On Cold Pizza on ESPN this morning, they had a debate (if you can call anything with Woody Paige in it a debate ) on the most dominating year by any athlete of the recent era. After Federer's beating of Agassi for the US Open and his 5th tennis major of the last two years, they were comparing each of his last two years to Tiger in 2000, Barry Bonds in 2001, and Peyton Manning this past season. I'll narrow it down a little, ignoring specific years and including only individual sport athletes (I didn't include any racers either). IMO three guys have to factor into this debate: Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Lance Armstrong. Someone brought to my attention Annika...she's been good enough to warrant an addition to the poll I think.... Who do you think has been the most dominant individual sport athlete of the recent era (meaning has done most of his/her damage since the late 1990s)?
Last edited by stlcard_25 : September 12th, 2005 at 07:58 PM.
It is impossible for me to pick one. Each of the ones mentioned are the best in their sport. MJ, Bird, Magic, Marino, Nolan, The Rocket could all be included. There is just so many.(I know you said late 90's, but I'm a 40 year old throwback) What about Sosa/Mac chasing the homerun record? We have been lucky to see some of the all time greats in the past 20 years. Interesting poll tho, I'll continue to check it out! I also know that you said individual sports, just my 2 cents with the team guys!
What about Zinedine Zidane, or maybe even Ronaldinho?
Sorry, but soccer isn't an individual sport. If you can make an argument about their dominance of the sport, however, please do so. The poll is about individual sports stars, but the discussion tends to waver regardless.
BTW, I went with Tiger...none of the ones listed won 7 out of 11 of the biggest events in their sport over a stretch like he did...although Federer may come close or surpass it in the next few years. Annika won a lot of events but had some issues in the majors for a few years, not to mention Karrie Webb actually had the most dominating year in women's golf during the past decade (2000 w/ the 3 majors...can't top that ). Roger may well keep winning these Grand Slam events at an alarming pace, but as of right now I'd put Tiger's play slightly above that of Roger's. Lance has his 7 straight Tour de France's, which is impressive, but that lack of an Olympic Gold prevents me from placing him #1. I'd go with Federer at #2, Annika at #3 and Lance at #4.
Well I went with Tiger over Annika due to his superior dominance in the Majors. The other 2 are superlative athletes, but IMO, their sports lend themselves to individual dominance for extended periods of time. This is not to take anything away from either of them. It's just that their sports are similar to track or boxing in that if you're the best you're going to win most of the time. This is not true of golf. I'd give a nod to Barry Bonds, too, steroid allegations and "individual sport" restrictions notwithstanding.
7 Straight "tours" is very impressive. Granted it's just one race a year. But to win it every year...would be like Tiger winning 7 straight green jackets, IMO
Off the top of my head, Annika's winning percentage may be higher than Tiger's. I'm just guessing here. It sure seems like it. Plus she's only one Major behind Tiger
7-11 Majors. That still blows me away and its hard to put Tiger #3, but his competition in this field is stronger than what he faces on the tour.
Federer...needs to sustain his level of play a few more years to warrant moving up. Heard Jonny Mac call Federer the best of all time Sunday...I think that may be a little premature and was guilty of getting "caught in the moment". What does he have...6 slam events?
I don't even think he should be even in the top 3 Male Tennis players at this stage.
I'd rate Laver at the top. Laver won the grand slam twice and had 11 slam events overall. Also in a five year stretch, in his prime much less, professionals were not allowed to compete in the 4 slam events(Australian, French, Wimbledon, US Open). Winning on all four surfaces speaks volumes, IMO.
I'd put Borg(one of my favorite athletes) at #2. 11 Slams...but the diversity of winning 6 on clay and 5 on grass truly speaks of his genius. For some reason he never competed in the Australian, and never captured the US Open.
Even though Sampras has the record at 14 slams...he never won on the slow courts of Roland Garros. His athleticism was unparalleled, but IMO, Pete was basically a serve and volleyer....thus relegated to #3
Granted Federer is the flavor of the past two years, and dominating at that, but guys like McEnroe should wait until he at least reaches doubit digit slams before annointing him the best ever.
(Man I loved it when the Borg let his racket do the talking shutting up Brat Connors and super-Brat Mac )
Sorry for the tennis rant.
Last edited by MajorsFan : September 13th, 2005 at 01:55 AM.
But to win it every year...would be like Tiger winning 7 straight green jackets, IMO
I disagree with this...the tour is so long and demanding that most of the field isn't even in the equation. A more apt comparison would be if the Masters were 20 or 30 rounds long...I'd tend to think over that many rounds at Augusta, the scales would tip heavily in Tiger's favor. :nodsmiley Lance was built for the Tour, but didn't have great success in many other races.
I disagree with this...the tour is so long and demanding that most of the field isn't even in the equation. A more apt comparison would be if the Masters were 20 or 30 rounds long...I'd tend to think over that many rounds at Augusta, the scales would tip heavily in Tiger's favor. :nodsmiley Lance was built for the Tour, but didn't have great success in many other races.
I think you just helped my argument.
The Masters is also "so long and demanding that most of the field isn't even in the equation"... especially if it rains, which as we've seen does frequently over their in April.
"Lance was built for the tour"...and Tiger is certainly built for Augusta National
but we're not only talking about augusta. tiger's game isn't only suited for augusta. he's made it crystal clear that his game can travel the world as his wins have covered the entire globe. it is true that he dominates at augusta but he has also smoked the field at pebble, st. andrews, and other numerous courses. tiger's dominance is incomparable as he suits his game to the venue time and time again, wherever it may be. federer's record in the majors is as impressive as tiger's and federer will most likely be considered the greatest tennis player of all time when it's all said and done. however, this is due to the fact that there exists so little competition on the PTA today. if Federer had to deal with a Sampras, or even an Agassi in his prime, it'd be a different story. Tiger on the other hand has to fend off 100+ competitors each time he goes out and does it with relative ease.
Personally, I voted for Lance because he's won the premiere event in his sport for seven straight years. I really wanted to vote for Roger Federer because IMO, he is head and shoulders better than anyone else in his sport. If you were to put Roger in 10 matches against the #2 tennis player, I think his win percentage would be higher than Tiger's win percentage against say, Vijay.
I'm not much of a mens tennis fan but I find watching Roger Federer entertaining even in a non-competitive straight set win. He just looks unbeatable. I think Andre summed it up quite well when he said that even if he were to play his best, Roger could still beat him.
The Masters is also "so long and demanding that most of the field isn't even in the equation"... especially if it rains, which as we've seen does frequently over their in April.
"Lance was built for the tour"...and Tiger is certainly built for Augusta National
I don't think I did...the Masters is 4 rounds. One bad round and you're totally out of it. The Tour is 22 or 23 (can't remember ) stages. One bad stage and you've got 21 or 22 more to make it up. Both would be considered demanding, although the Masters not as much so as the Tour, yet the cream will rise to the top far more often over 20+ separate stages versus 4 rounds. :nodsmiley As I said, Lance hasn't had nearly the success in other racing events worldwide that he has at the Tour...I just can't put that over the others, who've proven they can win on all types of courses or courts all over the world.
September 12th, 2005, 07:45 PM
) on the most dominating year by any athlete of the recent era. After Federer's beating of Agassi for the US Open and his 5th tennis major of the last two years, they were comparing each of his last two years to Tiger in 2000, Barry Bonds in 2001, and Peyton Manning this past season. I'll narrow it down a little, ignoring specific years and including only individual sport athletes (I didn't include any racers either). IMO three guys have to factor into this debate: Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Lance Armstrong. Someone brought to my attention Annika...she's been good enough to warrant an addition to the poll I think.... 
Who do you think has been the most dominant individual sport athlete of the recent era (meaning has done most of his/her damage since the late 1990s)?
If you can make an argument about their dominance of the sport, however, please do so. The poll is about individual sports stars, but the discussion tends to waver regardless. 
)
) stages. One bad stage and you've got 21 or 22 more to make it up. Both would be considered demanding, although the Masters not as much so as the Tour, yet the cream will rise to the top far more often over 20+ separate stages versus 4 rounds. :nodsmiley As I said, Lance hasn't had nearly the success in other racing events worldwide that he has at the Tour...I just can't put that over the others, who've proven they can win on all types of courses or courts all over the world. 
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
