Roger Federer is the greatest athlete of all time.
Debate Rounds (5)
1. Be respectful.
2. This is fun debate. Because I like to argue :D
3. We can't say anything negative about the other persons athlete. For example, your athlete sucks, etc. We can however compare each others athletess. For example federer is more fun to watch than your athlete, etc.
Federer dominated tennis for several years. He is definitely the most dominant athlete of all time I think that makes him the best athlete of all time.
I accept this debate. I will be arguing for the one and only Bo Jackson, whom I believe is the greatest athlete of all time. After you, opponent.
To be the greatest athlete ever you at least have to be the best in your respective sport in these two lists I found, Bo Jackson wasn't even in the top ten in baseball of football.
Roger Federer is hands down the best tennis player of all time because he has more grand slams (17) than anyone else. Which is the stat that is usually used to measure the best of all time in tennis. Also he dominated in the best era of players tennis has ever had competing with the likes of fellow greats who will go on to be considered some of the best athletes of all time like Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and depending on how many more slams he gets by the end of his career Andy Murray. Roger Federer is definitely the best tennis player ever and in my humble opinion the greatest athlete of all time.
I Also want to cite tomorrow's final with Del Potro. Watch it, You will see that his play is awe-inspiring. Also keep in mind Roger is 32 and most players best years are well in the past at his age. He isn't as good as he used to be but he's still pretty amazing.
"To be the greatest athlete ever you at least have to be the best in your respective sport..."
Not necessarily true. You then show two lists in which he is not ranked in each's top ten. Jackson was, however, voted as the greatest athlete of all time by ESPN. Numero uno. As the head of the survey said, "Being an athlete is a different analysis... We are not discounting how great of a player an athlete was, but we're factoring in different aspects, for example, we will look at strength, power, speed, quickness, reaction time, endurance, durability, in addition to weighing in on an athlete's resume, clutch performances and the overall difficulty of their sport." Bo Jackson beat out all the other athletes that made it into the bracket. (1)
Oh, and I'll give you three guesses who Jackson beat out in the very first round. Something tells me you know. And to show another list, Federer isn't even in the top five in the Association of Tennis Professional's ranking. (2)
"Roger Federer is hands down the best tennis player of all time because he has more grand slams (17) than anyone else. Which is the stat that is usually used to measure the best of all time in tennis. Also he dominated in the best era of players tennis has ever had..."
Key word in all of those statements being "tennis". Federer does not have the strength or stamina to handle a sport like football. This is not a matter of opinion- they guy just wasn't built for it. Same goes for baseball, at least less so. I'll give Federer the benefit of the doubt that he could handle the endurance portion of baseball, but the actual act of hitting the ball would be beyond him. Rackets and bats are not equal playing fields. The conditioning required for baseball and football are incredibly difficult, and a sport like tennis does not require such endurance. This isn't to say that tennis is easy- Federer being called one of the greatest athletes of all time speaks to the fact that it requires skill. But Jackson beating out Federer by a substantial margin in two sports outweighs Federer beating Jackson that same margin at one.
Also, one does not become "hands down the best" because they have the most of one award. We can't forget that he's tied with Pete Sampras for most Wimbledon singles champions and US Open singles titles (along with Jimmy Connors). (4) Federer also barely edged out Sampras for weeks spent at World No. 1. (5)
"...keep in mind Roger is 32 and most players best years are well in the past at his age."
Jackson was still playing just shy of 32. Same concept applies.
I wanna give you a few facts about Bo Jackson.
1. In 1985, Jackson was awarded the coveted Heisman trophy- "The most prestigious award in collegiate football"
2. The following year, Jackson set the record for fastest 40-yard dash in the NFL, which remains 25+ years later.
3. On this note, Jackson was also offered a career in track and field for his sprinting capabilities, speaking to his phenomenal ability in multiple sports.
4. Jackson is still the only athlete to be named an All-Star in two major-league American sports.
And this is the best one...
5. In 1991, during a football game, Jackson was tackled and left his hip incredibly damaged (Jackson alleges that the hip was dislocated, and that he moved it back into its socket). This ended his football career. Jackson, undaunted, went on to make a recovery, and continued to play baseball despite having a fake hip. Not only this- on his first at-bat, he hit a home-run. Still not satisfied, Jackson tried his hand at basketball, and ended up on a semi-pro team. Only a phenomenal athlete could get a hip replaced, continue a baseball career, and end up on a semi-pro team of a completely new sport.
All facts come from (3).
"Federer does not have the strength or stamina to handle a sport like football." Depends what kind of football your talking about Roger was part of the Swiss junior national football team before he had to give it up to focus soley on tennis. I also can't help but disagree that football needs more stamina than tennis. They are a lot longer matches you don't spend half of it on the sidelines and conditions are generally harsher because of the time of year football is played while the outdoor tennis season is played in temperatures over 30C Celsius a lot of the time.
Bo Jackson is a pretty tough guy playing professional baseball and semi-pro basket ball with a fake hip. But Federer made the finals of Wimbledon the Roland Garros and won the Us Open in 2008 when he had mono. He has also been battling a bad back for many years now and still playing good tennis. Also he has the record for most consecutive grand slam appearances. He has played 1126 tour level matches and never retired with an injury in any of them.
You also listed a lot of impressive records awards and achievements that Bo has. However, that probably won't do your argument any good because when it comes to records no athlete on the planet can come close to Roger. Here is a list from http://www.rogerfederer.com... You can also check this link out for grand slam results and year end rankings.
Records and Awards
4x Laureus Sports Award, World Sportsman of the Year (2005-2008)
5x ITF Player of the Year (2004-2007, 2009)
3x L"Equipe"s Champion of Champions (2005-2007)
10x Fan"s Favorite, ATPWorldTour.com (2003-2012)
8x Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award (2004-2009, 2011, 2012)
1x Arthur Ashe Humanitarian of the Year (2006)
1x Swiss of the Year (2003)
5x Swiss Athlete of the Year (2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2012)
1x Swiss Team of the Year, together with Stanislas Wawrinka (2008)
Special edition stamp by Swiss Post (2007, as the first person still alive)
Special edition stamp by Austrian Post (2010)
Grand Slam tournaments
(not including records at single Grand Slam tournaments)
Most Grand Slam tournaments won (17).*
Most Grand Slam finals played (24).*
Titles at all four Grand Slam events (also: Perry, Budge, Laver, Emerson, Agassi, Nadal). Roger is the only player next to Agassi and Nadal to have won these tournaments on three different surfaces.
Victory in his first seven Grand Slam finals (Series ended at the French Open 2006; record shared with Sears).
Three victories at Grand Slam tournaments in the same season during three years (2004, 2006, 2007).
At least four victories at three different Grand Slam tournaments.
Five victories respectively in series at two different Grand Slam tournaments (Wimbledon 2003"2007, US Open 2004"2008).
Most years with at least two Grand Slam titles (5; 2004-2007, 2009; record shared with Emerson).
Reached final of every Grand Slam tournament at least five times.
Most consecutive semi-finals at Grand Slam tournament (23; Wimbledon 2004 " Australian Open 2010).
Most consecutive quarter-finals at Grand Slam tournaments (36; Wimbledon 2004 " Roland Garros 2013).
Most Grand-Slam semifinals played (33).
Reached all Grand Slam finals in two consecutive years (2006 and 2007).
Reached all Grand Slam finals in three years (2006, 2007 and 2009).
Eleven matches in series won at Grand Slam tournaments without dropping a set (Australian Open and French Open 2007; John McEnroe also achieved this 1984).
Most consecutive sets won at Grand Slam tournaments (36; Australian Open and French Open 2007).
Most aces in a Grand Slam final (50, Wimbledon 2009).
Consecutive weeks at number one of the world rankings (237; 2.2.2004-18.8.2008).
Most points at the end of the season in both rankings.
Most weeks no. 1 (302)
Most consecutive final victories (24; until 2005).
Victories against players from the top-ten (26; 2003"2005).
Longest series of victories on grass (65; 2003"2008).
Longest series of victories on hardcourts (56; 2005-2006).
Ten or more tournament titles in three consecutive years (2004-2006).
Singles titles won within three seasons (34, 2004"2006).
Highest rate of victories over three years (94,3%, 2004-2006).
Highest rate of tournament victories over three years (69,4%, 2004-2006).
Reached 16 out of 17 finals in tournaments played within a season (2006).
12 tournament titles in one season (2006; record shared with Thomas Muster).
Those are so many records I'm sure you didn't even read half of them.
Pete Sampras would probably be second in the running for best tennis player of all time and he doesn't have a French open tittle. Federer does and he won it in an era where Nadal has dominated on clay. He also has the second highest win percentage on clay behind Rafael Nadal if they weren't in the same era there is no way Sampras would be any where near Federer in Grand slams or weeks at number 1.
I hate these 24-hour limit debates. I'll post as much as I can and comment the rest for this round, if that is alright by my opponent. If not, I understand, and I will post the rest in the next round.
"Different sports players have different life spans for instance tennis players only play till their early thirties many baseball players play till there thirties tennis is a much harder sport physically and that's why many guys who get to that age are not able to compete with the younger guys."
I promise you, tennis player's do not spend the rest of their retirement in pain. Over 90% of retired NFL players face daily aches and pains (1). Football players face the hardest workouts and endure countless tackles over their career, even NFL medical standards are sub-par according to physicians (2).
"Roger was part of the Swiss junior national football team before he had to give it up to focus soley on tennis."
Yeah, middle-school football is a tad less difficult than college-level. (3). He could not play football nowadays. He does not have the build or the strength today. His body structure could not handle the strain of the tackles.
TyTennis forfeited this round.
This is the rest of my previous round's argument from the comments. I'll post it here while my opponent gets back (hopefully).
"They are a lot longer matches you don't spend half of it on the sidelines and conditions are generally harsher..."
Perhaps endurance was the wrong word. In tennis, you are not regularly tackled and slammed to the ground or run headfirst into a person running headfirst into you. Maybe the running isn't consistent like in tennis, but those things make up for it. In football, they train in the 30 C temps, and finish their season when it is snowing and hailing, and every weather pattern in between. A tennis match will be canceled due to rain. (1) To put it bluntly, tennis conditions are child's play compared to football.
"But Federer made the finals of Wimbledon... when he had mono"
"Especially in adolescents and young adults, the disease is characterized by fever, sore throat and fatigue". This doesn't sound nearly as bad as a fake hip. Point dismissed. As for the bad back and never canceling due to injury (good on him, though, that's impressive), you have to agree that the injuries faced when playing football are much more severe than those in tennis. I hardly think that's an opinion thing.
As for all of the awards, good on Federer. I'll admit that Jackson doesn't have anywhere near that many. But you have to understand that tennis isn't the same sport as football by a long-shot. There are dozens of tournaments, championships and nitpicky records of consecutive appearances in the quarters and series of victories on grass and hardcourt... this is unnecessarily finicky. Not a single football, basketball, soccer, hockey, whatever player has that many records because the games are not played similarly at all or rank such unneeded records. No one will ever win an award for being the first shortstop to get three outs four years in a row at home, because no one feels that it's necessary. This isn't to demean the awards... many of them are impressive... but there are really no comparisons to any other sport, and thus can't be compared.
TyTennis forfeited this round.
Federer is an astounding athlete, but he has neither the strength, speed or skill that Jackson has, and that's only in one sport. The fact that Jackson was able to continue his baseball career despite a replaced hip (and picked up a semi-pro sport) is something out of this world. Again, I reiterate Jackson was called ESPN's greatest athlete of all time. And like I said before, even though Jackson doesn't have the amount of awards Federer does, this is mostly because tennis is a completely different sport and no other sport is even comparable.
I guess vote for whoever made the better argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.