ESPY Awards Nominations (Roger left off the Male Athlete Award) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

ESPY Awards Nominations (Roger left off the Male Athlete Award)

K-Dog
06-24-2005, 02:10 PM
Best Male Athlete for 2004:

Peyton Manning
Vijay Singh
Lance Armstong
Micheal Phelps
Bode Miller

WHERE IS ROGER? He freakin' won 3 majors last year, 10 or more titles, the Master Shield and a 74-6 record.

Peyton Manning threw 49 touchdowns, but NO RING!!
Vijay Singh won 1 major and won 10 titles, year end #1
Lance Armstong won the Tour De France; wow 1 race
Micheal Phelps won 6 Golds in swimming
Bode Miller: no idea other than he is a good skier

I'm sorry, but ESPY is ridulous!! Not to mention that Roger won the Laureus Award!!

Purple Rainbow
06-24-2005, 02:13 PM
Let's see: 4 Americans, and a guy from Fiji, who plays 95 percent of his matches on American soil.
I'm surprised they call this the ESPY award and not the World Athlete award!

Deboogle!.
06-24-2005, 02:14 PM
lol it's not like the ESPYs actually mean anything.

All I'll say is.... The Tour de France is hardly just "1 race" - I'd like to see Roger bike through France for a month like that. Not to say that Roger is not an incredible athlete, but calling it just "1 race" is a huge underestimation of that accomplishment, IMO.

Bode Miller won the World Championships in skiing I believe - and he may have been the first American to do it in a long time. But I don't really follow skiing, I just remember when he won the world cup or whatever it's called in skiing and it was a big deal in the American press.

Paialii
06-24-2005, 02:20 PM
Huge mistake, I agree. Wasn't Andy put on that list in 2003? Did he end up winning that? Or maybe that was best male tennis player. In any case, Roger certainly earned it; 3 majors and how many outside titles?

Purple Rainbow
06-24-2005, 02:25 PM
lol it's not like the ESPYs actually mean anything.

All I'll say is.... The Tour de France is hardly just "1 race" - I'd like to see Roger bike through France for a month like that. Not to say that Roger is not an incredible athlete, but calling it just "1 race" is a huge underestimation of that accomplishment, IMO.

Bode Miller won the World Championships in skiing I believe - and he may have been the first American to do it in a long time. But I don't really follow skiing, I just remember when he won the world cup or whatever it's called in skiing and it was a big deal in the American press.

Here we go again. Cycling is a season long event, drawing big crowds from March until November awards. Out of this year there are traditionally the 3 biggest races (Giro d'Italia, Vuelta d'Espagna and the Tour de France). For some reason in the last 2 decades the Tour has been hyped to big proportions, but it's still only one event. Lance Armstrong is unique in the fact that he focuses his entire season around the Tour de France, giving him an advantage to those cyclists who bother to show up on the lesser races.
Even at the Tour, Lance has the advantage of having the richest and thus the strongest team surrounding him. He is surrounded by teammates 95 percent of the race and only has to work in 2 timetrials and in the last 5 kilometers of one or two predestined mountain tracks.
Comparing Armstrongs accomplishments of 2004 with Roger's is ludicrous. Roger performed all year long, won on every surface and had to battle it out alone.
Having said that, I have a lot of respect for Lance Armstrong for overcoming cancer and being a beacon of hope and inspiration for many across the world. I just think his accomplishments on a bicycle are hugely overrated.

SuperFurryAnimal
06-24-2005, 02:30 PM
Here we go again. Cycling is a season long event, drawing big crowds from March until November awards. Out of this year there are traditionally the 3 biggest races (Giro d'Italia, Vuelta d'Espagna and the Tour de France). For some reason in the last 2 decades the Tour has been hyped to big proportions, but it's still only one event. Lance Armstrong is unique in the fact that he focuses his entire season around the Tour de France, giving him an advantage to those cyclists who bother to show up on the lesser races.
Even at the Tour, Lance has the advantage of having the richest and thus the strongest team surrounding him. He is surrounded by teammates 95 percent of the race and only has to work in 2 timetrials and in the last 5 kilometers of one or two predestined mountain tracks.
Comparing Armstrongs accomplishments of 2004 with Roger's is ludicrous. Roger performed all year long, won on every surface and had to battle it out alone.
Having said that, I have a lot of respect for Lance Armstrong for overcoming cancer and being a beacon of hope and inspiration for many across the world. I just think his accomplishments on a bicycle are hugely overrated.

Cannot agree with you more! Amen! :yeah:

aceit
06-24-2005, 02:31 PM
Huge mistake, I agree. Wasn't Andy put on that list in 2003? Did he end up winning that? Or maybe that was best male tennis player. In any case, Roger certainly earned it; 3 majors and how many outside titles?
Yup, he won it in 03.

Roddick. American. ESPY Awards. There's obviously a trend you should be able to see and Federer doesn't quite fit in.

Purple Rainbow
06-24-2005, 02:33 PM
Yup, he won it in 03.

Roddick. American. ESPY Awards. There's obviously a trend you should be able to see where Federer doesn't quite fit in.

No, he didn't. Agassi won best tennis player award in 2003. Best male athlete that year went to..........drum rolls...... Lance Armstrong! :rolleyes:

ToanNguyen
06-24-2005, 02:33 PM
I think that Lance Amstrong and Micheal Phelps do deserve to be on the list. What they have accomplished are really amazing. But so as Roger Federer. It is really ridiculous that he's not even mentioned. I wonder if ESPN even knows how truely amazing was Roger's accomplishment last year. I guess not. But then again, ESPN is so pro-American that I am not even that suprised.

aceit
06-24-2005, 02:35 PM
No, he didn't. Agassi won best tennis player award in 2003. Best male athlete that year went to..........drum rolls...... Lance Armstrong! :rolleyes:
What did Andy win then? I remember watched it and I know he won something.

tennischick
06-24-2005, 02:35 PM
this is pathetic. if Duckboy had done half of what Roger did they would have remembered to include him. this totally sucks. :fiery:

aceit
06-24-2005, 02:36 PM
Best Male Tennis Player -- Andy Roddick
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:H2nWJc3skFAJ:espn.go.com/espy2004/s/04nomineesindex.html+andy+roddick+espy+awards&hl=en

Oh, 2004.

JMG
06-24-2005, 02:36 PM
Vijay rocks!

Breakaway
06-24-2005, 02:37 PM
Espy's are stupid. Roger should have been at least nominated.

Deboogle!.
06-24-2005, 02:41 PM
What did Andy win then? I remember watched it and I know he won something.He won the tennis player award last year for finishing #1 in 2003.

The nominations for Male Tennis Player this year are Roger, Andy, Rafa, and Marat.

Look you can call the Tour de France "one event" but it lasts for a whole month, Lance won it SIX times in a row and he is a CANCER SURVIVOR. I'm not saying Roger didn't deserve to be nominated but I don't know who you'd take off that list. I checked, and Bode Miller is the first American to win the World Cup in skiing in 22 years and only the 2nd person ever to win a whole bunch of events in one season. Sounds like a pretty similar accomplishment to Roger's, plus he's cute and charismatic and American. The ESPYs are an American show, they're always going to favor Americans. Football is a worshipped sport here and will ALWAYS go over tennis - Peyton Manning is a HUGE Star, whether he won the Super Bowl or not. I hate football so I'd much rather see a tennis player - any tennis player - on the list instead of a football player, but that's not the way it is here, unfortunately. And Michael Phelps is also a HUGE star who gets TONS of attention and he put in a fantastic effort at the Olympics.

But like I said in my first post, the ESPYs don't mean anything anyway - they're allegedly fan-voted, etc. The Laureus awards are far far more important. It's like comparing the Oscars to the Peoples Choice Awards. I really doubt that Roger feels slighted by this.

Purple Rainbow
06-24-2005, 02:55 PM
He won the tennis player award last year for finishing #1 in 2003.

The nominations for Male Tennis Player this year are Roger, Andy, Rafa, and Marat.

Look you can call the Tour de France "one event" but it lasts for a whole month, Lance won it SIX times in a row and he is a CANCER SURVIVOR. I'm not saying Roger didn't deserve to be nominated but I don't know who you'd take off that list. I checked, and Bode Miller is the first American to win the World Cup in skiing in 22 years and only the 2nd person ever to win a whole bunch of events in one season. Sounds like a pretty similar accomplishment to Roger's, plus he's cute and charismatic and American. The ESPYs are an American show, they're always going to favor Americans. Football is a worshipped sport here and will ALWAYS go over tennis - Peyton Manning is a HUGE Star, whether he won the Super Bowl or not. I hate football so I'd much rather see a tennis player - any tennis player - on the list instead of a football player, but that's not the way it is here, unfortunately. And Michael Phelps is also a HUGE star who gets TONS of attention and he put in a fantastic effort at the Olympics.

But like I said in my first post, the ESPYs don't mean anything anyway - they're allegedly fan-voted, etc. The Laureus awards are far far more important. It's like comparing the Oscars to the Peoples Choice Awards. I really doubt that Roger feels slighted by this.

I didn't object the inclusion of Michael Phelps, who I consider the greatest swimmer I've ever seen (beating Ian Thorpe) and Bode Miller. Bode more or less dominated the ski season and, like you said, won races in all skiing classes, an achievement comparable to Roger's. Good to have included him.
Peyton Manning vaguely rings a bell, but I don't know about American Football, so i can't judge him.
I can judge Lance however. Like I said before he is a beacon of hope and inspiration for many and I'd say one of the great athletes of the last ten years. His achievements on a year by year basis are however hugly overrated. Your arguments that he is a cancer surviver and that he won the Tour 6 times in total are irrelevant to his 2004 achievements.

Who to take off the list instead of Roger? I think we can at least agree on Viay Singh?
That leaves the question who has to make room for Hicham El Guerrouj of course! ;)

K-Dog
06-24-2005, 02:56 PM
I understand that what Lance did WAS outstanding, but the point came up that he trains for the whole year for one event, whereas Roger trains all year and plays ALL year, winning basically everything!! Lance is a specialist racer; he isn't the best in his sport. He just wins 1 race, where other cyclists win multiple and are ranked #1 for racing ALL year. Imagine if Roger trained all year just for Wimbledon!!

Purple Rainbow
06-24-2005, 03:03 PM
I understand that what Lance did WAS outstanding, but the point came up that he trains for the whole year for one event, whereas Roger trains all year and plays ALL year, winning basically everything!! Lance is a specialist racer; he isn't the best in his sport. He just wins 1 race, where other cyclists win multiple and are ranked #1 for racing ALL year. Imagine if Roger trained all year just for Wimbledon!!

Fair comparison! Winning the biggest event, but not showing up anywhere else, or considering the rare race you participate in a training event.
It's also not very nice for the fans. Cycling is like non other a peoples sport. Everybody can watch every race for free and seeing your heroes is like every other sport important in cycling. Hardly ever showing up is not going to help your popularity either.

ToanNguyen
06-24-2005, 03:05 PM
I understand that what Lance did WAS outstanding, but the point came up that he trains for the whole year for one event, whereas Roger trains all year and plays ALL year, winning basically everything!! Lance is a specialist racer; he isn't the best in his sport. He just wins 1 race, where other cyclists win multiple and are ranked #1 for racing ALL year. Imagine if Roger trained all year just for Wimbledon!!

Agree. However, I think the reason for Lance Amstrong to be on the list is that he has won the race 6 times; which is an amazing feat.
The most shameful thing is that they don't include Roger into that list. He is definitely in the same league with some and definitely more than some other.
But on the other hand, Roger wins the Laureus Award and that counts much more than this stupid ESPY

onewoman74
06-24-2005, 03:05 PM
It's an American based event...what do u expect?

oneandonlyhsn
06-24-2005, 03:05 PM
I think Roger should have atlest been nominated, its not very often that a player wins 3 Grand Slams in 1 year. Politics maybe, I dont know but he should have recieved a nomination.

alexito
06-24-2005, 03:06 PM
lance and phelp is more important.
federer is no so important.
federer win GS for easy draw.

K-Dog
06-24-2005, 03:09 PM
Agree. However, I think the reason for Lance Amstrong to be on the list is that he has won the race 6 times; which is an amazing feat.
The most shameful thing is that they don't include Roger into that list. He is definitely in the same league with some and definitely more than some other.
But on the other hand, Roger wins the Laureus Award and that counts much more than this stupid ESPY

The fact that he won it 6 times is irrevelant. This is for the 2004 season, nothing else. Not 1999, not 2000, not 2001 etc.. 2004!!!!

Purple Rainbow
06-24-2005, 03:10 PM
lance and phelp is more important.
federer is no so important.
federer win GS for easy draw.

Your predictability is only exceeded by your stupidity. You're becoming very, very annoying.

http://www.bentsynapse.net/insults/images/feed_troll.jpg

ToanNguyen
06-24-2005, 03:11 PM
lance and phelp is more important.
federer is no so important.
federer win GS for easy draw.

The fact is that he won 3 Grand Slams whether he got easy draw or not (Although that is still up for debate). It's the nature of sports. The bottom line is that whether you win or lose

ToanNguyen
06-24-2005, 03:16 PM
The fact that he won it 6 times is irrevelant. This is for the 2004 season, nothing else. Not 1999, not 2000, not 2001 etc.. 2004!!!!

It's is true. But the fact that Amstrong wins 6 years in a row does have an affect on the impression of how great an athletic he is. That is why I understand he is on the list.

PaulieM
06-24-2005, 03:39 PM
the fact that sharapova got nominated on the women's side and roger didn't make the men's speaks volumes.

liptea
06-24-2005, 03:40 PM
the fact that sharapova got nominated on the women's side and roger didn't make the men's speaks volumes.

hahahaha, being tall and leggy certainly has its advantages, I suppose. You guys are taking this too seriously. I really don't think Roger is crying his eyes out over this.

Skyward
06-24-2005, 03:44 PM
hahahaha, being tall and leggy certainly has its advantages, I suppose.

Would it matter if she lived in Moscow and spoke broken English?

Purple Rainbow
06-24-2005, 03:45 PM
the fact that sharapova got nominated on the women's side and roger didn't make the men's speaks volumes.

I didn't even notice that! Off course Maria Sharapova had an unprecetented season, winning Wimbledon and ending the year as #2! Not a lot of people achieved those results! :bowdown:

By the way, since a lot of people here appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm, I just want to add that I didn't mean the previous statement seriously.

Pea
06-24-2005, 04:12 PM
I didn't expect much from them.

uNIVERSE mAN
06-24-2005, 04:23 PM
WTF is with this armstrong fascination?? Exactly, he wins the tour de france then is invisible the whole year, some athlete!

Dirk
06-24-2005, 04:35 PM
Let's see they give nods to FUCKING MANNING WHO CAN'T PLAY ON SNOW (Hence the colts losses to the patriots), Phelps (DUI Phelps who can be piss drunk the one week and sweep swimming events the next week) His records were set during a 2 week period, trying setting them all year long. Then there is THAT FAT FUCK VJAY!!!!!! :fiery: Great golfer but best male athlete with his saggy tits?!?!?!?!?!!??!?? Awful that Roger is not nominated. They didn't even put his 20 final wins in the best championship section. :rolleyes:

SwissMister1
06-24-2005, 04:46 PM
Great golfer but best male athlete with his saggy tits?!?!?!?!?!!??!??

That argument can't be beat.

Lee
06-24-2005, 06:38 PM
Lance Armstrong achievement in 2004:

1. date Cheryl Crow
2. sell millions dollars of bracelets
3. win a cycle race

And like purple rainbow, I'm being sarcastic here if you miss my tone or my lack of smilies here

Leo
06-24-2005, 06:42 PM
Yeah, Roger won the Laureus award - much bigger deal.

K-Dog
06-24-2005, 07:15 PM
Yeah, Roger won the Laureus award - much bigger deal.

So true, but why wouldn't the Laureus winner be nominated for a lessor show like the ESPY's. The ESPY's have their heads up their asses not to include Roger!!

Havok
06-24-2005, 08:23 PM
FEd should have been included, so retarded that he isn't. Though I highly doubt he would have walked away with the award ( and I don't even think he'll even show up at the event).

RogiFan88
06-24-2005, 10:20 PM
who really cares? it's only the ESPYs... just give it to the Amer Lance... he's won just about every other award...

Shy
06-24-2005, 10:45 PM
We already now that the ESPY award is a joke. It just confirm it.

MissMoJo
06-24-2005, 11:04 PM
Then there is THAT FAT FUCK VJAY!!!!!! :fiery: Great golfer but best male athlete with his saggy tits?!?!?!?!?!!??!??
Phil has saggier tits ;) . Anyway, i see the ESPY's as more of a popularity contest than an honor based solely on athletic achievement.....Oh, and they don't give a shit about tennis, lest we forgot.

superpinkone37
06-24-2005, 11:14 PM
Roger definitley should have been nominated-- without question. But, like others have said, its an American event and obviously Americans are going to be favored. (Maria might as well be American and the blonde hair and long legs sure do help. But unfortunately, things like that will always be "important," at least here.) Also the fact that tennis is not high on the sports radar here doesn't help one bit. That being said, the ESPY's are stupid and like you have all been saying, mean basically nothing. We all know Roger is a great athlete anyways :)

Fedex
06-24-2005, 11:15 PM
It's like comparing the Oscars to the Peoples Choice Awards.
:lol: :lol:

Tennis Fool
06-24-2005, 11:27 PM
FEd should have been included, so retarded that he isn't. Though I highly doubt he would have walked away with the award ( and I don't even think he'll even show up at the event).
You're back...

I asked about you in the "Disappeared Posters" thread but no one answered...

the cat
06-24-2005, 11:42 PM
The ESPY's are a bush league award that doesn't deserve our discussion. :( Federer probably should be the male athlete of 2004. But he definately deserves to be on the list. Vijay Singh won only 1 golf grand slam last year and he shot an embarrasing 76 in the final round of the PGA Championships and still won. :o

Good point Paulie about Sharapova getting nomitated for a major ESPY awarf and Federer not getting nominated. :scratch: But if Maria trained and lived in Russia she wouldn't have been nominated either. But because she seems as American as apple pie and Chevrolet she was nominated. It's as simple as that.

the cat
06-25-2005, 12:02 AM
I think the main thing for people to understand about ESPN and the ESPY's is that it's all about ESPN and their meaningless schtick and endless self promotion. They think they matter more than they do. The ESPY's was pretty cool about 10 years ago when it was televised in the winter. Now it's just another ass kissing fest. :o

bavaria100
06-25-2005, 12:10 AM
Roger should be nominated, but we shouldn´t cry about the ignorance of these people. I wouldn´t even be surprised if Roger doesn´t get the male tennis player of the year award because this show favours american athletes.

jacobhiggins
06-25-2005, 01:40 AM
ESPN is a network that provides entertainment. Sports unfortunately in todays world cannot even be the final equalizer. In that past, sports excellence was not based on where you were from but how good you were. The best atheletes are not nominated or win at the ESPY's, just the most popular and viewer friendly ones. It's just a show, dosen't mean anything!

Castafiore
06-25-2005, 11:15 AM
Well, I'm not surprised to see Lance Armstrong with a nomination.
The Tour de France is considered to be one of the toughest events in sports and he managed to win it a record 6 times. That's amazing, esp. after having survived cancer.

The only problem I have with Armstrong is that he focusses too much on the Tour de France. His entire season is geared towards only 3 weeks and all the rest he does is done in preparation for the Tour and they're not a goal in itself.
Compare his career to the fantastic Eddy Merckx and you'll see the difference. Eddy did not only dominate the Tour in his days but he raced during the entire season, dominating the sport all year long.
A tennis player just can not afford to focus an entire season on merely three weeks. He has to perform on top level during a huge part of the season or he'll lose his ranking,...
The Tour de France is fantastic to watch but it's become too important compared to other events within the sport. That's also a reason why I hope that this never happens in tennis: there are so many great tournaments and the 4 grand slam tournaments are equally important to me.

Federer? I guess that not being American does play a role. Do many Americans know him? I bet that many Americans know Lance Armstrong but if you would ask a sample of Americans to name 10 foreign cyclists, I bet that not a lot of them would succeed in doing so.
Was Sampras ever nominated for this?

njnetswill
06-25-2005, 05:24 PM
It's an ESPY. It's not so much the best athlete as it is who the US media adores the most. It's hard to beat a cancer surviving middle aged nice guy american who has won the grueling Tour de France...erm how many times? Just saying that credentials has nothing to do with getting nominated at an "espy".

holagirl56
06-25-2005, 06:51 PM
I think the main thing for people to understand about ESPN and the ESPY's is that it's all about ESPN and their meaningless schtick and endless self promotion. They think they matter more than they do. The ESPY's was pretty cool about 10 years ago when it was televised in the winter. Now it's just another ass kissing fest. :o

Kind of like WTA awards.

Neely
06-25-2005, 07:15 PM
I just think his accomplishments on a bicycle are hugely overrated.
Nice speach and good try trying to relativate Armstrong's incredible achievements on the bicyle stating a few facts which are certainly true, but for me it's not exactly being hugely overrated surviving this three week hell in France with lots of six hours stages at 40 degrees as a winner six times in a row.