What's the Fuss?

I don’t usually disagree with such a respected and powerful publication such as The Wall Street Journal, but I will now. The financial bible of America has typically stayed at bay with its sports reporting, covering it from an arms-length distance. It writes, by many standards, safe, analytical sports stories, that usually concern the most pertinent sports issues that day or week.

On Friday, the Journal went in over its head. The WSJ took up most of a full page with a story headlined “The World’s Greatest Athlete?” The story says that the Journal “asked a panel of sports experts to sift through a mountain of date and pick the fastest, strongest, most agile man of Earth.”

Five judges, mostly exercise health and science experts, from across the country, started with 79 male athletes and came up with 10:

The judges used the following criteria to decide the Top 10: speed; vision and reflex; stamina and recovery; coordination and flexibility; power, strength and size; and success and competitiveness.

So where’s Tiger Woods?

Especially after his remarkable U.S. Open playoff, which was made even more remarkable when it was announced Wednesday that Woods was playing on two stress fractures in his left leg and an injured knee. Now, I bet the voting and design of the package was done well before Woods’ dramatic tournament. But still, why wasn’t he a choice before the Open?

Let’s go through each criteria and how they relate to Woods.

Speed: We don’t know if he’s fast, and that seems to be OK with the Journal. In James’ explanation it says: “He scored high in every category except speed…” So Woods didn’t need to be a speed demon to be considered.

Stamina and recovery: Woods’ average time of performance, a four-round golf tournament, lasts considerably longer than everyone else’s “games” on the list. Woods doesn’t have the benefit of timeouts, halftimes, period breaks or any time to sit and rest. He walks 18 holes per round, which equals roughly four miles per day. Tomlinson would have to run the length of a football field 72 times to reach the length that Woods walks in one round.

Coordination and flexibility: Hitting a golf ball is like hitting a baseball. It needs great hand-eye coordination. On top of that, the torque that Woods puts on his body is not found in any other sport. Even Federer can move his feet when he strikes the ball so he doesn’t put the amount of force that Woods does on his knees.

Power, strength and size: Not many people in this world can hit a golf ball the distance that Woods can. Those who can are usually on some cable specialty show. They can’t play a complete round of golf like Woods can. Look at Woods’ body, it’s comparable to anybody’s in any sport. Woods is listed at 6-foot-1 and 185 pounds. But I’d put his body and physique up against any in the Top 10, certainly against any hockey players.

Success and competitiveness: Come on, there’s really no comparison here. Nobody in the Top 10 has dominated their respective sport like Woods has, individually or on a team. He’s now four majors short of the all-time record, held by Jack Nicklaus. He’s won 10 of his last 13 tournaments, and that includes being off from April to June. He’s arguably the greatest golfer to every play. One of the Journal’s stipulations for the last category examined success as records held and victories, as well as competitiveness, based on the sport’s popularity. While golf isn’t soccer, but it’s one of the most popular sports internationally. A quick Internet search turns up more than 400 million are fans of or play golf worldwide. More than baseball.

Now take into consideration the impact the athlete’s had on their sport. No one tops Woods.

The world knew he was a great athlete before Monday’s 19-hold playoff to defeat Rocco Mediate. But after Wednesday’s revelation of Wood’s injury, which would keep most people, athletes or not, bedridden, it’s hard to think how he’s not the greatest athlete in the world. Not many athletes, if any, for that matter, has played in an entire game, match, meet in Wood’s condition. That alone is another category.

Sports Illustrated doesn’t take on Wall Street, and the Journal shouldn’t take on sports.