It is a prize he would have surely won easily, but for that head butt of Marco Materazzi, even in a year when Amélie Mauresmo secured her first two Grand Slam tennis singles titles and Laure Manaudou broke the world 400-meter freestyle swimming record.

Sports are still most often viewed through a parochial lens. Thus — as the Italians wrestle with the relative merits of their soccer stars Fabio Cannavaro and Gianluigi Buffon and the Germans do the same with their soccer star Miroslav Klose and the retiring Formula One hero, Michael Schumacher — the forest is sometimes hard to make out through the pine needles.

Which raises the question: Just how do you determine who is the world sportsman or sportswoman of the year?

It doesn't help matters that the most global game, soccer, is a low-scoring team endeavor in which individual virtuosity is not always obvious or even helpful.

Formula One spans the globe, but its races are contested by a tiny number of drivers, only a smaller fraction of whom have a good enough team and car behind them to stand a chance of winning even one race per season.

Golf, another global sport, remains a rich man's diversion in most of the world. Indeed, it may not be a sport at all, when you consider the fitness level of this year's Masters champion, Phil Mickelson, and others, including Clarke, who make their millions playing it.
Yet, Woods appears to be in fine shape, as does his closest female counterpart, Annika Sorenstam, even if she was trumped by Lorena Ochoa of Mexico on the U.S. LPGA Tour this season.

From a Japanese perspective, Shizuka Arakawa might deserve to be sports figure of the year. She plucked one of the Olympic plums — the gold medal in women's figure skating — and did so with great flair against the best of two other continents: Sasha Cohen of the United States and Irina Slutskaya of Russia.

From a Chinese perspective, the man of the year might be Liu Xiang, the high hurdler with impeccable timing who broke his own world record in July. For a Jamaican, it could be Asafa Powell, who equaled his own world record in the 100 meters twice (and didn't even test positive).

A Spaniard, awash in newfound interest in Formula One, might understandably think that the world should only have eyes for young Fernando Alonso, who solidified his dominant position in 2006 and deprived the veteran Schumacher of his Hollywood ending in the German's last year in motor sport.

Clearly, a global athlete of the year has to play a sport that inspires passion throughout much of the globe, which rules out Phillips, American football players, Japanese (or Mongolian) sumo wrestlers, Norwegian cross-country skiers, Sienese Palio jockeys, Breton offshore sailors and probably even Australian, English and Pakistani cricketers, whose sport has no real impact in Continental Europe, North America, South America, East Asia or most of Africa (remember, debate is good in this business).

Athletes in niche sports with a fragmented global following must supersize their résumé to have any chance at snatching a big, year-end carrot. Lance Armstrong perfected this approach with seven straight Tour de France victories. Eric Heiden set the standard by sweeping all five speed-skating golds on unreliable outdoor ice at the 1984 Lake Placid Olympics. This approach has not yet worked for the surfer Kelly Slater, whose record eight world titles and eye-catching crossover work (one season as Jimmy Slade on "Baywatch" and musical guest appearances with the likes of Ben Harper and Pearl Jam) have not been enough to trump the futbolistas, golfers, tennis players and drivers in anything but People Magazine's Most Beautiful People list.

But does it really have to be based on achievement? Time Magazine's approach to its Person of the Year is to choose someone who has, for better or worse, most influenced events in the preceding 12 months.

Why not do the same for sports, which would create the award perfectly suited for Zidane in 2006? Zizou went from wonderful to woeful all in one game, which also happened to be his last and the World Cup final to boot. What has had more impact in sports this year than that bash with the forehead and that long, simmering walk past the World Cup trophy and out of the stadium?

Lindsey Jacobellis fits in here, too. The American snowboarder blew a certain gold medal by hot-dogging it off the penultimate jump in the women's snowboard cross at the Turin Games, generating a collective gasp/shriek of disbelief across time zones and giving showboaters pause worldwide.

Twenty years from now, many more are going to remember Jacobellis's gaffe than a Klassen's five medals in speed skating, which is only the latest proof that, in terms of bolstering one's profile, it is so much better to lose weirdly than win routinely.

But for now at least, sports year-end awards keep going to the winners, if only certain kinds of winners

R.Federer
12-15-2006, 02:38 AM
However, there are a few reasons why Federer is clearly superior. For one, Tiger’s won Sportsman of the Year twice, in 1996 and 2000. It’s time to give Roger his due.
Non sequitur.
That's when you realize that yes, indeed it's written for a college newsppaer.

CmonAussie
12-17-2006, 04:50 PM
In finest year yet, Federer just keeps on winning
In Shanghai, Federer's drive was on display

By Christopher Clarey
Published: 2006-12-14 13:22:17

BOSTON: The tennis season is history, but on the television screen in my office, Roger Federer is still wearing his white bandanna and whipping determined forehands into the corners, making Rafael Nadal bend and eventually break.

You could pick a number of matches to illustrate Federer's phenomenal 2006, in which he put together a 92-5 record and came within just one victory of completing the Grand Slam, but this match — a semifinal at the Tennis Masters Cup in Shanghai last month — is the match to which I keep returning.

It was hardly the best Federer-Nadal duel in 2006. That was their five-set, five-hour tug of wills in the Rome final. It was hardly the most significant Federer-Nadal match in 2006. That was the French Open final, won by Nadal, which stopped Federer from holding all four major titles simultaneously and halted, at least for a while, any further Grand Slam chatter.

But the match in Shanghai intrigues, because of its relatively lopsided nature — Federer won, 6-4, 7-5 — and because of what it said about Federer's drive and focus at the end of a globe-trotting, glad-handing year that would have drained many a top athlete of his energy and ambition.

Instead, the Artful Roger (the best of Federer's several sobriquets) was in something like full flight in late November: swooping around the indoor, medium-speed court in Shanghai and giving a hint to his closest pursuer in the rankings and frequent conqueror in head-to- head matches that something fundamental had changed between them.

Today in Sports

Australia builds huge lead to close in on Ashes
How do you find an Athlete of the Year?
Cannavaro, Ronaldhino and Zidane vie for FIFA's Player of the Year award
If not for Nadal, Federer would be an even more obvious choice for the global sports figure of the year. No man, after all, has pulled off a Grand Slam since Rod Laver in 1969, and that was when three of the four major tennis tournaments were on grass and the game had not yet been globalized and supposedly democratized.

If not for Nadal, Federer would have joined Laver's excellent company and would have lost just one match in 2006, a thoroughly explicable defeat by the British teenager Andy Murray in Cincinnati on the heels of a draining Masters Series week in Canada.

But even though Nadal still finished the year ahead in the count, with a 6-3 overall advantage and a 4-2 edge in 2006, Federer won their final two matches, and he did so while applying the afterburners like they have never been applied in the modern history of the game.

After losing that French Open final to Nadal in four essentially anticlimactic sets and walking off the clay feeling frustrated with his tactical choices, Federer's record the rest of the year was 48-1, while Nadal, the younger, presumably hungrier man, slipped to 23-9 and did not win another tournament.

But my favorite Federer statistic of the year, and I promise not to besiege you with many more, is that he played 17 tournaments and reached the final in 16 of them.

To sum up, this was Federer's finest season, which is quite a statement considering how fine 2004 and 2005 had already been, and while tennis does not have the same global talent pool as soccer or basketball, there was nobody in any sport who put together that same run of consistent excellence in events big and small.

Not Fernando Alonso, the Spaniard who had some dips in results on his way to becoming the youngest man to win two Formula One titles. Not Ronaldinho, the creative genius of Brazilian soccer who propelled Barcelona to a Champions League trophy and then ran out of inspiration at the World Cup. Not Janica Kostelic, the Croatian Alpine skier who won the record-setting fourth gold medal of her career at the Winter Olympics in Turin but was too physically fragile to race much more at the Olympics and is taking a sabbatical this season.

Dwyane Wade led the Miami Heat to the NBA title and then had to settle for bronze with the talent-heavy American team at the world championships.

Asafa Powell, the sprinter, did all one could ask of a 100-meter runner in 2006 but had only the Commonwealth Games for a championship forum and no rival to help him capture public interest after Justin Gatlin sucker- punched every track fan and competitor by failing a drug test after talking so freely for so long about the new, better values of his generation of athletes.

Not even Tiger Woods could quite match his new friend Federer, who invited him to watch the U.S. Open final from his box. Woods won two of golf's four majors and six other tour events.

True, history shows that tennis dominance is more common than golf dominance. There is no question that the world's best golfer has less statistical chance of winning any given tournament than the world's best tennis player. Viewed through that lens, Woods's eight tour victories in 2006 might get the best of Federer's 12, but Woods missed the cut at the U.S. Open and was part of a Ryder Cup team that got swamped in soggy Ireland by the Europeans.
Federer did not miss any cuts at the big ones in 2006, although he did miss the opening round of this year's Davis Cup competition to husband his resources. "There was a lot of highs; not many lows," he said of his year. "But I think the most emotional probably was the Australian Open, my speech. That was quite incredible, you know. I couldn't believe how emotional I got."

He got emotional, choking up during his victory speech, because Laver was the one who had presented him the trophy. Federer, like Pete Sampras before him, is particularly attuned to the history of his game, perhaps because he is well aware that he is eventually going to be a big part of that history.
Like Sampras, Federer is also a traditionalist. He is no fan of denim shorts or tennis's recent initiatives, no lover of round-robin tournaments, no supporter of on-court coaching and also against electronic line calling, which, even without his endorsement, was a clear success in its first year of use.

But that was about all Federer got wrong in 2006. He clinched the year- end No.1 ranking in September. At 25, he is still in his prime and, as Shanghai made clear, still interested in dominating. In a long interview at the U.S. Open, Federer made it clear that he has looked to Woods and Michael Schumacher for inspiration when it comes to remaining hungry, and with Sampras's 14 Grand Slam singles titles for a benchmark, he has a shining goal to spur him on.

And at this stage, with nine major titles already secured, you have to like Federer's chances just as much as you like Woods's chances of surpassing Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 majors.

With Lance Armstrong retired and Schumacher now joining him, Federer and Woods are the only active athletes in major sports who have a very good chance of being considered the greatest of all time in those sports.

Federer generally constructs his schedule well and plans to play a reasonable 18 tour events next year, beginning with the Australian Open.

Federer's fluid style seems built to last, even though his small-boned frame might not seem to agree. For a sportswriter who comes across so many world-class athletes, most of whom are larger-than-life figures with larger-than-life figures, what separates Federer from the norm is his normalcy.

Sit next to him and look at his slender wrists and forearms, and it is difficult to believe that this is the envelope- pushing athlete who can generate such phenomenal spin and forcefulness with his forehand. But it is the backhand that often made the difference in 2006. He has to hit it so often — opponents dodge that forehand — and in hitting it so often, he has clearly improved it, as Nadal could not help but see in Shanghai.

Nadal's left-handed spin was not getting up as high to the backhand indoors as it did on clay in Paris or as it presumably will on the rubberized hard court in use, as ever, in Melbourne. But Federer certainly appeared to be in a very comfortable place as I examined and re-examined their last match of 2006, and isn't that how a sportsman of the year should look at the end of a phenomenal season?

CmonAussie
12-18-2006, 08:22 PM
Roger and Tiger Woods made Time Magazine's "People who mattered most in 2006" list:

http://www.time.com/time/personofthe...people/26.html

Roger Federer & Tiger Woods
The World's Most Elite Athletic Club

A couple of weeks before the U.S. Open tennis tournament, Roger Federer phoned Tiger Woods and invited him to be his guest at the final. "I said, 'Great, but don't you have to win six matches to get to the final?'" Woods told TIME. Woods didn't know Federer that well, yet.

The Swiss star would leave opponents smeared over Flushing Meadows's courts like so many ball marks, winning his third Open. "I was really excited before the semis, because I called Tiger and he said he was coming," says Federer. The two talked for about 15 minutes before the final. Then Federer went out and rolled poor Andy Roddick. "[Tiger] was pumped up during the match," said Federer, known for his cool elegance on the court. "It was a really nice gesture." After the match, the pair spent another hour yakking in the locker room. "The press almost knocked down the door," Federer told TIME from Dubai, where he's training.

Welcome to the world's most élite athletic club, open to anyone who dominates his sport by a ludicrous margin. Want in? Simple. Be the world's No. 1 golfer for eight years. Win eight events in 2006, including the PGA Championship and the British Open. Make other pros look like they're using croquet mallets. Or, be the world's No. 1 tennis player since 2004. Win Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in the same year for the past three years. Win 92 of 97 matches in 2006, along with 12 titles.

The Terrific Twosome got its start after a reporter asked Woods what sports he liked to watch. He mentioned tennis. "I love watching tennis," he says. "I love watching Roger play." Federer kept hearing himself called the Tiger Woods of Tennis. So he decided to meet the Roger Federer of Golf. Their paths crossed recently in Shanghai, where Tiger played the HSBC Champions tourney and Roger the Tennis Masters Cup. This time, Federer, 25, took a seat. "In Shanghai he came out and watched me play," says Woods, 30 (who finished second; Federer won his tourney). "And we had dinner and chitchatted the night away."

The chitchat of champions? "It's really hard to explain," Woods told TIME from a Los Angeles airport, where he was launching balls from a runway to promote a new Nike driver. "It's more the mind-set: what it takes to do what we do, how do you manage all that, the balancing act. We pick each other's brain." They exchange tips on training and preparing for big events. Woods was wowed by Federer's media load; he does press conferences in three languages. Tiger also got some help with his backhand. "He plays much more tennis than I play golf," says Federer, "but that is going to change when I retire." He'll know who to call for a game. "It's been a really neat relationship," says Woods. "Roger and I are going to be friends for a very long time."

CmonAussie
12-26-2006, 08:43 AM
Woods outdistances Tomlinson as AP Male Athlete of 2006
Dec. 25, 2006

Tiger Woods had an answer for everything.

When he missed the cut at the U.S. Open for the first time in a major -- his first tournament after his father died of cancer -- some questioned whether he could rekindle his desire to dominate. He never finished worse than second in stroke play the rest of the season.
Phil Mickelson emerged anew as a serious threat to Woods' domain by winning his second straight major at the Masters and nearly making it three in a row at the U.S. Open. Woods responded by winning the next two majors without breaking a sweat.
And there remained skepticism about his latest swing change, put to rest by a year that ranked among Woods' best ever on the PGA Tour. He won eight times in 15 starts, six in a row to close out his season, two more majors to reach 12 for his career.
About the only thing he couldn't answer was how he was voted AP Male Athlete of the Year.
Woods won the award over San Diego Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson, with tennis great Roger Federer a distant third. The 31-year-old Woods won for the fourth time in his career, tying the record set by Lance Armstrong, who won the last four years.
While pleased to hear he had won the award, Woods was perplexed it did not go to his good friend Federer, who continues to dominate tennis. Woods was in Federer's box at Flushing Meadows when the Swiss star captured the U.S. Open.
"What he's done in tennis, I think, is far greater than what I've done in golf," Woods said. "He's lost what ... five matches in three years? That's pretty good."
Federer actually has lost a few more than that, but not many. His record in 2006 was an amazing 92-5, including 12 singles titles.
Woods received 260 points from sports editors around the country. Tomlinson, who already has set an NFL record of 31 touchdowns with one regular-season game left, was second with 230 points. Federer, who won three Grand Slam titles and lost in the final at the French Open, had 110 points.
Rounding out the top five were Miami Heat guard Dwyane Wade (40 points) and St. Louis Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols (20 points).
Fred Couples, the former Masters champion and all-around sports nut who attended Wimbledon this year, ran through the achievements of the top three and figured it would be a tough vote to cast.
"Roger Federer is pretty sporty," Couples said. "Tomlinson is going to pound the record by I don't know how many TDs. It's all great. You would think if you're Roger Federer and you didn't win it this year, you don't know what else you could possibly do. But Tiger ... it's not like he's not deserving. He's winning 55 percent of the tournaments he plays. He's probably ahead of Shaq's free throw percentage."

Woods again made it look routine, winning at least eight PGA Tour events for the third time in his career and becoming the first player in history to capture multiple majors in consecutive seasons.

"Any time you're over 50 percent winning in our sports, it's probably a good year," Woods said. "I know how hard it is. I know what it takes to get to that point. I hate to say it, but people in the media and fans don't understand how hard it is. Players do. The things players have said to me over the years, that means a lot."
What made this year different from others was the magnitude of his loss.
After winning his first two tournaments of the year, the Buick Invitational and the Dubai Desert Classic on the European Tour, Woods' progress slowed as his father's health deteriorated. Earl Woods, the father, architect and driving force behind his son as a person and a player, died May 3.
During a celebration of his father's life in the lobby of the Tiger Woods Learning Center, Woods refused to sit as he listened to stories about his father, his solemn face yielding to an occasional grin whenever someone told a humorous anecdote. He said later he tends to bottle up his emotions, and they burst forth at the British Open.
Using driver only once on the crispy links of Royal Liverpool, Woods won by two shots to become the first player in 23 years with back-to-back wins at the British Open, and the lasting image of his season was Woods sobbing on the shoulder of his caddie, then his wife, realizing it was the first golf victory he couldn't share with his father.
"At that moment, it just came pouring out," he said that day. "And of all the things that my father has meant to me and the game of golf, I just wish he would have seen it one more time."
To this day, Woods said he quickly turns off the tape of British Open highlights when he taps in his final putt.
The rest of the year was a blur of trophies. He overpowered the field at the Buick Open, putted his best at the PGA Championship, outlasted Stewart Cink in a playoff at the Bridgestone Invitational, made two eagles in the first seven holes on his way to a 63 to overcome a three-shot deficit against Vijay Singh at the Deutsche Bank Championship, then won by eight shots at the American Express Championship.
On paper, the results looked familiar. In his heart, Woods said it was his toughest year, which he ultimately described as a loss because of his father's death.
For his peers, it left them at a loss for words.
"We're used to it," Davis Love III said. "People were trying to compare this year to 2000, but 2000 was surprising. Now it's like saying, 'Hey, there's a Ferrari. Oh, there's another Ferrari. There's another Ferrari.' It's an outstanding year, but it's not his only one. If I had a year like his, they would say, 'What an incredible year.' For him, it's just another brilliant year.
"It's hard for him when he wins four tournaments and no majors because people say, 'What in the world happened? That's when you realize how good he is."
AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

Source: http://cbs.sportsline.com/general/story/9890882/rss

DrJules
12-29-2006, 07:13 PM
It will be interesting to see if this goes the same way as the "2006 Academy Outstanding Athlete of the Year by the United States Sports Academy" i.e. Federer.

http://www.ussa.edu/aoy/index.asp

CmonAussie
01-31-2007, 02:09 PM
#
BUMP!!


Federer improves his chances of winning a 3rd successive World Sportsman of the Year Award~> thanks to his 10th Slam title in AUS this week!!
...First man in 27-years to win a Slam without dropping a set<:)
...7th successive Slam final which equals the record!
...11th successive Slam SF which is a new record [previously Lendl had 10].


Tiger Woods also improves his chances of winning a 3rd [yes he is a two time winner too] World Sportsman of the Year Award~> thanks to his 7th successive victory on the PGA tour!!
...This makes Woods streak the 2nd longest in PGA Tour history [record lies with Byron Nelson who won 11-straight in the 1950s]..

CmonAussie
02-09-2007, 05:18 AM
This year the Laures Sports Awards will be held on April 2nd~ the day after the Miami final: I wonder if Federer will be present for both???

Unless Tiger Woods wins a stack of titles in the next two months I`m pretty sure Federer`s got this year`s World Sportsman of the Year Award wrapped up: ~especially winning the Aussie Open gave him the edge over Tiger I feel [3-Slams to Fed, 2-majors to Tiger]!!


Epic journeys to surpassing greatness

No man might have ever played tennis the way Roger Federer does. The Swiss master constantly stretches the limits of the possible, exploring new vistas in his own luminous soul. His great matches are not athletic contests; they are timeless compositions. This is why Federer is a greater athlete than Tiger Woods, the man who might end up as the greatest golfer of all time, writes Nirmal Shekar.
The very best of sport is not sport at all; for, it is only when sport breaks its often well-defined boundaries and ventures into alien territory and becomes a sort of super-sport that it is at its very best.
This is precisely why when you experience some of the greatest sporting moments, you don't often think of them as moments of mere athletic excellence but something way beyond that.
It first happened to me in July 1984. I was floating, although I couldn't have described the feeling in any clear terms at that time, a time when `I' and `Me' were lost, pushed back to the recesses of consciousness, a time when experience itself was dominated by a glorious new unity, magically encompassing everything — the experience and the experiencer, the performer and the performance, the stage and the setting, on a balmy summer afternoon at the All England Lawn Tennis Club in Wimbledon.
John McEnroe was playing Jimmy Connors in the final of the men's championship. That, of course, was the external reality. For, internal experience told you something else. Old Johnny Mac wasn't playing anybody; for this wasn't a match as much as it was an inspired composition with a tormented genius in communion with the truly life-enhancing creative depths of his soul.
Then, it happened to me again 15 years on, at the same place, also in early July. Pete Sampras was playing Andre Agassi in the final in 1999 and from midway in the first set to early in the third, the great man "walked on water'' as his opponent would concede.
The last time I experienced this almost indescribable feeling was quite recently, at the Australian Open last month, on a Thursday evening indoors at the Rod Laver Arena. It was an evening when Roger Federer, His Royal Lightness, danced a celestial dance on air while playing Andy Roddick in the semifinals.
"You feel like he is barely touching the ground. That's the sign of a great champion," said Rod Laver, a man who knows a thing or two about greatness, having swept the Slams in 1962 and 1969, a feat that may be beyond even the Swiss maestro.
All great athletic performers, when in flow, when they are in the zone, may come close to producing in the spectators/viewers such an exalted experience. But, few actually manage to elevate their act to a reality-altering experience as did McEnroe in 1984, Sampras in 1999 and Federer a few weeks ago.
Of course, such soul-lifting masterpieces are not limited to tennis. I remember a tournament in Sharjah in the late 1990s when Sachin Tendulkar turned a desert into a blooming paradise, so to say, playing innings after innings of such breathtaking beauty.
So, indeed, have a few other great sportspersons, not the least the enigmatic Diego Maradona in Mexico in 1986, Tiger Woods at the Augusta Masters and at the British Open, the gymnast Nadia Comaneci in the Montreal Olympics, Steffi Graf at the French Open in 1988... well, you could go on and on.
Yet, the question is this: has any athlete touched this almost otherworldly high as often as Federer does these days on the tennis circuit? Has anyone ever `walked on water' not so much as a once-in-a-lifetime, near superhuman effort but almost as a matter of habit, as does the Swiss master?
Over the last few months, there has been a lot of talk in the world of sport comparing Federer with Woods, sizing up two young men treading unique paths to surpassing greatness. Not surprisingly, both the Swiss and the American are keenly aware of where they are headed, possessed as they are of a rich sense of history. They have even met a few times, exchanged notes, patted each other on the back and remain good friends.
While Federer won his 10th Grand Slam title in Melbourne, Woods stretched his unbeaten run on the PGA Tour to seven tournaments, something no man has done in 62 years. While Federer, aged 25, is well on his way to beating Pete Sampras's record of 14 Grand Slam titles, Woods, aged 31, is six short of Jack Nicklaus's 18.
Given their respective ages and the quality of opposition in their sports, both men can be backed to set a new benchmark.
Woods, perhaps, has a little more time than Federer, given that golf can be played and mastered at the highest levels a lot longer — Jack Nicklaus won the last of his majors, at Augusta, in 1986 when he was 46 years old — but Federer has fewer challengers pushing him than Woods.
"The only thing going for me is that I have longevity in my corner,'' Woods said recently.
But, then, Federer is so dominant in men's tennis that he may not take long to win another five Grand Slam titles, which is what he needs to leave Sampras behind.
Sampras himself has acknowledged this. "I don't see anyone pushing him, so I could see him winning 17, 18, 19 majors. He has 10 already and he is in the middle of his career. He just came along at the right time and is playing tremendous tennis and I don't see him stopping now,'' said the seven-time Wimbledon champion.
Federer is so far away from the rest that, as a competitive sport, men's tennis has become a bit of a joke except on clay where Rafael Nadal has so far dominated the Swiss great.
In ranking points, Federer (8120) is 3345 ahead of Nadal, ranked No. 2. If you took away that many points from what Nadal has (4775), you get as far down as No. 17! What is more, Federer's record against his Top Ten rivals is incredible. Nikolay Davydenko is ranked No. 3. Federer is 8-0 against him. Only Nadal has a superior record against Federer (6-3), although it is significant to note that the world champion has beaten the Spaniard the last two times they have met (Wimbledon, Shanghai Masters) and the trend may well have reversed already.
Against Andy Roddick, Federer is 13-1, against James Blake he is 6-0 and against Fernando Gonzalez, whom he beat in the Australian Open final, the world No. 1 is 10-0.
Playing a sport that is a lot different from tennis, Woods may not have run up such impressive statistics. But the gifted American is almost as dominant as Federer is, although he did miss the cut at the U.S. Open last year — the equivalent of Federer losing before the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam, something that has not happened since May 2004.
This apart, Woods has had to do business in vastly different conditions from week to week. Given that golf courses can be very different from one another, and given the influence that weather conditions can have on play, Woods certainly has a harder job, although tennis too is played on different surfaces and the wind and the heat can be more than minor influences during matches.
Where Woods is ahead of Federer is in his sweep of the four majors — the Tiger Slam — a feat he accomplished in 2000-01. While the American has won every one of the four majors in golf — the Augusta Masters, the British Open, the U.S. Open and the PGA championship — at least twice, Federer is yet to win the French Open, where he was beaten in the final by Nadal last year.
But, after watching Federer's progress over the last six or seven months — a period during which he has lost just one match, to Britain's up-and-coming Andrew Murray — I believe that Federer has turned a corner. He has a better chance of winning the French Open — and beating Nadal on clay — this season than he did ever before in the past. His confidence has, predictably, reached stratospheric levels, and Nadal has not come close to beating him since the French final.
"I think he can (win the French Open) because he grew up playing on clay and he's come close the last two years,'' said Sampras during a recent teleconference to announce his return to the game, playing a few events on a tour for over-30 players. "I really believe he can win there.''
If Federer does win the French, it would be a major step towards the pinnacle after being celebrated by Laver himself as the greatest to ever wield a tennis racquet.
"That (winning the French) would be a dream come true,'' said Federer, a day after taking his 10th Grand Slam title in Melbourne.
But, to me, these — the French title, the number of Slams, weeks at No. 1 — are minor details when it comes to Federer. What matters to me is not how many titles he wins, or how often he wins, but merely how he wins matches. I spent a whole match at Melbourne recently watching his feet alone, not his racquet, not his opponent. It turned out to be a marvellous lesson. The man does dance on air, or at least he gives you the impression that he does, so light of foot he is.
If it is rather pointless and plainly illogical to compare athletes across eras, then it is even more absurd to compare athletes from different sports based on their records alone. After all, Woods hits a stationary ball and Federer one that moves, a distinction that is hugely significant. Yet, the temptation is irresistible, and even professional athletes cannot seem to resist it.
"It's a joke if you think Tiger's better than Federer,'' the Havard-educated James Blake was quoted as saying in the tennis website www.insidetennis.com recently. "Not to take anything away from Tiger because he is an unbelievable golfer, I'd make a case for Roger being the best athlete of our time — not tennis player — athlete.''
This, of course, is a case that has a lot of merit. For, no man might have ever played tennis the way Federer does. The Swiss master constantly stretches the limits of the possible, exploring new vistas in his own luminous soul. His great matches are not athletic contests; they are timeless compositions.
"You know what?'' an old friend and long-time tennis fan said — on telephone from Mumbai — the morning after the Federer masterclass that ended in a humiliating defeat for Roddick in Melbourne. "Roger is not sport, watching him is a spiritual experience.''
Although I am a well grounded naturalist and materialist, I told him he was right. I could understand why my friend should have felt the way he did. That is precisely why we human beings experience the best of music and art quite often as a sort of spiritual experience. It's a myth. But it doesn't hurt, does it?
Few will say this of Woods. We are often in awe of the great golfer, like an earlier generation of sports fans were in awe of Don Bradman. But Mozart and Van Gogh don't come to mind readily while watching Woods on the fairways and greens.
They do when Roger Federer dances his celestial dance on air.
* * *
SO THEY SAID
On Roger Federer
Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time. It's hardly fair that one person can do all this — his backhands, his forehands, volleys, serving, his court position ... the way he moves around the court. I think the art of Roger is probably the best I've ever seen.
— Rod Laver

He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played against some of the great players — the Samprases, Beckers, Connors, Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That, to me, says it all.
— John McEnroe

We have a guy from Switzerland who is just playing the game in a way I haven't seen anyone — and I mean anyone — play before. How fortunate we are to be able to see that. If he stays healthy and motivated — and the wonderful feel he has stays with him — he is the kind of guy who can overtake the greatest.
— Boris Becker

On Tiger Woods
There isn't a flaw in his golf or his makeup. He will win more majors than Arnold Palmer and me combined. Somebody is going to dust my records. It might as well be Tiger, because he's such a great kid. He has the finest, fundamentally sound golf swing I've ever seen.
— Jack Nicklaus

At the end of the day, is Tiger better than Jack, or is Jack better than Tiger? We won't know until it's all over and done with. But with the numbers he's putting up now, you have to give him (Woods) the edge.
— Greg Norman

The most impressive player that I have seen to this date, at this stage of his game, and without question with the most potential that I have ever seen — his mannerisms, his maturity, his basic fundamentals and approach to the game is Tiger Woods. He is the soundest young player that I have ever seen. The only guy I can think about that would have been close to that in youth and ability was Nicklaus. We played the other day and even Jack agreed that he didn't have the poise and the stature that Woods has right now.
— Arnold Palmer

* * *
Tiger Woods
Augusta Masters: 1997, 2001, 2002, 2005
British Open: 2000, 2005, 2006
U.S. Open: 2000, 2002
PGA championship: 1999, 2000, 2006
* * *
Roger Federer
Australian Open: 2004, 2006, 2007
Wimbledon: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
U.S. Open: 2004, 2005, 2006
Source: http://www.sportstaronnet.com/storie...0007800400.htm

Federer&Hingis
02-09-2007, 05:31 AM
Federer.

CmonAussie
02-28-2007, 12:12 AM
*So the nominees for WSOFY have finally been announced<:)
...
Most of the nominees are as expected:

LAUREUS WORLD SPORTSMAN OF THE YEAR - NOMINEES
· FERNANDO ALONSO (SPAIN) MOTOR RACING ~~~ could cause an upset
· FABIO CANNAVARO (ITALY) FOOTBALL ~~~ no chance
· ROGER FEDERER (SWITZERLAND) TENNIS >> ~~ obviously deserves 3-peat
· ASAFA POWELL (JAMAICA) ATHLETICS ~~~ no chance
· MICHAEL SCHUMACHER (GERMANY) MOTOR RACING ~~~ might get a sentimental vote
· TIGER WOODS (UNITED STATES) GOLF >> ~~ clearly Fed`s closest challenger

ExcaliburII
02-28-2007, 12:17 AM
Winning a golf tournament is much more difficult than winning a Tennis tournament. I think Tiger will win this one, as he got 10 titles in an year.



In tennis you can have bad days and win the tournament. In golf if you dont have almost 4 perfect days you wont win. Its totally different. (you can see in golf usually nobody wins more than 3 titles a year, except for Tiger obviously).

R.Federer
02-28-2007, 12:23 AM
In tennis you can have bad days and win the tournament. In golf if you dont have almost 4 perfect days you wont win. Its totally different. (you can see in golf usually nobody wins more than 3 titles a year, except for Tiger obviously).

In tennis, barring Round Robin, you can have one bad tournament and be on your way home as well. Further, you don't have to be perfect 4 days for golf wins, Tiger himself has recovered pretty well with bad starts and great finishes. And in tennis, it does not happen very often that someone wins 3 slams and is in the final of the 4th, plus wins multiple other titles, and has about double the points of a phenomenal #2.

That said, both Tiger and Roger Federer deserve the Laureus award, neither will be robbed if the other wins.

Whistleway
02-28-2007, 12:37 AM
anyone who thinks Tiger is not more marketable nor more well-known around the world than Roger needs to check his/her brain :)

R.Federer
02-28-2007, 12:41 AM
anyone who thinks Tiger is not more marketable nor more well-known around the world than Roger needs to check his/her brain :)

And what exactly does marketing have to do with this thread question? If marketing had something to do with this award, Federer should never have won it at all. Maybe you need to check your eyesight to see what this thread is about :)

CmonAussie
02-28-2007, 12:51 AM
#@@#
..
...BTW, i think that FED`s great start to 2007 ~> by winning the AO in such dominant fashion [1st player to not lose a set since Borg 1980]...
+ WOODS relatively poor start to 2007 ~> he only managed to get to the 3rd round of last week`s World Golf Championship [Matchplay] & also lost out at Dubai a few weeks ago...
>>> Has swung the balance Federer`s way, then unless we get a sentimental winner like Schumacher I expect Roger to become the 1st man to win 3 WSOFY awards!!!

nobama
02-28-2007, 01:57 AM
Winning a golf tournament is much more difficult than winning a Tennis tournament. I think Tiger will win this one, as he got 10 titles in an year.



In tennis you can have bad days and win the tournament. In golf if you dont have almost 4 perfect days you wont win. Its totally different. (you can see in golf usually nobody wins more than 3 titles a year, except for Tiger obviously).
That's :bs: The one tournament Tiger's won so far this year he was not leading until the back 9 on the final day of the tournament. One guy shot like a 61 or 62 on the first day and didn't win the tournament. Tiger is notorious for not being in the lead going into the weekend of a tournament.

Whistleway
02-28-2007, 02:04 AM
And what exactly does marketing have to do with this thread question? If marketing had something to do with this award, Federer should never have won it at all. Maybe you need to check your eyesight to see what this thread is about :)

So much for your shortsight. Sports is a big marketing machine and these so-called "sports oscars" are too. If you really don't know much, just ask than just assume and make a fool of yourself. Let alone bash one :)

nobama
02-28-2007, 02:07 AM
In tennis, barring Round Robin, you can have one bad tournament and be on your way home as well. Further, you don't have to be perfect 4 days for golf wins, Tiger himself has recovered pretty well with bad starts and great finishes. And in tennis, it does not happen very often that someone wins 3 slams and is in the final of the 4th, plus wins multiple other titles, and has about double the points of a phenomenal #2.

That said, both Tiger and Roger Federer deserve the Laureus award, neither will be robbed if the other wins.
What's interesting is after Tiger lost in the match play event last week the golf commentators were talking about how anything can happen in match play and how tough it is. But yet their argument for why Tiger's domination of golf is more impressive than Fed's domination of tennis is because in golf you have to beat the field but in tennis you only have to beat one guy.

I could see Fed not winning this year because he's already won it twice, and would be the only sportsman to win it 3 years in a row. But his 06 season was more impressive than 05 so who knows.

R.Federer
02-28-2007, 02:29 AM
So much for your shortsight. Sports is a big marketing machine and these so-called "sports oscars" are too. If you really don't know much, just ask than just assume and make a fool of yourself. Let alone bash one :)

Why has Federer the marketing nightmare won the Laureus award in 2005 and 2004 against more marketable sportsmen? I am not worried about making a fool of myself, but if you have a reasonable answer to this I would be interested in hearing.

Btw, if you recommend brain scans for people posting something opposed opinion, don't expect not to get eyesight check recommendations in return. It is not bashing only when you receive the comment, it is one when you dole it out as well :shrug: :)

R.Federer
02-28-2007, 02:31 AM
I could see Fed not winning this year because he's already won it twice, and would be the only sportsman to win it 3 years in a row. But his 06 season was more impressive than 05 so who knows.

It runs through Australian 07, doesn't it? I agree that his winning it previously will go against him. Besides, Tiger is a great choice for the award with what he did as well. I wonder if they'll give it to someone other than these 2 (Schumacher would be my guess)

adee-gee
02-28-2007, 02:41 AM
What's interesting is after Tiger lost in the match play event last week the golf commentators were talking about how anything can happen in match play and how tough it is. But yet their argument for why Tiger's domination of golf is more impressive than Fed's domination of tennis is because in golf you have to beat the field but in tennis you only have to beat one guy.

I could see Fed not winning this year because he's already won it twice, and would be the only sportsman to win it 3 years in a row. But his 06 season was more impressive than 05 so who knows.
The gap between Federer and other tennis players is far greater than the gap between Tiger and other golfers. In match play golf, anyone can beat anyone which simply can't be said about tennis. However, putting my dislike of Federer aside I still rate Woods' achievements higher than anything else in world sport today.

bokehlicious
02-28-2007, 07:56 AM
putting my dislike of Federer aside I still rate Woods' achievements higher than anything else in world sport today.

:lol: :lol: you gotta love Adam's objectivity :cool:

oz_boz
02-28-2007, 08:21 AM
Winning a golf tournament is much more difficult than winning a Tennis tournament. In tennis you can have bad days and win the tournament. In golf if you dont have almost 4 perfect days you wont win. Its totally different. (you can see in golf usually nobody wins more than 3 titles a year, except for Tiger obviously).

On the other hand golf allows you to play your own game every day, your performance is never affected by someone else's like in tennis, where the wrong opponent can nullify your good form. Difficulties in both sports, not obvious in any way which one is tougher to dominate.

IMO Fed deserves the award, his 2006 is the best year in tennis since 1969.

aulus
02-28-2007, 08:34 AM
On the other hand golf allows you to play your own game every day, your performance is never affected by someone else's like in tennis, where the wrong opponent can nullify your good form. Difficulties in both sports, not obvious in any way which one is tougher to dominate.

IMO Fed deserves the award, his 2006 is the best year in tennis since 1969.

i think that is why tennis is easier to dominate than golf. federer can outplay his opponents and keep them from doing well, but woods cannot affect others' performance.

oz_boz
02-28-2007, 08:50 AM
i think that is why tennis is easier to dominate than golf. federer can outplay his opponents and keep them from doing well, but woods cannot affect others' performance.

So that's why Federer dominates Rafa too?

Take Federer away from tennis and tell me who would find it easy to dominate. Nadal? Flathitters on hc. Roddick? Good returners like Murray. Etc, etc.

Federer's ability to play well against almost all kinds of opponents is pretty unique.

Schumacher definitely does not deserve it, not dominant this year as Woods or Fed.

nobama
02-28-2007, 11:59 AM
It runs through Australian 07, doesn't it? I agree that his winning it previously will go against him. Besides, Tiger is a great choice for the award with what he did as well. I wonder if they'll give it to someone other than these 2 (Schumacher would be my guess)Well yes, but it just replaces AO 06. Tiger has never bothered to show up to collect his award, both times he was given the award somewhere else and they showed it on tape. Maybe that benefits Roger because he would be there; though Schumacher I'm sure would be there too.

CmonAussie
04-03-2007, 12:35 PM
******
Congratulations Roger ~~> you certainly deserved this!!!

"@@"...Pretty cool That Fed became the 1st 3-time winner!!


>> Though I`m a fan of Tiger too I was glad that Roger got it~ as he was more deserving on this occassion!

Tiger will surely scoop the title again & golfers have a much longer career than tennis players...

Bilbo
04-03-2007, 12:59 PM
I'm surprised Woods didn't won it to be honest

Burrow
04-03-2007, 01:05 PM
Roger deserves it, he is just legendary!

Hagar
04-03-2007, 01:26 PM
Congratulations, Roger, couldn't have gone to a better sportsman.

oz_boz
04-03-2007, 01:49 PM
Very deserved, congrats to Fed.

r2473
04-03-2007, 06:58 PM
:haha:

yes, i know. i just felt like taking the piss out of golf...i do think its an inferior sport to tennis, and despite what singh or woods can benchpress, it still doesnt mean they are better athletes? They may be strong, but i dont think they have as much stamina as any tennis player. i dont think they could run a marathon.

barry bonds can benchpress woods, singh and nadal all at once.

do you think he is a better athlete?

Yes.

Bonds is amazing. It may be drug enhanced, but he is still amazing. And yes, he is a better athlete than those you listed.

Actually, maybe Bonds is not be superior these days, but he is over 40.

However, if you are looking for the best athlete, look at male gymnasts. I would love to see Woods, Bonds, Federer, or any other athlete you care to name have the requisit strength and flexibility to perform on the rings.

r2473
04-03-2007, 07:01 PM
The gap between Federer and other tennis players is far greater than the gap between Tiger and other golfers. In match play golf, anyone can beat anyone which simply can't be said about tennis. However, putting my dislike of Federer aside I still rate Woods' achievements higher than anything else in world sport today.

I agree with this (except I don't dislike Federer).

R.Federer
04-03-2007, 07:16 PM
However, if you are looking for the best athlete, look at male gymnasts. I would love to see Woods, Bonds, Federer, or any other athlete you care to name have the requisit strength and flexibility to perform on the rings.
Athleticism is not just strength and flexibility though. Those are probably necessary but not sufficient criteria for best athletes. Endurance, mental strength, consistency and well, most importantly, results.

megadeth
04-04-2007, 01:25 AM
so if fed wins ALL SLAMS this year along with a 3-4 TMS, he should get a 4th straight laureus right? ;)