As Basketball fans I think we might lean towards Michael, but you cannot deny this guy Federer. 16 grand slams. And he's still 28. He is a bad, bad man.
This is a basketball forum... despite Federer possibly being the "better" athlete, in this population of sports fans he is not.
I would call it better player instead of better athlete. It's hard to compare two different sports as well. I would say equal for now,but Roger can win more Grand Slams and surpass Jordan. This is just an opinion,not a DD like fact.
In my opinion, Jordan is and always will be a better athlete than Roger, no matter how many grand slams he's already won, I just base this on the fact that Jordan did change the course of development of the basketball, bringing it to the bigger stage and spread it all around the globe.
I base it on the fact that Michael Jordan could probably out-run, out-jump, and most likely kill Federer with his bare hands if he wanted to.
Of course, this all depends on how you define the word "athlete". On the one hand, Jordan could probably jump higher, lift more, run faster etc. On the other hand, I've seen tennis players play for hours in baking hot sun that would bring most basketball players to their knees. And the tennis players are sprinting for each and every ball. It takes amazing hand-eye and endurance to play tennis at that high a level. Still, I've gotta go with Jordan. Because he accomplished what he did against some of the greatest basketball talent of all time. Federer's accomplishments are coming against a weak field. Besides Nadal, the rest of the mens tour is really, really lackluster.
Well, if the quote is not showing a fact, then Federer should be a better athlete than Jordan. At least, for me, before 2003, I didn't even know who Roger Federer is.
For me, Federer is the only relevant tennis player since Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Sort of like Tiger Woods is for golf. If Federer isn't involved, I don't give a care. Men's tennis was totally dead to me until he came around. Jordan is the better athlete by a mile.
LOL? It all depends, as usual, on how we define "athlete." Mocking tennis players is silly though. Have you ever played tennis? The stamina and reflexes these guys (and gals) have is amazing. I would never make fun of them. Anyway, I vote for Jordan.
If they fight in the Thunderdome and metal pipes are thrown into the arena... Advantage Federer, he can swing those pipes, with much greater force.
Tennis players are indeed very good athletes, however, their sport is more dependent on hand-eye coordination, footwork, and reflexes (these seem like more mental than physical skills) than basketball (a more physically demanding sport). Basketball players are mostly knocking on the door of seven feet tall, run like gazelles (for extended periods of time), can jump through the roof, and have lean body mass that rivals most competitive fighters. Better at their respective sport? That could arguably be Federer. Better athlete? Jordan by several lightyears.
MJ played pro baseball, I'm sure he is no slouch. Anyway, you wouldn't need all that much force to hurt someone with a metal pipe. I'll take the freakish Jordan wingspan and MLB background...
Basketball - - - - Volleyball and Tennis... The fact is, there is a bigger talent pool in the main sports. If Lebron James would have grown up playing Tennis, he would completely dominate. What If Dwight Howard grew up playing Volleyball his entire life?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OBQSQg_dOQg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OBQSQg_dOQg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Jordan, enough said...^ --RB
It's apples and oranges. First of all, athletically speaking, Jordan was faster, stronger, and could jump higher. If you are asking who was more dominant, you can't compare 6 championships to 16 grandslams because there are mutliple grandslam tournaments every year while there's only one NBA championship a year, etc and so forth.
Not to mention that basketball is a team sport. No matter how good an individual is, he can't win without good teammates. That's obviously not a concern in singles tennis.
I think you can make an NBA player a decent to good player in other sports. Rather than taking a decent player in other sports and turning them into NBA players. If its about a sportsman's resume, choosing the higher probability - 1) Primary sport: NBA/Secondary sport: __ 2) Primary sport: __ /Secondary sport: NBA I'd lean toward the 1st option. John Lucas was a very good NBA player and good tennis player. Not to say someone like Pete Sampras couldnt play other sports. He was a pretty good runner and jumper. And the qualifier doesnt have to be NBA. Andre Agassi maybe coulda been a great baseball player or soccer player. You can make that claim in any sport that you either "got it or you dont" to be good at the sport. A lot of sports requires unique attributes, such as gymnastics. I'd just have the give the versatility edge to the NBA player.
