Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

octothorp · 12-16-2009, 11:00 AM

As I see it, there are three contenders: Woods, Armstrong, and Federer.

I'll start with Armstrong: from an American perspective he's great, but he's also really a one-race specialist. The fact that he's won only one of the grand tours while contemporaries like Ulrich and Contador have wins in two different tours is a bit of a blemish. I would have liked to see him compete against the best in his sport more often, as Ulrich was absent from the Tour during several of those victories, and Armstrong never raced against Ulrich in the other tours. It was a potentially great rivalry that never materialized.

Woods: Probably the best credentials of the three. I don't want to get into his recent problems because I don't think they should have a bearing on a best athlete award. Twelve majors this decade is a very impressive accomplishment. But the nature of golf is such that it's easy for a high-end athlete to dominate; there's no strategy to counter a great golfer, as there is in the other two sports in question. As well, Tiger lacked competition; it can be argued that he was just so far ahead of the competition, but it can also be argued that he was golfing in an era when, other than him, the overall calibre of the game was down. The closest person he had to a rival was Mickelson, who definitely does not belong in a conversation of great athletes.

Lastly, Federer: on the downside, he didn't emerge as a star athlete until 2003 (he was 21 at the time), but he's won more majors in those seven years than Woods did the whole decade. The current stretch where he has been in the final of 17 of the last 18 grand slam tournaments, and won 11 of them, far surpasses any stretch that Tiger had in his career. And he's at least made the semifinal in 23 of the last 24 majors.
He was also competing in an era of greats, against Roddick early in his career, and lately against Nadal, which is easily the greatest rivalry (from a competitive standpoint) in the history of the game. And his only failing has been his inability to beat Nadal on clay, but Nadal is probably one of the top two clay players in the history of the sport.

It's close between Woods and Federer, but in the end, I'd go with Federer. He achieved more top-end results, in less time, than the other two, displayed more versatility than Armstrong and more consistency than Woods.

12-16-2009, 11:00 AM	#8
octothorp Franchise Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: not lurking Exp:	As I see it, there are three contenders: Woods, Armstrong, and Federer. I'll start with Armstrong: from an American perspective he's great, but he's also really a one-race specialist. The fact that he's won only one of the grand tours while contemporaries like Ulrich and Contador have wins in two different tours is a bit of a blemish. I would have liked to see him compete against the best in his sport more often, as Ulrich was absent from the Tour during several of those victories, and Armstrong never raced against Ulrich in the other tours. It was a potentially great rivalry that never materialized. Woods: Probably the best credentials of the three. I don't want to get into his recent problems because I don't think they should have a bearing on a best athlete award. Twelve majors this decade is a very impressive accomplishment. But the nature of golf is such that it's easy for a high-end athlete to dominate; there's no strategy to counter a great golfer, as there is in the other two sports in question. As well, Tiger lacked competition; it can be argued that he was just so far ahead of the competition, but it can also be argued that he was golfing in an era when, other than him, the overall calibre of the game was down. The closest person he had to a rival was Mickelson, who definitely does not belong in a conversation of great athletes. Lastly, Federer: on the downside, he didn't emerge as a star athlete until 2003 (he was 21 at the time), but he's won more majors in those seven years than Woods did the whole decade. The current stretch where he has been in the final of 17 of the last 18 grand slam tournaments, and won 11 of them, far surpasses any stretch that Tiger had in his career. And he's at least made the semifinal in 23 of the last 24 majors. He was also competing in an era of greats, against Roddick early in his career, and lately against Nadal, which is easily the greatest rivalry (from a competitive standpoint) in the history of the game. And his only failing has been his inability to beat Nadal on clay, but Nadal is probably one of the top two clay players in the history of the sport. It's close between Woods and Federer, but in the end, I'd go with Federer. He achieved more top-end results, in less time, than the other two, displayed more versatility than Armstrong and more consistency than Woods.