Tiger Woods not on WSJ top ten list of athletes

[Ceej]

Somewhat shocking

Also, if Jeremy Wariner is on the list, why shouldn't Michael Johnson be on the list?

I agree with Roger Federer being there, even if Tiger was on the list he would be ranked ahead of him as he has done more for tennis than what Tiger has done for golf.

Not exactly fair to compaire a lot of these guys to a decathlete
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213...s_inside_today

[Shindig]

Somewhat shocking

I was also shocked when I read this: I didn't realize that the WSJ was still around.

From the article:

We gave the performance stats and achievement records of 79 male athletes to a panel of 5 judges, and asked them to rank the competitors based on six criteria: speed; vision and reflex; stamina and recovery; coordination and flexibility; power, strength and size; and success and competitiveness.

So, they gave a limited sample, and won't tell us who the 79 are, unless I missed something. So maybe, if they wanted to give a nominal nod to golf, they could've picked John Daly, for all we know.

They also gave criteria that aren't relevant to golf - or even to some other sports. Speed has no relevance to golf - nor, really, to some positions in football, beyond a bare minimum. It doesn't really matter to the pitcher if you're having a designated hitter, other than some occasional fielding. I don't know how much stamina is needed for sports where you can sit down for half the game, either. And as for competitiveness, emphasis mine:

The final category examined success—records held and victories—as well as competitiveness, based on the sport's popularity. Soccer, for example, the world's most popular sport, was judged the most competitive.

Now, wait a minute: how popular the sport is shouldn't affect how athletic someone is.

The panel gave a total score for each athlete in the first round. Sixty athletes were eliminated in the second round, either because of low scores or because they were not first in their field.

So, now the top ten athletes have to come from different sports, too.

Our panelists then made the final ranking. Yale statistician John Emerson helped normalize the scores so no single panelist could exert undue influence.

Not even a Yale statistician could help a rigged survey. The undue influence was exerted long before the panelists were involved. This is the athletic ranking equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

[rubbery]

I don't know. It's pretty difficult to argue, based on the criteria by which they judged, that Tiger is a better athlete than any one of these guys.

Something that did bother me however, is that Sidney Crosby made it for the hockey players over Alexander Ovechkin. Ovie has the advantage in all that criteria except maybe vision.

[Lemay427]

I agree with Roger Federer being there, even if Tiger was on the list he would be ranked ahead of him as he has done more for tennis than what Tiger has done for golf.

Are you serious?? Tiger is golf. He transformed the business and the popularity of golf when he started in 96. While Federer is extremely talented and probably the best ever in the sport, he does not have as big of an impact as Tiger has done with golf. Tennis has had Agassi, Sampras, etc. I actually think Andre Agassi appeared in more ads than Federer LOL

[DavidFehertysBike]

How is that possible? Tiger is the highest paid player in the world, isnt he?

[Chas]

Tiger isn't there for the same reason that golf isn't an Olympic event.

Nor is croquet for that matter ...

[Ed1]

I agree with Lemay427' Roger Federer is awsome and what he did for his sports is undeniable, but you cannot possibly say that what he did for tennis is more than what Tiger did for golf. I dont see or hear many kids saying "when I grew up I want to be Roger Federer". Where I play there is a clay tennis courts and I would here kids always trying to emmulate Nadal or Patrick Rafter , sometimes I would still here some that still likes Andre Aggasi and Pete Samparas, in the golf course its different' everyone wants to drive the ball like Tiger, even though he is not the best in that department, many tries to copy that Tiger putting that is so clutch and lastly roger never won the "French Open" Tiger won all four majors of his sports.

[CG031]

That's quite funny. Tomlinson is #4, yet, he's not "leaps and bounds" better than other TOP running backs in the N.F.L.

[Three Putt]

I don't think he is a top 200 athlete. He's a golfer in great shape, ....many running backs, wide receivers, tight ends, defensive backs, linebackers, basketball players, gymnasts, track athletes, boxers, ultimate fighters, wrestlers, hockey players, etc... would eat his lunch.



Yes, he's the #1 "sportsman", and the richest athlete of course.

[nico002]

Tiger Woods is not a physically superior or in better shape than Olympic athletes. Its not even close. Tiger Woods is not a top 100,000 athlete.

The guy is in good shape. Thats it. He is not a super human (NFL players, on the other hand, are monsters).

Tiger is an incredible golf talent. You guys have to remember that when Tiger was younger, he was a really lanky dude, and he used to hit the ball even farther.

[clemsontiger]

That thing is so subjective since there is so many athletes to choose from.