Well, Boris, not knocking up your trysts is a good place to start.

abviously not only golf skills what he masters

well put tennislover.......but he also is paying for all that adultrous trysts with his mistresses...LIFE IS NOT A BED OF ROSES......and TIGER WOODS would certainly acknowledge that,after being in so many of them....LMAO;)

he was just elected as "athlete of the decade"
are you sure he is paying.................... other than money?

his popularity has dipped.........nd he will lose a lot of money................and a lot of respect too......thts abt it...yeah!!

I'd love to hear Fed's advice/opinions on this. I don't know why the media is trying to beat him down for this; it won't work. Vick and Tyson went to jail for criminal acts and came back. Kobe was accused of rape and came back. Cheating is immoral but not illegal. Once he wins another major things will go back to normal and Tiger will be Tiger again....if not sooner. As for Boris, probably he's jealous he was never that popular.

i still dont think he deserves the "athlete of the decade" since it should be for the athlete who carries himself offcourt as well as on court and resembles an Idol for the younger generation he became a billionare because of the sophistacted image he represents which turned out to be a lie,so maybe other names were involved for bad stuff also but that doesnt justify that they shouldve chose someone else.

tennislover----the title goes as "athlete of the decade"....not as the most ethical,honest and moral sportsperson.......so i guess he does deserve it....there are no razzies in proffesional sport otherwise he would have also bagged some of them too....

vreal is right toger deserved it ! but i think roger federer deserved it a BIT more only a bit tho..he has done quite extraordinary things over the past decade..very tough b/w tiger lance and roger

Not to say that Tiger doesn't deserve it, but Roger could have easily gotten it. He's won all of his majors the past seven years plus he's won more majors than Tiger and has the major record for tennis while Tiger is still chasing Jack. Tiger won 12 majors this decade to Roger's 15. Let's face the fact that tennis players have only one shot at an award like this while golfers can play for decades since golf is not a physical sport : just look at John Daly. You don't even have to be in good shape to play golf. I'd say it's not a sport at all but just a game like darts. Tennis is mano a mano. I guess they gave it to Tiger since he has nobody really close to him in the rankings unlike Roger who has had Nadal nipping at his heels the latter half of the decade. Maybe del Potro can win it the next decade for tennis.

Isn't a decade 10 years? Didn't tiger start to play Golf like in the 90's?Did Tiger win it at the turn of the century in 2000?
Roger started to play tennis in 2000 or so..I don't know(?)
but hasn't Tiger been playing golf longer than roger? maybe that's why he was voted in.I don't know.

One thing i do know, is that he is a hella golfer and what someone does sexually in there personal life is none of our business and has nothing to do with his golfing skills.Becker is probably just jealous cause he didn't have the juggling skills tiger had:)

Tiger won his first 2 majors in the 90s. He won 12 this decade compared to Roger's 15 all in the last 7 years. Yes Tiger has played golf longer than Roger has played tennis but for a ten year period I think Roger accomplished more and had stiffer competition (especially after Nadal came along). I just think a tennis player will never win such an award because tennis isn't as popular as most other sports and just doesn't get the respect it deserves. I'd agree that Tiger's sexcapades are separate from his athletic abilities.

Although I don't like him much, the athlete of the decade, if not of the century, must be Michael Phelps. Thinking that Woods or Roger can come even close is ridiculous. Swimming is extra strenuos sport and he is so great in many disciplines. I can't believe the title went to Woods.

True, Phelps has been dominant, but swimming is less popular than tennis or golf and most sports fans only hear about it every four years at the Olympics. While I'd agree it is a much more strenuous sport than golf, I don't agree that it's ridiculous that the grand slam record holder in tennis should not have won the award over Phelps or anybody. Another problem with swimming is there are too many different styles and therefore events. Tennis has only singles and doubles. So while there are many different races in swimming, and therefore many different champions, there is only one at the end of a grand slam or major.

I realize that I'm biased, but I personally think that Roger got robbed. I think Roger is better at tennis than Tiger is at golf. Just based on the nature of tennis, Roger should have gotten the nod. You have a bad round of golf? Oh well, you can make it up tomorrow. You have a bad round of tennis, you're on the next plane home.

wrong

I am biased toward tennis but have to admit that it's definitely Tiger. It is just so, so, so much harder to win a golf tournament that I can't even quantify it. You have to beat all 100 or so players in a Grand Slam; in tennis you only have to beat seven.

Almost everyone in a golf tournament has a chance to win the WHOLE thing. In a tennis tournament only a select few have a chance.

Tiger is better at his sport than anyone else is at his sport at the moment.

there is no argument.

tennis is a sport.
golf is a game.

tennis, you have to be superfit and run all around the court for up to 5 hours,sometimes more.
golf,you can have a beer belly,ride around on a golf buggy when your clubs get too heavy,get someone else to carry your gear for you,hit a shot, a swing.game over.

golf is not a sport ricky.you dont have to be fit to walk around a green.there's the operative word - walk.

roger federer >> tiger woods imo.....some of the points stated by maxi are what i would quote too....i wont say golf is not a sport,but tennis is much more demanding....nd imho a much tougher sport to be consistant at....

Ricky ,i dont believe what you said: golf is harder than tennis? and anyone can win in golf and not in tennis:tell that to robin soderling in FO and del potro in USO
this is really teasing me because tennis deserves much more respect i bet if Federer was american the deal will be sealed they nominated Roddick for some trophy while Federer wasnt nominated when the reason of the nomination was the wimbledon final,that tells the whole story there is an article on tennis.com about the athlete of the decade tiltled "Federer got robbed" maybe you should read it!
it is not just about Federer it it is about tennis even if Nadal did it or if DP did it the winner will still be Woods which is redicoulos what is sport that doesnt require a physical effort?or health problems and knock out system,it is pathetic

Professional golfers can't ride,they have to walk.
and a tournament is played over 4 days.They have to be in shape to walk,18 holes.

They have to have pin-point accuracy and know the trajectory of the wind and all that good stuff so...it's just as much a sport as tennis.that's why it will be included in the Olympics.
In tennis they get change overs and can sit down for awhile,golfers can't.The only different i see is that the players travel more and have a longer schedule.

I love golf and being American has nothing to do with it.The man is just good!! And anyway,didn't somebody have to vote him in? federer just lost the vote:)

An opinion isn't "wrong", Ricky. You may choose to disagree with what I've said, but calling it "wrong" is foolish.

I stand by what I said, though. Because of the "do or die" nature of tennis and the fact that one bad round means you're out of a tournament, what Federer has accomplished is more impressive to me than what Tiger has accomplished.

Maxi also brought up an excellent point. Despite the fact that you have to walk for 4 days...you ARE still walking. Tennis is like....sprinting for 3 hours. No contest in my opinion.

"wrong" was in response to your "next plane home comment"

you can have a bad day in tennis and still roll over someone ranked well below you

you have a bad day in golf and you are gone on Friday evening regardless of how well or poorly anyone else plays.

tennislover - i didnt say golf was harder than tennis (although it IS much harder). I said golf is harder to win AT than tennis is to win AT. MUCH harder to win a golf tournament.

And we will never be able to prove this, but I can almost guarantee that Tiger would destroy Federer in almost every other sport other than tennis.

ricky,
i believe you have had too many christmas beers and must be having a bit of joke with us-you cannot seriously and honestly believe that golf is more strenuous than tennis? that's why I think you are having a laugh. Golfers can get most of their exercise done by raising their left or right hand when drinking their beer, then go for a nice, quiet stroll around the green, knock a few balls into whichever hole they are aiming it, cheer themselves on, it's ridiculous to call this anything other than a game. It's a game, requiring little training (save wrist and hip action), perhaps a few mouth muscles when they use expletives if a shot is missed.

I like your sense of humour though ricky. Tiger has a long way to go before he can even hope to match what roger has achieved.

ricky, another thing. Golf is played on ONE surface. Grass. Green grass. Tennis is played on a variety of surfaces at different events around the whole world.Tiger plays in USA. That's where it starts and stops with him. Woods has none of the stress involved with travelling different parts of the world,playing on different surfaces.

Rogers achievements have been done in a tougher environment having to play in different countries and on different surfaces and always with a much greater risk of injury to different muscle groups due to those different surfaces. There really is no argument here. Another thing. When (some) tennis players finish a tournament, what do they do to relax? Go and play golf. Rafa and Roger do it occasionally. What does that say?

Ricky is definitely joking with us. Remember John Daly guys? That's who Tiger is competing against and a bunch of geriatrics. Taylor Dent can run circles around any golfer with the possible exception of Tiger who is now accused of being "juiced" by Mickelson and others. Roger might not be good at other sports but who cares? He's dominant at tennis. The real Ricky is coming out with the holiday truth serum.

maxi - read what i say before you put words into my mouth

every single person on this earth knows tennis is more STRENUOUS than golf

GOLF, however, is far more difficult...for someone to be good at

Tiger has been better at a more difficult sport than Federer, and even beyond their respective sports, its just easy to see that Tiger is a better "athlete" than Federer.

Ricky,
Tiger could look like Usain Bolt and it wouldn't matter. Athleticism is of little advantage for golf. Do I have to keep bringing up John Daly to make this point? Yes Tiger is an excellent golfer, better than everybody else, but golf is a game like billiards not a real sport. That's all I'm saying. And as a tennis writer, even though you're clearly anti-Fed, you should give the man the respect he deserves even if he doesn't look like Lou Ferigno.

chr18 - for the last time, I am not saying that golf is more "athletic" or more "strenuous" than tennis. OBVIOUSLY it isn't.

I am arguing that 1) Tiger's accomplishments in golf are more impressive than Federer's, and 2) Tiger is a better athlete than Federer.

"And we will never be able to prove this, but I can almost guarantee that Tiger would destroy Federer in almost every other sport other than tennis." how can you say that ricky???

Definitely Roger over Woods and Phelps over Roger. Sorry.

Chr18, I understand your point. However... we should not judge the achievements of athletes by the popularity of their sport. Swimming is not unpopular and Phelps is a mega star. Phelps broke and owns so many records that even a 15 time Grand Slam champ can't hold a candle to him. For all the disciplines we see him in the finals (eight in last Olympics) he has to swim at least three or four rounds beforehand. That's HUGE effort. And then again, there are different styles that he excells in.
The fact that tennis has only one champ at the end of the year is hardly Phelps fault. He is the best at what he does just as Rog is the best at what he does. Besides, Phelps (among numerous other winners) was voted the World Swimmer of the Year for the sixth consecutive year.
And last, but not least, I am sure that swimmers have more stamina and endurance than tennis players.

pretty much sure Roger would pick up golf sooner than Tiger tennis, therefore Rog would achieve better results in golf than Tiger in tennis. Rog also trained soccer, so one sport less for Tiger. Overall I think Rog's achievement is bigger.

"And last, but not least, I am sure that swimmers have more stamina and endurance than tennis players."

it's a different conditioning, if you are a professional swimmer (400m, 1500m free style) stamina won't help you much in other sports. also, swimmers have looser joints and muscles than other athletes which reduces explosiveness. but with no doubt, Phelps is a monster.

ricky,i dont put words into anyone's mouth at all. i just express an opinion which is opposite to yours. i think your interpretation hinges on the word "athlete" (see your post above). The problem is you compare woods (a stroller, on ONE surface), to an actual athlete-in the true sense of the word- who exhibits mastery, technique,explosive action and fitness on ALL surfaces. It's far more difficult to work out a mental strategy against your opponent, which shot to play in tricky moments to even think that golf comes close to tennis in terms of "athleticism" or "technique" - well there is just no contest.

chr18, -Jon Daley -yes. say no more.

Ricky,

this is for you - check out the paragraph further down on Woods: (I've asterised it for you).
Sunday, 27th December 2009

A decade of sports achievements...
Armstrong the greatest of the greats
Frank Malley, Chief Writer, PA Sport



Lance Amstrong - simply the best.
There is no denying the most dramatic, eye-popping, privileged-to-be-there moment in the whole of sport over the past 10 years. It is the 9.69 seconds Usain Bolt took to cover 100 metres in the Olympic final in Beijing.

No single other moment comes close. It was to witness something akin to a force of nature as Bolt blasted from the blocks and then at 30 metres gradually rose until his telescopic legs ate up the ground at a rate which defied mechanics.

For seconds after Bolt had held his arms wide and beaten his chest in celebration metres from the tape, the crowd hovered between shock and awe as the world record time flashed on the big screen.

Then the world screamed acknowledgement as Bolt brought excitement back to athletics and wonderment to Beijing. He made the impossible seem routine, lowering his 100m world record even further to 9.58 seconds and smashed the 200m record by running 19.19 at the World Championships last August.

He has pushed back the boundaries of his own sport, and that is perhaps the most vital ingredient when searching for the sportsman of the decade.

But there are others, one of which is enduring excellence. On that count rarely can a decade have contained so many sportsmen who have given so much inspiration to so many.

Can anyone have done so against odds as formidable as those faced by Lance Armstrong, the American cyclist who on October 2, 1996, at the age of 25, was diagnosed with stage three testicular cancer?

The cancer had spread to his lungs, abdomen and brain and he was already coughing up blood and had a large, painful tumour. Immediate surgery and chemotherapy were required to save his life and his doctor gave him less than a 40% survival chance.

What did Armstrong do?

Only went on to win the Tour de France, arguably the most gruelling sporting event of them all, in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Courage, stamina, a will of iron. He possessed them all and just for good measure came out of a retirement no-one could say he did not deserve to finish third in the Tour de France last summer at the age of 37.

That is the hallmark of greatness.

It is also why I cannot elevate Michael Schumacher to such a podium, even if the petrol heads would disagree.

Yes, Schumacher dominated the sport of Formula One. He was ruthless and sometimes reckless in winning seven world motor racing titles, five of them for Ferrari between 2000 and 2004.

But how much was the car and how much the driver? It is motor racing's perennial conundrum.

*******Golf's lack of athleticism also precludes Tiger Woods from lifting the crown for the last decade.*************

If it was down to sheer global influence then Woods would walk it. Arguably he is the most famous sportsman on the planet and despite having just announced an indefinite break from the sport to tackle the demons of his private life, he will almost certainly gain the five majors he requires to overtake Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 in the next few years.

Woods ticks the box when it comes to pushing the boundaries of his sport, although there are many who would class golf more as a pastime. He ticks the criteria of consistency and longevity too.**********

But then David Beckham scores highly when it comes to influence and longevity and when it comes to athleticism. But still it is not enough, especially when Beckham's score falls down when it comes to natural talent against the likes of the two Ronaldos, from Brazil and Portugal, and Lionel Messi from Argentina.

No doubt who are the outstanding swimmers of the decade - Ian Thorpe and Michael Phelps, the latter taking eight gold medals in Beijing to add to his six in Athens, but in a sport where multiple events can be suited to a particular body type.

Which brings us to tennis and the elegance and domination of Roger Federer.

There were those who believed it would be decades before Pete Sampras's 14 Grand Slams would be eclipsed, especially when the strength in depth of men's tennis was increasing.

Federer, however, raised the sport to heights never before witnessed, winning 15 in the space of six years, during which time he won the Laureus World Sportsman of the Year award on four occasions. His triumph on the clay at Roland Garros this summer also meant he had won on all surfaces.

There are more who deserve a mention. In athletics Hicham El Guerrouj, Asafa Powell and Maurice Greene. In motor cycling Valentino Rossi, while in football Alex Ferguson would walk it by a distance if we included managers.

But we don't. When it comes to the sportsman of the decade the criteria has to be undeniable talent, longevity, courage, athleticism and taking the sport to new frontiers.

Bolt has the magic. Woods has the influence. Federer has the consistency.

But only one was all-conquering after first being required to win the battle of his life.

It is why my sportsman of the decade is Lance Armstrong.

Ricky,
Why do you keep bringing up your opinion that Tiger is a better athlete than Roger? If someone is a pyhsicist it is possible that that they could be a better athlete than Roger but that doesn't make them any better at physics. Golf is a game that does not require great athleticism like billiards or darts.

I couldn't care less whether their respective sport requires great athleticism.

If Federer retired from tennis today to join the pro tiddlywinks tour, that would not make him any less of an athlete.

"Tiger has a long way to go before he achieves what roger has".....Funny!


Tiger only needs to win one more major and he will tie federer with 15!
Federer can't play tennis until he's....say...40!

Tiger is 32(?),he will be playing and breaking records until he's 50 or so:)

Federer will be home watching:) give it up! it's over ! The majority didn't think that federer was that great compared to other athletes.

Everyone view and opinions on this "is tiger better than roger" deal is like comparing apples and oranges.each, are good in what they have trained all their life for.

maybe tennis is seen threw the eyes of younger people ( cause they don't normally play past 32(?)) and golf is seen threw the eyes of more mature people..I don't know

Hi alik,its a shame you feel that way.
When I refer to roger, I dont just think of the 15 slams he has achieved. In tennis terms, he is defined by the majors, yes, BUT he is so much more than that, something Tiger will never be. The incredible joy that he has brought to millions of fans around the world, watching him play, is just a heaven for me. He is so much more, the way he hits a tennis ball, moves around the court, spends time with his fans, etc. you may not understand what I am trying to say. I get tongue tied sometimes. I will never equate golf with tennis. It is imo disrespectful to all the top tennis players who work so hard in training to perfect their game, to even compare tennis to golf is just-well-enough said.

Ricky, i think you dont understand what chr18 and me are trying to say. that's fine.
You didnt actually comment on the post I sent beforehand, from chief sports writer, Frank Malley, so i take it you dont want to. that's fine again.

maxi - Frank Malley gave me nothing to comment on.

All he basically said is that golf isnt a real sport. He lost all credibility with me once i read that.

I think thats a bit disrespectful ricky, to say a chief sports writer has no credibility because he says that golf isnt a sport - the guy has a lot of credibility - go read his bio -
He isnt in the minority.

alik, here are some numbers for you, from Jeremy Davis, I should have posted this earlier - apologies.

Federer put up bigger numbers than Woods in all categories, even after getting a later start this decade (Rog didn?t win his first Slam until 2003). He spotted Woods two years of titles.

Let?s look at the numbers for the decade 2000-2009:

Federer won 15 majors (breaking the all-time record) to Woods? 12.
Federer won 61 overall singles titles during the decade to Woods? 56.

This year Federer won the French Open for the first time, becoming only the second player after Andre Agassi in the Open Era to win all four Slams during a career.

That is a crazy feat winning Slams on clay, grass and hardcourts, as opposed to golf?s Grand Slam which is on ? a bunch of golf courses where the bunkers are in different places.

And you get to walk around rather than constantly sprint after a moving ball.

In addition to winning the French and Wimbledon this year, Federer reached the final at the Australian and US Open, a finalist at all four Slams.

We get it that golf is on TV all the time in the U.S. and ratings go up every time Tiger plays. We get it that the fat AP writers like golf because they play it while they drink beer and smoke and think it?s a sport. But look at the numbers.

Federer?s numbers are in spite of Rafael Nadal, who has ranked No. 1 and won the French and Wimbledon, and will probably go down in history eventually as one of the greatest players ever. He is young enough even to possibly challenge Federer?s record 15 Slam titles eventually.

Tiger has no one even close to him. He arguably cruised through a weak decade of little competition. Who challenged Tiger?
Fat Phil? The No. 3-ranked golfer in the world right now is named Stricker, ever heard of him?

Woods may be the AP Athlete of the Decade, but Roger Federer is sports? unequivocal Athlete of the Decade.

Maxi,
It's ok we'll just have to agree to disagree with Ricky and alik. What did you really expect from two Nadal fans? If Nadal were if Fed's identical position they would be screaming bloody murder. It's ok Tiger is a great golfer who probably will be considered the greatest of all time some day so no disrespect to him or his accomplishments. When you're the best at anything, there will always be haters. Plus winning awards like that is a popularity contest so Tiger is more popular than Fed to the AP writers. That's all. It's subjective. Good thing he can win Grand Slam titles without it being a popularity contest.
P.S. I'll always consider golf a game and not a real sport but that's just my opinion.

a "sports"writer should not be discussing golf if he does not consider it a "sport"

so, with me, that guy has no credibility. If he has credibility with you, that's fine.

and chr18 - in case you are wondering I think Tiger is outrageously more accomplished at his sport than Nadal is at his sport. I cant even describe how ridiculous it would have been if Nadal had been named Athlete of the Decade. Federer being named Athlete of he Decade would have been wrong, but not as wrong as Nadal.

If they had given it to Nadal,now that would really have been stupid.I don't have anything against federer.He just not as great as tiger woods,IMO.

Ricky, i think what you say is in very poor taste when you criticise a very experienced chief sports writer.

You should not criticise a very experienced, well accomplished and highly thought of sports writer who writes for the independent, the times and many other papers - so please - if this is what you want to say because you cannot be objective, then the problem lies within you. These papers are held in very high esteem in the UK, as are the sports writers.

The reason why a "sports" writer should NOT be discussing golf if he does not consider it a "sport", is because it isnt one! so he hasnt really done anything wrong. I also dont think you have been reading the above posts in any great depth. Firstly, the fact that Tiger was voted an "athlete" of the year, "over" federer, is that firstly it was a poll, voted for by Americans. So unless Fed got a green card, there was no way he would have a chance. It's a complete joke.

Gof - It's a game! I doubt very much whether Frank Malley even knows who you are and probably cares even less that you want to insult his own articles. I really dont mean to be rude if that is how I am coming across, and at the very least, you have made me think a lot about this, but I think your coming across as quite rude and belligerent. And chr18 is right imo in everything he says.

alik,
i'm shortly logging off, but I just caught your last post.(there's a bit of a time delay tonight). I dont really think that you have come up with an argument. I posted you something at this time:

maxi , 12/27/09 6:49 PM - (what do you think of the numbers that Jeremy Davies stated above which counter argues what you mentioned earlier?).

please could you read this post again? I think I have supported my argument with numbers, yet I would be interested why you think federer isnt as "great" as tiger. You said the following:

maybe tennis is seen threw the eyes of younger people ( cause they don't normally play past 32(?)) and golf is seen threw the eyes of more mature people..I don't know

alik , 12/27/09 5:08 PM

so on that basis, are you "more mature", which is why you understand golf more? and in any case, some tennis players carry on playing until mid/late 30's. Santoro just proved that (36), and didnt connors retire at 39? still winning tournaments?


chr18, thanks for responding earlier.

Ricky,
You completely misunderstood my comment. I meant if Nadal were sitting on 15 Grand Slams and had all of Fed's accomplishments this decade, you and others here would be saying Nadal had deserved it. But because it's Fed, you think he didn't deserve it.

maxi - I am criticizing the guy for one article. Deal with it. You sound like I am damning him to Hell. Please.

chr18 - you could not be wrong. I would NEVER put a tennis player with the same statistics as a golfer ahead of that golfer, no matter who is the tennis player and who is the golfer.

Find me a golfer who has 6 major titles and I will take him over Nadal any day of the week.

ricky, you say the guy has "no credibility". why have I got to deal with that? I think its you that has to deal with it, dont you? I happen to respect the guy because of what he has written in the past.

"Find me a golfer who has 6 major titles and I will take him over Nadal any day of the week."
Ricky,
My hypothetical situation was Nadal with 15 majors but nonetheless your position seems to be that golf majors somehow mean more than tennis majors because you seem to think that they are more difficult to attain. Since neither of us have won a major in golf or tennis that's mere speculation on your part. More than likely you find golf more difficult to play than tennis.

Just an aside about golf for you. The first time I let my dad play golf...the first swing of a golf club in his life...he hit a hole in one at 400 yards. That's not to say my dad is great at golf but luck certainly plays a factor in that game. He could not win a game of tennis his first try even against me.

In any case Fed won 3 more majors than Tiger this decade...15 to 12...so they don't have the same statistics so your point really doesn't hold water. I still think many Nadal fans here would be saying he should win the award if he had won 15 majors.

Santoro playing until 36(?). basically he was just still there to get payed.He knew and everyone else knew that he wasn't going to win a tournament.
Connors played ina different era.back then,i guess they didn't have the same technology with equipment and stuff like they have now.
Now player in this day and time can MAYBE play until they are 32 i would say, and still be competitive enough to go out and fight to win a tournament. but at that age that's still pushing it.How old is tommy haas?

"The first time I let my dad play golf...the first swing of a golf club in his life...he hit a hole in one at 400 yards."

post of the year! Thanks!

and chr18, it is more difficult to be GOOD at golf than it is to be GOOD at tennis. And I dont know why I have to say this again, but its way more difficult to win a golf major than a tennis major.

I think I understand what Ricky is trying to say, ie to win a golf tournament, you have to outperform the rest of the field. Simply put, all the golfers are playing against each other at the same tournament doing the same thing and the one scoring the most points will be the winner; that in a sense is very difficult to do as you simply have to outperform every one of the players in the field. Tennis at slam level, seven wins over seven players are required; that means you need not beat all 127 players in the field.

Whether we agree or not, golf is classified as a sport, so no point arguing about it. Also on what basis is the 'Athlete of the Decade' selected? Was it the physical demand of the sport, the mental aspect, the difficulty of the sport in comparison to other sports, or simply how one excel in his sport?

I don't think Ricky is bias against Fed. I'm a Nadal fan, and unless Nadal can exert total dominance against the rest of the field (eg positive H2H over all the rest of the players) and wins many majors, many more than what Tiger Woods can win, I wouldn't place him higher than Tiger Woods in terms of achievements. Maybe a measure of a sportsman's achievement is his dominance over the rest of his field and in this case many consider Tiger more dominant than Fed? I think we can never agree.

Ricky,
Believe it or not it's true. It was his only one though. And of course it was luck. He was excellent at cricket in his younger days so maybe that's why he had a good swing. Anyway, everybody knows Americans from the AP are going to vote for an American to win that award. It wasn't important and the only reason it got any publicity is because of all the drama surrounding Tiger.

by doug ferguson:

Woods was selected Wednesday (16 December) as the Athlete of the Decade by members of The Associated Press in a vote that was more about 10 years of performance than nearly three weeks of salacious headlines.

Just like so many of his victories, it wasn't much of a contest.

Woods received 56 of the 142 votes cast by AP member editors since last month. More than half of the ballots were returned after the Nov. 27 car accident outside his Florida home that set off sensational tales of infidelity.

Maxi:
I dont think this vote counts for much - 142 votes cast? It's a joke.

Tommy Haas will be 32 in April 2010

lolz...ya'll still make me giggle! tiger woods, "be gone!!" greatest golfer ever; morally bereft, phony excuse for a human being.

dumb arse AP. Roger Federer is the real deal inspiration, athlete and sportsman; deserving in every aspect of his personal life conduct as well.

okay, a loose s-word, hates losing sometimes, like to certain opponents and in gs torneys, but c'mon, he is the best of the decade. only debate there imo is lance armstrong.

maxi, u know i loves ya but must disagree about the AP's choice. agree he is the best golfer ever and golf is a game AND a sport but it's just all wrong to laud him with the award after what he did to his wife and kids. he had lied and promoted him as a family man, ALL the while lying, everyone on the tour knew and were covering up for him. he was a HUGE role model, biggest ever for kids and he was all the time making a mockery where value of integrity and character.

dats my 2 cents. end of story. xxoo

I don't have an opinion either way, but FWIW Sports Illustrated named Federer its athlete of the decade, over Woods.

Thank you sals3:)

Thanks SP for the info about SI. At least he won an award for athlete of the decade : good for him and good for tennis. Glad to know that others thought he was deserving.

zoey - I didnt vote for Tiger woods! You misread my post! the vote for him is a sham! The APs choice was a limited one and only an American vote anyway. I agree with you. You be pleased to know that roger won the european athlete of the year award - again - five times now, rafa won last year and roger won, four times in a row before that.

Poll of the Decade: So who is your ultimate hero from 10 thrilling years of sport? We asked readers to vote ? and the 15-times Slam champion played the other nominees off the court. Paul Newman pays homage
Wednesday, 30 December 2009

Federer is revealed today as our readers' choice of greatest hero in the The Independent's Poll of the Decade. The fact that he won more than two-thirds of the votes cast by readers, in the face of competition from sporting titans like Michael Schumacher and Tiger Woods, is a tribute both to his tennis prowess and to his impeccable credentials as a sporting ambassador. Tiger Woods came fourth.