AP's Athlete of the decade: Tiger Woods

[transplant99]

Im sure that the voting was done before the debacle his life has become, but even then it is hard to argue with his accomplishments on the course.

[Sylvanfan]

Until a month ago it was a real no brainer. Even if you base it on the athletic accomplishments, it's still a slam dunk.

[Resolute 14]

Two sport superstar. I'm sure there is a competitive adultery league somewhere in the world...

There is little doubt that he owned the decade as far as athletes go, however.

[Pastiche]

Armstrong?

[Clever_Iggy]

Not as "no brainer" to me. Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France 7 times (6 times this decade: 2000-2006) and was voted AP's athlete of the year 4 times (2002-2005) this decade. Tiger was AP athlete of the year twice (2000, 2006).

Both took their respective sports to new levels and were considered by far the most dominant athlete of their sport. I can only assume Armstrong lost votes because he essentially took 2-3 years off.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I can only assume Armstrong lost votes because he essentially took horse steroids

fixed

[Shazam]

No can match Tiger's one mistress per year record.

[octothorp]

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.

[FanIn80]

My vote goes to Federer for sure. All this recent Tiger stuff has zero impact on that. It's ATHLETE of the Decade, not HUSBAND of the Decade.

I think Federer has just simply had a more remarkable decade. The guy is an absolute monster of a tennis player. Even that is an incredible understatement. Why this guy doesn't get more mainstream media than he does is beyond me.

[Mango]

Absolutely Federer. What he has done is ridiculous, especially taking into account how many records he has broken. Octothorp has covered everything that I want to say, so I won't repeat it.

[Resolute 14]

Federer has the significant drawback of not being American. That, more than anything, will kill him in an AP ranking.

[FanIn80]

I have to add that Roddick is still my favourite tennis player though. I live for the day when I finally get to see him beat Federer. That Wimbledon 09 match was the stuff of legends.

[Buff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qyvTRVus8

Lets see Tiger Woods sink a ball with a between the legs shot while running!

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I have to add that Roddick is still my favourite tennis player though. I live for the day when I finally get to see him beat Federer. That Wimbledon 09 match was the stuff of legends.

I thought he actually deserved that match.

[troutman]

What about Phelps and Bolt?

[burn_this_city]

Should be player of the decade not athlete.

[You Need a Thneed]

Shouldn't you have to compete in an athletic endeavour to be the athlete of the decade?

Tiger Woods, while very athletic himself, is not an athlete when he plays golf. A competitor, yes.

But, like others have said, there are better candidates even if you consider golf "athletic."

[Mango]

Here's a break down of the voting:

Tiger Woods 56
Lance Armstrong 33
Roger Federer 25
Michael Phelps 13
Tom Brady 6
Usain Bolt 4
Jimmie Johnson 1
Peyton Manning 1
Shaquille O'Neal 1
Manny Pacquiao 1
Albert Pujols 1

[SebC]

I'd say winning majors in tennis is tougher than in golf. Federer has to play through different opponents, with different styles, and is competing directly with his opponents. Tiger competes only indirectly with his. Fed gets my vote.

[malcolmk14]

What Roger has accomplished is absolutely incredible, and I don't want to take away from what he has done because I think he deserves 2nd place in this conversation, but I think it can be done again by someone else. That's just the nature of tennis.

Tiger Woods, on the other hand, is absolutely the most dominant and transcendent athlete in any sport, ever. I highly doubt we will see anything like him for a long, long time. I would not be the slightest bit surprised if he wins this award again ten years from now, and then wins "Athlete of the Century" 90 years from now. He is nothing short of remarkable on the golf course.