Peter King should be banned from sports journalism
Sports Illustrated has awarded their SI Sportsman of the Year award for 2005 to Tom Brady, the quarterback for the New England Patriots.
Actually, it looks more like New England’s number one super fan, Peter King, actually picked this year’s winner (the same writer who announced last year’s winners, the Boston Red Sox).
I know how much you hate to give the award to the same person *twice, but Lance Armstrong’s accomplishments this year were so above-and-beyond what any athlete anywhere else in the world accomplished.
With a win in yesterday’s game, Tom Brady helped improve the Patriot’s record to a very pedestrian 7-5. Lance’s win in the Tour De France this year made him 7-0 over the last seven years in the most grueling and difficult race in the world.
Lance’s win this year not only makes him the undisputed sportsman of the year, but should make him the unmistakable Sportsman of the Decade (and the early front runner for Sportsman of the Century).
I realize that part of the criteria for winning Sportsman of the Year is the athletes off-the-field contributions.
So, quick —
- name Tom Brady’s off-the-field charitable work cause or organization…
- name Lance Armstrong’s charitable foundation…
Not only is Lance unparalleled at riding a bike through the French countryside, but no other athlete has ever been associated with their charity work to the degree that Lance has with cancer and the Lance Armstong Foundation. Arthur Ashe comes closest…and SI gave Ashe the Sportsman of the Year award in 1992 because of his work on AIDS awareness (and because Ashe was on death’s doorstep — Ashe would die two months after winning the award).
Ashe hadn’t played a competitive match of tennis since 1980, but that didn’t stop SI from making him the Sportsman of the Year. So obviously the award is more about politics than it is about awarding an athlete for—well, having excelled in a sport. How else do you explain the winner of the 1987 SI Sportsman of the Year Award — which went to the ambiguous “Athletes Who Care”? WTF, mate?
My prediction for the SI Sportsman of the Year Award for 2006 is the Boston Celtics, who will win the award for some arcane reason—like it being the 20th anniversary of their last championship season. But Peter King will twist and turn to convince us regardless.
*Only one athlete has ever won this feel-good award twice: Tiger Woods in 1996 and 2000.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
Hey man. Good article here. While I agree most people can name name Lance’s charitable work, I think its mostly because of
a) The Yellow Wrist Bands
b) Tour De France gets world recognition
c) the guy licked cancer.
All great things.
But, I don’t think whether people can actually name someone’s charitable work makes them more of a sportsman. Should Tom Brady be the sportsman of the year? Not sure.
I’m not sure what criteria SI uses for it’s annual award either…but it seems to be based on the idea of sportsmanship, defined as: ” conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.”
It seems like the “Sportsman of the Year” should be a combination of:
1) embodies the traits of sportsmanship, and
2) superior athletic achievment in over your rivals
However, SI has been inconsistent in their criteria.
Last year, the Boston RedSox were awarded the honor — based entirely on their finally overcoming “the curse”, but in no way would anybody hold hte Red Sox (with Manny Ramizerz) out as the shining example of sportsmanship. So, in this case, it was all based on athletic achievment.
However, back to Arthur Ashe — Ashe hadn’t played tennis in 12 years, yet was still awarded the honor in 1992. I’m not sure what criteria SI used, as he accomplished nothing on the court, and you can’t be held up as a sportsman when you didn’t even play in a sport. So, it seems the criteria here was former athlete dying of an ugly disease.
Now, let’s look again at Tom Brady — yeah, nice guy. Probalby is involved with some charity work (most NFL players are). But look at his athletic accomplishments this year: very ordinary, and his team will not make it back to the SuperBowl, and will probably miss the Play Offs too.
Back to Lance — the most prolific Charity foundation in this country. His name is synonymous with fighting Cancer. And his 7th straight win in the Tour De France was more historical than anything any other current athlete will ever achieve in their sport.
Well, first of all, it’s obvious that the complaint is simply because Lance Armstrong was not chosen. Sounds like more of a bitterness on the part of the poster. I wonder if Robbie feels that beside Lance Armstrong, there are other athletes worth of the honor.
Personally, I think Tom Brady is an outstanding choice and at a very good time given the behavior of Terrel Owens and the horrible example he puts forth.
Tom Brady is universally respected and admired among his fellow NFL players and coaches. Not just by his team, but, throughout the league. He is a leader that has done more for the sport by promoting and encouraging “team” results. He has lead the Patriots as an equal unit of players, not a disjoined band of egomaniacal “jock-stars”. His humility and his sincerity have earned him the loyalty of his teammates and as a result can be directly attributed to the success of the New England Patriots.
Bravo Sports Illustrated for getting it RIGHT at the RIGHT TIME I might add. Tom Brady is totally deserving of this honor, even if he may not be a flashy, publicity loving choice.
Congratulations Tom and continued success to you and the New England Patriots.
Based upon the things that have been mentioned in the
We witnessed in 2006 an event that was both herculean and monumental in its realization: Lance Armstrong winning his 7th straight Tour de France, and entering into his retirement directly after achieving the feat. And, somehow, the above-average achievements and demeanor of Tom Brady rises above this?? Can someone please genuinely compare these two qualifying entries, and help me understand SI’s decision?
Sorry; SI blew it.
(opps… Make that 2005. Missed digit…)