Seriously, have you completely missed the growth of basketball in the world the last 20+ years? It has exploded and is still growing. To say basketball isn't a truly international sports shows you have no clue.
That's why I included the (yet), I was implying that WHILE IT IS GROWING, it's not as popular as tennis. It's pretty easy for a sport to "explode" when it was barely watched by anyone outside of the U.S. Defining the words "truly international" is tough, and it seems we have different definitions. Your definition is "sure, maybe a dozen countries worldwide participate in the sport," whereas mine is "sure, maybe 100 countries worldwide have active players participate in tournaments year-round." Your horrendous reading comprehension and snap judgments shows you have no clue. Solid response. Unfortunately it makes your responses even easier to dismiss.
It's silly to try to say one sport, basketball or tennis, requires much more athleticism than the other. They both require strength, endurance, skill, etc. Jordan can certainly do things that Federer cannot, and Federer can do things that Jordan cannot. Jordan is considered the greatest all-time in his sport. Federer may be considered the greatest in his sport when he is done. But nobody other than Tiger Woods can really compete with Jordan in terms of what he did for his sport. Jordan became a truly global icon, a brand. Federer cannot compete with that. Now, to the worldwide popularity argument between basketball and tennis, I don't know how anyone could really accurately say, but I think it might be pretty close. I think it is probably tennis. Obviously tennis lags FAR behind basketball here in the US, but tennis is more popular is more countries around the world. It's like soccer. Soccer is so far ahead of any other sport worldwide in terms of popularity, but most people here will not acknowledge that.
You have to have special genetics to be an NBA player. Namely height. I know there are short players flourishing/ have flourished in the NBA but height is still a premium. That's why some scrub like Brian Cook can make a good living in the NBA. Tennis players start from a very young age to condition their body to the tennis game and as they progress through the years the game wittles down to the players who have better genetics and who have honed their skills above other lesser players. Eye hand coordination and snap reflex are required skills in both sports I would say. More so in tennis since the court is more compact and the ball travels at a higher speed (duh). I would say tennis is more popular on the international scale because you don't need to be tall to succeed in the sport. The athletes don't look like freak of natures like Shaq...(ok insert Serena joke, but honestly you can see that type of girl in your local mall, just not as in shape). Someone like Shaq is hard to miss. That's why I think soccer is still the most popular among team sports internationally, the athletes aren't tall beanpoles so the fans can relate better to them. Same thing with baseball, but you need equipment to play a proper game and soccer you just need a soccer ball and you can make something as goals. American football is still an american thing, that thing they did in europe is the d-league. But specifically to this thread, Jordan in his prime would kick Federer's ass. Jordan was a workout freak and made Tim Grover famous by using him as a trainer. Plus his competitive fire and ego would make sure everyone knows he's number 1 over Federer. Federer kinda mopes around on the court too much for me to think he has just as much competitive fire as Jordan did. (yeah yeah all those grandslams are nice, but like someone said, 4 grandslams in a year over just 1 NBA title a year).
You think only a "dozen" or so countries worldwide have teams competing in full-time basketball leagues or have their own domestic leagues? Is that what you are saying? Just checking on my "horrendous reading comprehension". I don't want to make a "snap judgment" about what you posted. Face it: There is no "yet" to it. Basketball is truly global and the only way you can deny it is to stretch the definition of global to a nonsensical extreme. Just because basketball is still growing doesn't mean it isn't global yet. I guess you didn't realize there are more than 50-60 domestic basketball leagues outside the U.S, including countries in Europe, Asia, South America plus Australia & New Zealand. This discussion is almost laughable. If we are consistent with your tennis standard and use active players participating full-time, your standard of 100 countries is likely achieved or nearly so. Maturity check: Go ahead and believe tennis is more popular globally than basketball. Fine. But admit basketball is global. If you do, props. If not, you're just being purposely dense.
Define global? Read again what I just wrote above about basketball. If that ain't global to you, come back to Earth with the rest of us.
Pete Sampras was a dominant force in tennis in the interim that you mentioned. He did hold the record for career grand slam titles for a few years. American tennis was great in the years between John McEnroe and the rise of Roger Federer.
You know what, you're right. I was the only person who actually believes that tennis is more popular than basketball worldwide. What a crazy assumption that was. How could I not see it all along?
Sure enough. Sampras was an all-time great no doubt, but he didn't captivate me like Federer. I don't really know why.
If Michael didn't retire for 2 season in the mid-90s and would have won 8 straight titles, it would have to be him (even though the Rockets would have beaten them in the Finals anyway :grin: ). But it still really can't be answered since Fed is still playing and, more importantly, winning.
Nice try at a dodge but don't change the subject. You and many others believe tennis is more popular globally than basketball. It's a debatable topic. No problem with that viewpoint at all, but I disagree with it. But you fell off a cliff saying basketball isn't global (yet). Dead wrong is dead wrong whether you admit it or not.
A sport being played and broadcasted in some select countries is just not considered global to me. Tennis is followed in more countries than basketball. Simple as that. I also consider a sport to be global if there is actually a strong fan base, one that lives and dies based on their team's or player's performance. Will basketball continue to grow? Yes. Will basketball expand its popularity to countries that don't watch it currently? Yes. In my opinion, is it 100% globalized? NO.
If you travel to Africa, the Middle East, Latin America or the Caribbean the chances are you would catch some live coverage of a tennis match somewhere amongst the channels offered. I have rarely seen NBA basketball or local basketball leagues covered to any extent overseas. The NBA coverage they have overseas is similar to what European soccer gets in the USA. You usually only get to watch the big games and championship matches on regular cable in the USA.
Not that it really matters in this discussion but Jordan picked up tennis for awhile but was TERRIBLE. He was rated a 4.0, which is your typical fat, old, country club player. I heard Steve Kerr ended up being pretty decent though.
