Tiger Woods might be great but is he really the greatest?

If Pope Benedict XVI was a golf fan, Tiger Woods would already be a saint. Yet deification for the world's best player cannot be too far away if the reaction to his victory in last Sunday's US PGA Championship at Medinah is anything to go by. Indeed, one excitable American sports columnist was driven to describe Woods as the greatest individual athlete of all time. As is the way of the provocative columnist, he then asked readers to send in their votes. The ballots are already being counted (on ESPN.com for anyone who is interested).

As futility goes, surely nothing beats such an exercise. Who is the greatest athlete of all time: Tiger Woods or Muhammad Ali? Babe Ruth or Stanley Matthews? Steve Redgrave or Shergar? Rod Laver or Franz Klammer? You might as well ask what is the most useful item on the shelves of a Tesco supermarket: McVitie's chocolate digestives or Daz washing power?

Yet an intrinsic part of being obsessed with sport is being enthused by pointless comparisons between athletes who share little in common other than their brilliance. Much as I would like to tell you I have spent the four days since Woods won the 12th major of his career pondering the civil liberty implications of profile screening passengers at international airports, the truth is I have spent them wondering if Woods really could be the greatest ever.

I was lucky enough to spend Sunday afternoon following the world No1 around Medinah and can report that he certainly looks the part. Great athletes all have stage presence and he is a Mount Rushmore of a man. Poor Luke Donald, his playing partner for the day, was dwarfed beside him on the tee. The Englishman is an exceptional golfer but looked like a 12-handicapper when measured against Woods.

For all its apparent omnipotence, television does not fully capture the experience of live golf. Its two dimensions magnify the mundane while diminishing the difficult. The most impressive thing about Woods is that he is at his best when required to perform a difficult task. His second shot to the first green was a perfect example. Facing a downhill lie, to a pin that was so inaccessible it might as well have been planted in the middle of the bunker guarding the front of the green, he feathered his ball to six feet, and then rolled in the putt for birdie. Tournament over.

In a purely athletic sense, Woods's effort in the final round was easily the greatest single sporting performance I have ever seen. I can fully understand why so many people agree, but I still cannot comprehend the urge to anoint him as the greatest athlete of all time. That's because I have always taken the view that great athletes become truly great when they use their status shape the society in which they live. When it comes to tennis, I would always take Arthur Ashe over Pete Sampras, even though Sampras was clearly the better player. Ashe was a brilliant as well but he was also a fearless campaigner on issues like racial intolerance and the treatment of Aids patients.

By this measure of social involvement Woods falls short. On the positive side, at least he is not as detached as his great friend Michael Jordan, who once declined to criticise a nasty, racist politician called Jesse Helms on the grounds that "Republicans buy sneakers too". And Woods recently built a learning centre for under-privileged kids in California - a step in the right direction, definitely, but still a long way short of the late Earl Woods's claim that his son would one day change the world.

Maybe he will one day, but until then I will stick by the man who I will always consider to be the greatest athlete of all time: the former world heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali. A great athlete and a man who really did change the world in which he lived.

By Lawrence Donegan

Michael Vick: A Dog Gone Shame

Updated Aug. 23, 2007 (CNN) -- Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick is waiting to hear if he'll ever play professional football again after agreeing to plead guilty and face prison in his federal dogfighting case.

On Wednesday, July 18, a federal grand jury in Richmond indicted Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three other men yesterday on charges related to their alleged operation of a dog fighting ring based at a property Vick owns in southeastern Virginia.

This indictment comes as a result of the April 25 raid on Vick’s house in Surry County, Va. Authorities reportedly found, 66 dogs (most of which were pit bulls), a dog-fighting pit, bloodstained carpets and equipment commonly associated with dog fighting. Vick, who was not at the scene and has repeatedly denied knowledge of dog fighting at the property; has increasingly come under fire from animal rights groups.

Vick, one of the NFL's most exciting players, was charged with competitive dog fighting and conducting the venture across state lines. The 19-page indictment alleged Vick was highly involved in the operation, alleging that he attended fights and paid off bets when his dogs lost. It said he also was involved in the executions of dogs that did not perform well. If convicted, Vick could face a total of up to six years in prison and $350,000 in fines. He could face additional discipline by the NFL, even if he is not convicted.

According to the indictment, Vick decided in his rookie season of 2001, with Phillips and Taylor, to start a dog fighting operation. Vick, who grew up in Newport News, paid $34,000 in June 2001 for a property at 1915 Moonlight Rd. and, according to the indictment, "used this property as the main staging area for housing and training the pit bulls involved in the dog fighting venture and hosting dog fights."

The NFL said the matter would be reviewed under the league’s toughened personal conduct policy. “We are disappointed that Michael Vick has put himself in a position where a federal grand jury has returned an indictment against him,” the NFL said in a written statement. “We will continue to closely monitor developments in this case, and to cooperate with law enforcement authorities. The activities alleged are cruel, degrading and illegal. Michael Vick’s guilt has not yet been proven, and we believe that all concerned should allow the legal process to determine the facts."

However, sources close to Vick say, “He's a pit bull fighter.” An ESPN source said that Vick is“one of the ones that they call 'the big boys': that's who bets a large dollar. And they have the money to bet large money. As I'm talking about large money -- $30,000 to $40,000 -- even higher. He's one of the heavyweights."

Vick's associates, Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor, were indicted on the same charges. The men, who named their enterprise the “Bad Newz Kennels,” developed the property for their dog fighting operation, building a house, "a fence to shield the rear portion of the compound from public view [and] multiple sheds used at various times to house training equipment, injured dogs and organized fights," the indictment said.

The indictment said that in April 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick "executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions by various methods, including hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground." Vick also is alleged to have consulted with Peace before Peace killed a losing dog by electrocution in 2003.

In the U.S., dog fighting is considered a felony in every state except Wyoming and Idaho. Additionally, transporting dogs over state lines for dog fighting is a federal crime.

Despite that fact, according to The Humane Society, it's estimated that somewhere between 20,000-40,000 people in this country take part in this multibillion-dollar industry.

American pit bull terriers account for 99 percent of the species involved in dogfighting, and a pit bull puppy can cost as much as $5,000. An average dog fight carries a $10,000 purse.

Obviously dog fighting is wrong. Dog fighting’s violent nature and appeal to gamblers has made the blood sport a brutal, malicious exploitation of “man’s best friend.” Dog fighting is severely cruel. Most fighting dog breeds, especially pit bulls are intensely loyal dogs and dogfighters exploit their positive characteristics to create violent animals.

The dogs aren't the only ones who suffer. It's impossible to estimate how many other animals and humans have been harmed by violent people who are desensitized to brutality, in part as a result of watching or participating in dog fighting and other forms of animal cruelty. Everyone is familiar with the cliché “Violence begets violence.” Laura Maloney, executive director of the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says, “Research proves that people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people. In addition, fighting enthusiasts often bring young children to the fights, desensitizing them to violence and teaching them that violence is accepted by society.”

References:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
2. http://www.espn.com/
3. http://www.la-spca.org/
4. http://www.hsus.org/

Bittersweet Broken Bonds

Ultimately, August 7, 2007 will go down in history as the day Barry Bond became the temporary home run king. While heads turned and the ball bid the park adieu, Barry Bonds will not reign on the home run throne for long. Nevertheless, congratulations are in order. We are talking about a man that became a lot more muscular, won seven National League Most Valuable Player awards, eight Gold Glove awards, one N.L. batting title, and he played in one World Series. Bonds also became the most polarizing player in baseball.

Nevertheless, baseball has more to do with hand-eye coordination than strength. And with a single, violent swing of his bat, Barry Bonds made baseball history Tuesday in San Francisco, climbing one home run closer to the immortal Hank Aaron.

If you’re a technocrat and want to get all technical, there’s no arguing that Bonds has forcefully redirected 756 pitches into home run territory over his 22 major-league seasons. Yet according to the ziggurat of evidence compiled in the book “Game of Shadows” (http://www.gameofshadows.com/), Bonds also ingested performance-enhancing drugs during his peak slugging period, making some of those home runs less authentic. Question is, how many? How many of Bonds’ home runs are honest? And how many came courtesy of his reported juicing?

If Bonds is proven guilty (which I believe he will be, but no time soon) then I think they should void his homeruns from the 98 season (the height of the scandal) to the 2005 season (which is when I presumed he stopped or moved on to a new steroid). Which means that 73 home run record in 2001 for most homeruns in a season, should be wiped away with due diligence. This seems to me the best and only way to solve the problem and would effectively return Hammer’n Hank Aaron to his rightful position as king.

Across the land, baseball fans, including me who played and watched the game, are unsure what to make of 756 because of the players who achieved success on their own natural abilities. Bonds’ alleged use steroids beginning in the late 1990s, only adds fuel to a late-career explosion in offensive production that is unparalleled in baseball history. Even as Bonds took aim at Aaron’s record this summer, a grand jury continues to investigate him for possible perjury and tax evasion charges stemming from his involvement with an alleged steroids ring.

So, let the debates about the authenticity of Bonds’ record begin. It will be here for a while. It took Bonds more than four years to reach 100 home runs, and almost three more years to get to 200, in July 1993. He hit No. 300 in April 1996, and then needed another two years and four months to reach 400. He hit his 500th on April 17, 2001, then reached 600 in August 2002. No. 700 came two years later.

Regardless, I will let those that choose mourn 755 elsewhere. I will let the authorities claim foul play was involved in its demise. But for today, I will grin and bare and say all hail Bary Bonds the new home run king!

References:

1. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060512
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080702301.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/sports/baseball/08bonds.html?ref=sports