Greatest Sportsman of the decade

[Joe King]

Plus Tennis was already huge when Federer entered the game, whereas Golf where a rising sport when Tiger started dominating.

Federer for me - by far the best in the decade for me. + I don't consider Golf a real sport without getting in to that one again

Exactly.

[Shaggy]

Tennis requires far more physical ability than golf would ever need..

So?

The definition of sport isn't about physicality alone. It is physical prowess and/or skill. Golf is clearly a sport.

[Shaggy]

Golf was "a rising sport"?

[Shaggy]

Greater spread mainly due to winners having longer careers.

No, it's because there are more competitive participants, more potential winners, a greater depth of quality players, more players to beat. To win a tennis tournament you only have to beat a handful of opponents, and most - if not all (for Federer et al) - are lower-ranked. So Fed needs to beat a load of grubbers, plus two or three quality players at the business end.

Anyway, we've been here before, I'm off to open another bottle of vino.

[Darkon]

So?

The definition of sport isn't about physicality alone. It is physical prowess and/or skill. Golf is clearly a sport.

depends on the definition you use really - but I have never seen a definition of sport where a physical requirement was not one of the essentials of a sport. Skills is def. a part of a game and most sports, but the physical part is not necessarily a part of a game.

[Darkon]

Golf was "a rising sport"?

yes, perhaps not in the UK, but as a worldwide sport with mainstream viewers and popularity it was def. on the rise in the 90's/late 90's.

[Darkon]

No, it's because there are more competitive participants, more potential winners, a greater depth of quality players, more players to beat. To win a tennis tournament you only have to beat a handful of opponents, and most - if not all (for Federer et al) - are lower-ranked. So Fed needs to beat a load of grubbers, plus two or three quality players at the business end.

Anyway, we've been here before, I'm off to open another bottle of vino.

That explains your answers

[Joe King]

So?

The definition of sport isn't about physicality alone. It is physical prowess and/or skill. Golf is clearly a sport.

Where did you see me denying that it isn't a sport? I questioned it's physical requirements which quite frankly are minute compared to tennis. The longevity of golf careers are due to the lack of physical requirements hence I reiterate the reason as to why there is more competition.

You cite Federer would have to play a few games and has won a title, surely that's the same for golf? Playing four rounds, in essence, four days, where the average and mediocre eliminate themselves in the first couple of rounds.

[Helios Creed]

“Woods' record and impact is totally unparalleled” heh?

Since 2001, Federer’s won 61 singles titles, including 15 major championships (Tiger’s won 14 total, but two of those came in the 1990s so aren’t counted in the decade). Roger has won multiple titles on every surface where tennis is played. He’s one of only three pros in the Open Era (Agassi and Laver are the other ones) to win a career Grand Slam. And when Rod Laver was playing, 3 of the 4 majors were on grass. Admittedly, Roger’s nowhere near the total title wins of say a Jimmy Connors (109) or Ivan Lendl (94) but he’s broken the record that counts the most with his 15 Major titles. Tiger’s still four away from Jack Nicklaus’s all-time record of 18.

because, and no-one else seems to have picked up on this, he became dominant in a sport that wouldn't have even let him compete in his own country a decade or two earlier.

Federer did not have to overcome these obstacles.

[little dave hedgehog]

gotta be lance armstrong. got cancer, had a ball removed, won the tour de france.

that's something.

[Darkon]

gotta be lance armstrong. got cancer, had a ball removed, won the tour de france.

that's something.

he would be my number 2, except I just can't imagine him doing what he did without cheat - especially considering that he is about the only one never admitting using it in his generation!

Might just be a phenomenon - but still...

[Darkon]

which reminds me, whatever happened to Neill Young????

[Joe King]

which reminds me, whatever happened to Neill Young????

He's 'busy'

[FatTony]

Has to be Armstrong. In a far more physically demanding sport than tennis and golf, with the whole cancer issue and to dominate something as hard as the Tour de France, now thats something special. You think cycling, you think Lance Armstrong. Forget Tiger and Roger, this guy had cancer and came back to dominate one of the toughest events in the world, not only that but he works tirelessly to help cancer sufferers around the world.

Sod the drug bollocks, he's given more samples than we've had hot dinners so until someone can provide conclusive evidence to prove it, you should forget it. The french would've loved nothing more than to find a positive test and they failed....continuously.

Tigers not fit to lace his shoes, and Federer...don't make me laugh.

[little dave hedgehog]

thank you, fat tony.