(12-27-2018, 08:59 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Lebron and Serena take the honors. Guess winning isn't important anymore.
And to keep it Stanford related, Katie had a pretty good year:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/sports/rev...cle/538110
Luck is poised to be NFL Comeback Player of the Year and even Tiger Woods finished 2nd in the Fed Ex Cup Standings.
Somebody. Please. Help me understand.
LeBron is the best male athlete in the world, and Serena is the best female athlete in the world. That's probably why they won the awards for best male and female athlete, respectively.
Katie would have been a fine choice, sure. And she
did win last year. But what Serena did in coming back last year was breathtakingly good. She had no business competing at that level, and she fought her way to the Wimbledon and U.S. Open finals. In a year where, as Lorcan noted, there were four different Grand Slam winners, no one stood out as having the best year in women's tennis. In both of those runs to the final, I was just stunned at how she was doing this with obviously inadequate training time. So, sure, she didn't win a Grand Slam last year. I still thought what she did was the most impressive year of any woman on tour. Do you give it to Halep, the only other player to make two Grand Slam finals last year? Serena didn't play the Australian and withdrew due to injury early on in the French. In the two Grand Slams where they both participated fully, Serena did better, so it's hard to say Halep was more impressive. Putting it in the context of returning after giving birth is impressive as well. It's incredibly rare to come back and reach the same level you were before. Kim Clijsters did it impressively back in '09, but the last player before her to win a Grand Slam after giving birth was Margaret Court in 1972, which was a different world in women's tennis. Other women athletes may have had better results, but I don't think any woman had a more
impressive athletic year than Serena did. And that's good enough for me.
And LeBron is one person who plays a team sport. I thought he was the best player in the NBA last year, and his team lost to the Warriors in the finals because, shockingly, the Warriors had several more good players than the Cavs did. It would have been a joke if the NBA or the AP gave the Cavs the "Best Team" award after they lost in the Finals, but they didn't do that, so that's a relief. Sometimes the best player in the league isn't on the best team in the league. And due to the crazy athleticism evident in the NBA every night, the best player in the NBA is easily on the shortlist for best male athlete around. But who's the alternative? Andrew Luck has been great, but he hasn't had the most impressive year for a quarterback, and his team probably won't even win its division, so how do we make him the greatest male athlete? (And I say this as the guy who makes the "he's most VALUABLE because he's more essential to his team's success than any other player" argument to anyone who will listen.) And Tiger Woods, as you note, finished 2nd in the standings of his individual sport. (I actually think there's a case to be made for Tiger similar to Serena--the comeback is half of what makes the actual achievements so impressive.) Every time I see LeBron play, I marvel that I get to watch the greatest athlete I've ever seen.
I mean, this is just a little award voted on by AP sports editors as to which man and which woman were the most impressive athletes of the year. The games, matches, and tournaments all still happened the same way. The NBA Finals still turned out the same way. It's all gonna be ok.
