Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Tiger Woods named athlete of the decade.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on December 17, 2009, 12:17:45 PM ---
--- Quote from: 7even on December 17, 2009, 12:16:04 PM ---someone who's good at curling = athlete?
--- End quote ---
yeah lol.
if you compete in the Olympics, you're an athlete lol.
maybe not top of the line, sprinter, jumper, football player, but you're an athlete.
--- End quote ---
Ok, so if you're a top of the line athlete because of the sport you play you should not be mentioned with the great athletes of the decade, and certainly not be the athlete of the decade. Plenty of things are sports and those participants may very well be athletes, but shouldn't even be considered with the greatest athletes. A guy like Lebron can be thrown into the Olympics as anything from a sprinter, to high jumper to shot put, and while he wouldn't win any medals or even qualify, he wouldn't be an embarrassment either. Tiger Woods in the tri-state high school decathlon would be a joke.
Chamillitary Click:
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 03:00:42 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on December 17, 2009, 12:17:45 PM ---
--- Quote from: 7even on December 17, 2009, 12:16:04 PM ---someone who's good at curling = athlete?
--- End quote ---
yeah lol.
if you compete in the Olympics, you're an athlete lol.
maybe not top of the line, sprinter, jumper, football player, but you're an athlete.
--- End quote ---
Ok, so if you're a top of the line athlete because of the sport you play you should not be mentioned with the great athletes of the decade, and certainly not be the athlete of the decade. Plenty of things are sports and those participants may very well be athletes, but shouldn't even be considered with the greatest athletes. A guy like Lebron can be thrown into the Olympics as anything from a sprinter, to high jumper to shot put, and while he wouldn't win any medals or even qualify, he wouldn't be an embarrassment either. Tiger Woods in the tri-state high school decathlon would be a joke.
--- End quote ---
you're taking the word "athletic" too literally.
the award isn't who can jump the highest, run the fastest, go the longest, be the strongest, etc.; it's which person who plays in sports (any sport) has been the most successful.
it's not like they look and say, "hey, Ed Reed is 6'2'', strong as a tank, real fast, great on his feet, can jump high", it's which person in sports has been the most successful; you can make your argument for Federer, but you can't say Tiger doesn't deserve to win.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on December 17, 2009, 03:04:27 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 03:00:42 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on December 17, 2009, 12:17:45 PM ---
--- Quote from: 7even on December 17, 2009, 12:16:04 PM ---someone who's good at curling = athlete?
--- End quote ---
yeah lol.
if you compete in the Olympics, you're an athlete lol.
maybe not top of the line, sprinter, jumper, football player, but you're an athlete.
--- End quote ---
Ok, so if you're a top of the line athlete because of the sport you play you should not be mentioned with the great athletes of the decade, and certainly not be the athlete of the decade. Plenty of things are sports and those participants may very well be athletes, but shouldn't even be considered with the greatest athletes. A guy like Lebron can be thrown into the Olympics as anything from a sprinter, to high jumper to shot put, and while he wouldn't win any medals or even qualify, he wouldn't be an embarrassment either. Tiger Woods in the tri-state high school decathlon would be a joke.
--- End quote ---
you're taking the word "athletic" too literally.
the award isn't who can jump the highest, run the fastest, go the longest, be the strongest, etc.; it's which person who plays in sports (any sport) has been the most successful.
it's not like they look and say, "hey, Ed Reed is 6'2'', strong as a tank, real fast, great on his feet, can jump high", it's which person in sports has been the most successful; you can make your argument for Federer, but you can't say Tiger doesn't deserve to win.
--- End quote ---
Oh, well in that case it's Phil Taylor hands down. He stared the decade with 5 straight World Championships, and then won 3 straight to open the 2000s, finished second the next year, and then won another 3-peat from 04 to 06. He just won again in 09 and he's only been ranked less than 2nd in the world once this whole ten years. Tiger doesn't even come close that.
7even:
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 03:09:55 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on December 17, 2009, 03:04:27 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 17, 2009, 03:00:42 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on December 17, 2009, 12:17:45 PM ---
--- Quote from: 7even on December 17, 2009, 12:16:04 PM ---someone who's good at curling = athlete?
--- End quote ---
yeah lol.
if you compete in the Olympics, you're an athlete lol.
maybe not top of the line, sprinter, jumper, football player, but you're an athlete.
--- End quote ---
Ok, so if you're a top of the line athlete because of the sport you play you should not be mentioned with the great athletes of the decade, and certainly not be the athlete of the decade. Plenty of things are sports and those participants may very well be athletes, but shouldn't even be considered with the greatest athletes. A guy like Lebron can be thrown into the Olympics as anything from a sprinter, to high jumper to shot put, and while he wouldn't win any medals or even qualify, he wouldn't be an embarrassment either. Tiger Woods in the tri-state high school decathlon would be a joke.
--- End quote ---
you're taking the word "athletic" too literally.
the award isn't who can jump the highest, run the fastest, go the longest, be the strongest, etc.; it's which person who plays in sports (any sport) has been the most successful.
it's not like they look and say, "hey, Ed Reed is 6'2'', strong as a tank, real fast, great on his feet, can jump high", it's which person in sports has been the most successful; you can make your argument for Federer, but you can't say Tiger doesn't deserve to win.
--- End quote ---
Oh, well in that case it's Phil Taylor hands down. He stared the decade with 5 straight World Championships, and then won 3 straight to open the 2000s, finished second the next year, and then won another 3-peat from 04 to 06. He just won again in 09 and he's only been ranked less than 2nd in the world once this whole ten years. Tiger doesn't even come close that.
--- End quote ---
I agree. Why did they overlook him like that? Didn't he get any votes? :-\
the ghost:
I'm in the not so sure about golf being a "sport". That being said NO one has been as dominating in their "sport" as Tiger has been to Golf over this decade. I mean there are some great golfers out the today and they only win when Tiger fucks up it seems. He is a monster and he has been so dominant for so long that everyone is desentisized!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version