As the world-captivating Tiger Woods saga finally has cooled down (thankfully), I started thinking about another superstar who everyone agrees was an equally accomplished philanderer and playboy…

Babe Ruth.

Now, I’m not going to get into a discussion on Woods’ acts, or whose transgressions were worse, Tiger’s or the Babe’s. I think we can all agree that a married man should not be cheating on his wife with one woman, let alone multiple women.

What I find interesting is this question: How would the escapades of the biggest figure in American sports, Babe Ruth, be handled by today’s media?

Simply put: He would have been destroyed. The mythic hero status he enjoyed then, and still does now for the most part, would never have happened in this instant news, internet, and blogging age of sports media coverage.

As legendary Celtics coach Red Auerbach said in a 1985 Dallas Morning News article on the topic of media and athletes: “Today’s athletes are under much greater scrutiny. Babe Ruth, in this era, would have been torn to pieces by the media.”

And that was BEFORE the internet!

Now, I don’t think we would have heard all the sordid details of the Babe’s life. Much like Tiger, my guess is the Babe would have been savvy enough to build a PR and marketing empire around himself to develop an image he wanted to portray to the public.

But all it would have taken was one slip up — say a car wreck at 2 a.m. in front of your own house — to allow all the dirty laundry to be aired out.

A lot of people like to say that things were better “back in the day” when we didn’t find out about these things. I don’t subscribe to that. I’m not saying it’s necessary to know about every athlete’s extramarital affairs, because it isn’t.

What I am saying is I don’t want to place a player on a pedestal of hero worship who doesn’t deserve it. I accept that Tiger Woods is human, just as I accept that Mickey Mantle was human along with countless other athletes. I think the typical sports fan is in the same boat.

What we don’t like are phonies and fakes. When an athlete portrays a squeaky clean image that is manufactured, I’m fine with the court of public opinion destroying that image when it’s found to be wholly untrue. We know now that Tiger’s image was the product of great marketing. That image is destroyed.

And frankly, I’m fine with that.

Here’s a link to Sam Blair’s 1985 Dallas Morning News story.

What do you think? Was it better “back in the day” when the media wasn’t so intrusive into the lives of superstar athletes? Comment here, or you can e-mail me at gerry.fey@erickson.com.

This is part 3 in a series.

A very good friend of mine, Gerry Fey, senior graphic designer for the Erickson Tribune and I were talking in great length about whether Roger Federer and Tiger Woods were really the best there ever was in their respective sports.

Well, believe it or not, Gerry had an answer and backed it up with facts and stats. His take on the whole subject was fascinating, so I asked him to put it down to share with you all.

Here is his take. Enjoy:

Woods vs. Nicklaus

 Previously, we took a look at Pete Sampras and Roger Federer, trying to determine which tennis player performed best against the strongest competition. Based on our analysis, I think Sampras wins, hands down.

Now to a much more difficult analysis, Tiger Woods vs. Jack Nicklaus. First of all, Nicklaus’ career still outshines Woods’. However, the comparison should chart an equal amount of time, so we’re going to look at Nicklaus’ first 12 years of professional golf, which will equal Woods’ career thus far.

An initial look puts these players neck and neck. Nicklaus ended with 18 majors, but in his first 12 years, he had 12. Tiger, before the U.S. Open in two weeks (which he surely must be considered the favorite), sits at 14 major titles.

But the key is their competition. As we showed with Sampras and Federer, Sampras was winning against Hall of Famers, while Federer is beating Rafael Nadal and that’s about it.

Looking at Tiger’s career so far, from 1997 to 2009, 25 players besides him have won majors, 7 with multiple wins. In the same time frame for Jack, there were 26 other players who won majors, with 6 multiple winners. To me this shows that both eras have a pretty good depth of talent.

Here are the multiple winners in Woods’ era:

Angel Cabrera (2), Padraig Harrington (3), Phil Mickelson (3), Ratief Goosen (2), Vijay Singh (3), Ernie Els (2) and Mark O’Meara (2).

 Here’s Nicklaus’ comparable list:

Arnold Palmer (3)*, Gary Player (6)*, Julius Boros(2)*, Billy Casper (2)*, Lee Trevino (5)* and Tony Jacklin (2)*.

* members of World Golf Hall of Fame

Obviously, from a Hall of Fame standpoint, Jack’s list dominates. However, in my opinion, the World Golf Hall of Fame is a little loose with its inductees and, given time, I would say Harrington, Mickelson, Singh and Els will all end up in the Hall of Fame. Therefore, I’d give a slight nod to Nicklaus, but not by much.

Coming soon:

Part 4- Who did they play?

This is part 2 in a series.

A very good frind of mine, the senior Graphic Designer for the Erickson Tribune, Gerry Fey and I were talking in great length about the weekend’s sporting events and we got into the discussion of whether Roger Federer and Tiger Woods were really the best there ever was in their respective sports.

Well, believe it or not, Gerry had an answer, and backed it up with facts and stats. His take on the whole subject was fascinating, so I asked him to put it down to share with the you all.

Here is his take. Enjoy:

In the list of repeated players, guys who crossed over Sampras and Federer’s careers, here’s how the two faired, record-wise:

Lets’ look at who Federer has beaten to win his grand slams compared to Sampras:

FEDERER

I don’t know about you, but take out Nadal, and you’re looking at a pretty sorry list of competition: Agassi at the end of his career in 2005, Roddick (who many consider to be overrated) and Lleyton Hewitt are about it.

SAMPRAS

If your counting, that’s four Hall of Famers (Rafter, Chang, Becker and Courier) and one future Hall of Famer (Agassi).

I’m going with Sampras over Federer for now. It’s one thing to be great, it’s quite another to dominate the competition when the competition is at its best. And that’s what Sampras did.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering what happened when the two faced each other, it happened only once. Here is a link to it on Youtube. It happened in the 2001 Wimbledon round of 16, a 221-minute thriller that ended with Federer winning 7-6(7), 5-7, 6-4, 6-7(2), 7-5. Knowing what we know now about Federer, wouldn’t you love to go back in time and watch that match again?

If you have any feelings on the subject of who’s the best tennis player, or the comparison between Federer and Sampras, please drop us a note!

Coming soon: Tiger Vs. Jack.

A very good frind of mine, the senior Graphic Designer for the Erickson Tribune, Gerry Fey and I were talking in great length about the weekend’s sporting events and we got into the discussion of whether Roger Federer and Tiger Woods were really the best there ever was in their respective sports.

Well, believe it or not, Gerry had an answer, and backed it up with facts and stats. His take on the whole subject was fascinating, so I asked him to put it down to share with the you all.

Here is his take. Enjoy:

With the golf and tennis worlds getting back to normal this weekend, this seems like an appropriate time to put the accomplishments of Tiger Woods and Roger Federer into the proper light.

I would argue that Woods, right now, is the best golfer ever to play the game, while Federer still has A LOT of work to do for anyone to make the claim that Federer is best.

If you missed the action, Tiger Woods won the Memorial Tournament Sunday, putting him in prime position to make yet another run at the U.S. Open, a major tournament he’s won three times before. By the way, Tiger came back from 4 strokes down to win after shooting a 74 earlier in the tournament, his worst competitive score in two years.

Tiger- The best of the best?

Meanwhile, Roger Federer captured his career sweep of the four grand slam tournaments, finally winning the French Open, his only struggle in an otherwise spectacular resume. He becomes only the sixth player to accomplish the feat.

If you’re counting, that’s 14 grand slam tournaments for Federer and 14 major titles for Woods.

Now, comparing the two is practically impossible, given the different sports they play. However, what I think is possible to do is compare the athletes to their predecessors. Federer ties Pete Sampras for most grand slam wins, while Tiger sits four back from Jack Nicklaus’ unbelievable record of 18 majors.

This snapshot would give the impression that Federer, who still has plenty of tennis left to play, will finish his career head and shoulders above Sampras, while Woods has more work to match Nicklaus.

But let’s look at Federer and Woods’ competition compared to Sampras and Nicklaus.

Looking at the World Tennis Rankings right now, Federer is ranked second behind Rafael Nadal. But that’s not the most interesting stat. Right now, in the top 10, not counting Nadal and Federer, only two players have won a grand slam, Novak Djokovic and Andy Roddick — one each.

Here’s tennis’ current top 10, with their grand slam wins:

Rafael Nadal (6)
Roger Federer (14)
Andy Murray
Novak Djokovic (1)
Juan Martin del Potro
Andy Roddick (1)
Gilles Simon
Fernando Verdasco
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
Fernando Gonzalez
 
In contrast, here are the tennis rankings on June 7, 1999, which was the 11th pro season for Sampras, equal to Federer’s current career:

Yevgeny Kafelnikov (2)
Patrick Rafter (2)
Pete Sampras (12)
Andre Agassi (5)
Richard Krajicek (1)
Tim Henman
Gustavo Kuerten (1)
Alex Corretja
Marcelo Rios
Mark Philippoussis
 
Sampras’ competition, by this chart, was much tougher. Basically, these days it’s Nadal or Federer and that’s it. Also, take into account that Federer’s first season as a professional was 1998. He did not win a grand slam until Wimbeldon 2003. Now let’s look at those who have won grand slams NOT named Nadal or Federer since 1998:

Djokovic, Roddick, Marat Safin, Gaston Giaudio, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andre Agassi**, Sampras, Lleyton Hewitt, Albert Costa, Thomas Johannson, Goran Ivonisevic, Gustavo Kuerten, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Patrick Rafter*, Petr Korda, Carlos Moya.

These are the players NOT named Sampras who won grand slams from 1988-1999, the first 11 years of Sampras’ career:

Kafelnikov, Rafter*, Agassi**, Richard Krajicek, Kuerten, Moya, Korda, Boris Becker*, Thomas Muster, Sergi Bruguera, Jim Courier*, Stefan Edberg*, Michael Stich, Andres Gomez, Ivan Lendel*, Michael Chang*, Mats Wilander*.

Bold denotes repeats. *-denotes Hall of Famer. **-denotes probable Hall of Famer

You be the judge on which list is more impressive. Eight Hall of Famers won grand slams in Sampras’ first 11 years of tennis. Sure, some of Federer’s competition could put together Hall of Fame careers, but I don’t think so.

Part 2 coming soon-

“Digging Deeper: Who did they beat?”