Tiger Woods named athlete of the decade.

[Chamillitary Click]

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news?slug=ap-athleteofthedecade&prov=ap&type=lgns

As sports go, it wasn’t close: Tiger Woods was famous for his golf long before he became infamous for his personal life.

For 10 incomparable years, no one ruled a sport like Woods. He won 64 tournaments, including 12 major championships. He hoisted a trophy on every continent where golf is played. And those 56 titles in one decade on the PGA Tour? Consider that only four of golf’s greatest players won more in their entire careers.

Even as a shocking sex scandal changed the way people look at Woods, the records he set could not be ignored.

AP - Dec 16, 10:00 am EST 1 of 9 Golf Gallery  Woods was selected Wednesday as the Athlete of the Decade by members of The Associated Press in a vote that was more about his performance on the course than the self-described transgressions as a person.

“The only reason I wouldn’t vote for Tiger Woods is because of the events of the last three weeks,” said Mike Strain, sports editor of the Tulsa (Okla.) World. “And I didn’t think that was enough to change my vote. I thought he was a transcendent sports figure.”

He received 56 of the 142 votes cast since last month by editors at U.S. newspapers that are members of the AP. More than half the ballots were returned after the Nov. 27 car accident outside his Florida home that set off sensational tales of infidelity.

Lance Armstrong, a cancer survivor who won the Tour de France six times this decade, finished second with 33 votes. He was followed by Roger Federer, who has won more Grand Slam singles titles than any other man, with 25 votes.

congradulations to the name; glad to see his off the course controversy didn't affect the vote.

Federer & Armstrong are very worthy runners-up & i wouldn't have argued to see one of them win it; even Phelps.

[Shallow]

Federer beats out Tiger real easy in my mind. For one he's actually an athlete. And two he's just as much dominant as Tiger. This isn't a hit on Tiger. This is a jab at Golf. I don't care who it was. If a Golfer is selected as best athlete then we have a problem. The litmus test should be if the average sports writer can play a sport from good to very well then it should be disqualified from discussion. OJ Simpson did what Tiger does after he retired. Maybe not nearly as well as Tiger, but let's see Tiger do what OJ did in his prime after he retires. It's not even close. I'd rather have Tom Brady win the award than a Golfer.

[Chamillitary Click]

for me, if you play a sport, you're an athlete.

Golf = sport.

[7even]

someone who's good at curling = athlete?

[Chamillitary Click]

someone who's good at curling = athlete?

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.

[Shallow]

someone who's good at curling = athlete?

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.

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]

someone who's good at curling = athlete?

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.

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.

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]

someone who's good at curling = athlete?

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.

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.

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.

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]

someone who's good at curling = athlete?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

[Shallow]

someone who's good at curling = athlete?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree. Why did they overlook him like that? Didn't he get any votes? 

Not a single vote.

[7even]

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!

Federer has won more majors this decade than Woods, in two years he 1 3 majors per year, he's been in more than 20 major semifinals in a row, he's been number 1 in the world rankings for 4.5 years STRAIGHT. Federer has easily been more dominating than Woods, in a sport that people usually only can play for 5 years on a very high level. If Federer was American and black and Woods was white and Swiss, no doubt Federer would easily win this award.

[Shallow]

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!

Federer has won more majors this decade than Woods, in two years he 1 3 majors per year, he's been in more than 20 major semifinals in a row, he's been number 1 in the world rankings for 4.5 years STRAIGHT. Federer has easily been more dominating than Woods, in a sport that people usually only can play for 5 years on a very high level. If Federer was American and black and Woods was white and Swiss, no doubt Federer would easily win this award.

If a black American was as dominant in tennis as Federer he'd be the biggest thing since sliced bread. But still not nearly the athlete Phil Taylor is. In ten full year he only fell outside the number 2 spot once, and only was number 2 twice. That means he was number 1 for 7 of the 10 years.

[Chamillitary Click]

maybe they count the entire package; i know Roger don't got a billion.

Tiger Woods is an icon, could that have helped his cause? obviously.

that's why your no-name boy wasn't even mentioned.

just live with it, you guys can name anybody you want as athlete of the decade, this is somebodies choice; you don't have to worship the decision, you don't have to pray to Tiger Woods because of this, just ignore it if it truly eats at you lol.

Golf couldn't live without him, Tennis could live without Roger, even though it wouldn't live for me; he's the only reason i watch Tennis lol.

[Shallow]

Golf couldn't live without him,

You could have said Tom Brady is hands down the greatest QB ever that would have made more sense to me than this. Golf isn't going anywhere, with or with out Tiger. Is he the big star? Yes. Does he make it more money? Yes. Would the PGA Tour cease to exist if Tiger was never born? No it wouldn't. Golf will do just as good after Tiger as it did before Tiger. That may not mean as good as it does with Tiger, but it's here to stay.

You may as well have said Rap couldn't live with out Eminem.