Tiger Woods is Athlete of the Decade
It is that time of year again. It isn't even Christmas yet, and everyone is scrambling to get their stories published about the "greatest this or that" from 2009, or as is the case this year, the "greatest this or that" of the decade. 2009 is the last year of the decade, I guess, so everyone seems to be looking back.
These lists are always difficult to quantify. How do you name the greatest sports team of the last ten years? Or the greatest news maker? Or the greatest anything? Especially in this day and age, when stories and celebrities come and go like a vapor in the wind. Most stories don't hang on for one year, much less ten. The only thing that is obvious on any list of the past ten years would be the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I'm sure that it will top everyone's list as the most important story of the decade.
But not all lists are as weighty as that. Take the AP list of greatest athletes of the decade, a list which was released earlier this week. It comes as a surprise to no one that Tiger Woods tops the list. Well, it WOULD have been no surprise up until about two weeks ago, when we found out that squeaky clean family man Tiger turned out to really be named "Cheetah." So far, fourteen women, most of them pretty trashy looking, have come forward claiming to have had an affair with Tiger Woods. It has been reported that most of the votes were cast after the scandal broke, so it would appear that his wandering eye and womanizing ways have no impact on his impact on the sports world.
Lance Armstrong came in second. A close second. And he is a womanizer. So I guess it doesn't really matter. When your top two choices are Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong, fidelity goes out the window, at least as far as qualifications for this honor go.
Of course, I would argue that Lance Armstrong deserves to have won this honor. No surprise there. It isn't that I don't think that Tiger deserves it—surely one could make the case that he deserves it. I'm sure he does. I just happen to believe that Lance deserves it more.
I was chatting with a guy earlier in the week about this. He is an avid golfer, and he argued the point that Tiger deserves it more than Lance. He made some excellent points.
So yes, in many ways, one could argue that Tiger deserves to be named "athlete of the decade." But I have a few arguments against it.
Is a golfer truly an athlete? I mean, sure, golf is a game, a fun game, but is it really a sport? I heard one person say that any game where an 85 year old man can beat a 35 year old man is not a sport, it is a game. There is a difference.
I've always said that any sport where you can be a professional, and be named "Lumpy," is not a sport at all.
Yep, his name is Lumpy
Any activity where the majority of participants drive around in little cars is not a sport.
One particularly passionate golfer said to me, "come out to the course with me, and play 36 holes, and see if it is an athletic endeavor. You won't be able to walk after that."
Of course, I defended myself by telling him that on at least a couple of occasions, I have played 100 holes in a single day. Sure I was tired, but I could still walk. And I was fat when I played 100 holes in one day.
Not one to get into a contest with him, I didn't suggest that he join me for a 100 mile bicycle ride. It is hard to argue against the athleticism required to be a pretty decent cyclist. Sorry.
And Lance has changed his sport pretty radically too.
Oh, and did I mention that Lance overcame cancer before he accomplished all these things? To me, that is the clincher. Tiger is a great golfer. He is the greatest golfer ever. He is one of the top athletes of any sport in the last ten years. He has won more money, and more tournaments, than just about anyone.
But he never had cancer. In fact, up until last year, he's never really even had a side-lining injury. Lance had testicular cancer, which spread to his lungs and his brain. Some doctors gave him less than a 2% chance of surviving. It hit him when he was in the prime of his career, or so he thought. But he fought through it, and ended up at the top. No other athlete in history has overcome such odds.
To me, Lance Armstrong is the greatest athlete of the decade.
Of course, now all the tennis fans might argue for Roger Federerererer, who came in third. Not a chance.
These lists are always difficult to quantify. How do you name the greatest sports team of the last ten years? Or the greatest news maker? Or the greatest anything? Especially in this day and age, when stories and celebrities come and go like a vapor in the wind. Most stories don't hang on for one year, much less ten. The only thing that is obvious on any list of the past ten years would be the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I'm sure that it will top everyone's list as the most important story of the decade.
But not all lists are as weighty as that. Take the AP list of greatest athletes of the decade, a list which was released earlier this week. It comes as a surprise to no one that Tiger Woods tops the list. Well, it WOULD have been no surprise up until about two weeks ago, when we found out that squeaky clean family man Tiger turned out to really be named "Cheetah." So far, fourteen women, most of them pretty trashy looking, have come forward claiming to have had an affair with Tiger Woods. It has been reported that most of the votes were cast after the scandal broke, so it would appear that his wandering eye and womanizing ways have no impact on his impact on the sports world.
Lance Armstrong came in second. A close second. And he is a womanizer. So I guess it doesn't really matter. When your top two choices are Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong, fidelity goes out the window, at least as far as qualifications for this honor go.
Of course, I would argue that Lance Armstrong deserves to have won this honor. No surprise there. It isn't that I don't think that Tiger deserves it—surely one could make the case that he deserves it. I'm sure he does. I just happen to believe that Lance deserves it more.
I was chatting with a guy earlier in the week about this. He is an avid golfer, and he argued the point that Tiger deserves it more than Lance. He made some excellent points.
- The PGA purse has grown from about $85 million to nearly $300 million since Tiger came along.
- Tiger is the first athlete in history to earn over a billion dollars in winnings, endorsements, etc.
- Viewership for tournaments where Tiger does NOT participate are significantly lower than ones where he does. In the year he was off recuperating from a shoulder injury, ratings were down 50%.
- Tiger will likely win more major championships than any golfer in history. That is, if his current scandal doesn't force him into retirement.
So yes, in many ways, one could argue that Tiger deserves to be named "athlete of the decade." But I have a few arguments against it.
Is a golfer truly an athlete? I mean, sure, golf is a game, a fun game, but is it really a sport? I heard one person say that any game where an 85 year old man can beat a 35 year old man is not a sport, it is a game. There is a difference.
I've always said that any sport where you can be a professional, and be named "Lumpy," is not a sport at all.
Yep, his name is LumpyAny activity where the majority of participants drive around in little cars is not a sport.
One particularly passionate golfer said to me, "come out to the course with me, and play 36 holes, and see if it is an athletic endeavor. You won't be able to walk after that."
Of course, I defended myself by telling him that on at least a couple of occasions, I have played 100 holes in a single day. Sure I was tired, but I could still walk. And I was fat when I played 100 holes in one day.
Not one to get into a contest with him, I didn't suggest that he join me for a 100 mile bicycle ride. It is hard to argue against the athleticism required to be a pretty decent cyclist. Sorry.
And Lance has changed his sport pretty radically too.
- He won the most difficult athlete event in the world, the Tour de France, seven consecutive times. Six of those victories came this decade. No other cyclist in history even comes close. Last year, after a three year retirement, he came back and managed a podium finish (third place overall).
- While in retirement, he managed to run the New York City marathon in less than three hours. He said it was the hardest thing he has ever done.
- While on vacation in the off season in 2009, he raced, and won by thirty minutes, a 100 mile mountain bike race in the mountains of Colorado.
- Bicycle sales across the world are up, even in the midst of a deep recession. More people in the United States are riding bicycles than ever before, and much of the credit lies with Lance.
- Prize money for cycling events has increased world wide. So have television ratings in the United States. Who would have ever thought that Americans would be lining up to watch bicycle races on television? But line up they do.
- Sure, Tiger is the fourth most recognized athlete in the world. But Lance is the seventh most recognized.
Oh, and did I mention that Lance overcame cancer before he accomplished all these things? To me, that is the clincher. Tiger is a great golfer. He is the greatest golfer ever. He is one of the top athletes of any sport in the last ten years. He has won more money, and more tournaments, than just about anyone.
But he never had cancer. In fact, up until last year, he's never really even had a side-lining injury. Lance had testicular cancer, which spread to his lungs and his brain. Some doctors gave him less than a 2% chance of surviving. It hit him when he was in the prime of his career, or so he thought. But he fought through it, and ended up at the top. No other athlete in history has overcome such odds.
To me, Lance Armstrong is the greatest athlete of the decade.
Of course, now all the tennis fans might argue for Roger Federerererer, who came in third. Not a chance.
Posted by Jason Kearney at 12/18/2009 9:34 AM 
Categories: Lance Armstrong,Cycling,Sports,Tiger Woods
Categories: Lance Armstrong,Cycling,Sports,Tiger Woods
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one partly based on your reasoning for Lance being above Tiger. If the award was for best athlete of the last 25 years, I might be able to see your point. But Lance did not have cancer this decade. The worst he has had to overcome this decade is a broken collar bone before the tour this year. Tiger has won more than 60 tournaments worldwide and had to overcome multiple knee and leg injuries. Yes you could make an argument for either one of them, but I think the choice is clear when you look at the accomplishments of Tiger.
Reply to this
If Lance's only accomplishment was overcoming cancer, you would have a valid point. However, the lion's share of his accomplishments were done since 1999. Tiger was already leading the money list in 1997. Shoot, by 2000, he was already at the top of his sport. Or game. Or whatever it is.
As I said, I'm not saying he isn't deserving of it. But Lance is more deserving. Since Lance is actually an athlete.
Reply to this
I think Tiger should defer to someone else on the athlete of the decade thing, if it comes up. Tiger's well qualified for a couple other (fill in the blank) of the Decade Awards, I think.
Reply to this
Although I hardly ever pay any attention to these types of lists (best-looking hair, best-looking in a bikini, 100 best songs, etc.) I did hear about this one and I too would have to agree with you. It has nothing to do with Tiger's scandal (Lance would almost have to be DQ'd also) but with accomplishments as you have set out already. This past year Tiger won some tournaments (but not a major) after being out for his knee surgery. But Lance came in 3rd in the most grueling race in any sport after being out 3 years! If not me then I vote for Lance.
Reply to this
Bill, I was still half asleep when I read your comment, but your last sentence made me laugh out loud. I think that deep in our ego-ridden hearts, we all feel exactly the same way.
Reply to this