Michael Vick, Tiger Woods among US's most disliked athletes

Michael Vick has helped the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles get to the playoffs. But Michael Vick, Tiger Woods, and other athletes are some of the most disliked pro athletes in the US, according to a recent study.

Matt Slocum/AP/File
In this file photo, Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick walks on the field before an NFL football game against the Arizona Cardinals in Philadelphia.

Even after winning the NFL's Comeback Player of the Year award and getting the Philadelphia Eagles in playoff contention the past two seasons, quarterback Michael Vick is disliked by over half of those asked in a Nielsen/E-Poll endorsement score poll.

The results of the poll were published in Forbes magazine. Those who took the poll could respond to each athlete with a vote of "dislike," ”dislike somewhat” or “dislike a lot."

Vick earned a 60 percent dislike score to lead the group of professional athletes. Poll respondents still remember Vick's guilty plea and jail sentence for running a dog-fighting ring out of his home.

Tiger Woods also registered a 60 percent dislike vote from those polled. But the PGA golfer, who's playing in this week's AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am, comes in second due to fewer 'dislike a lot' votes.

Third on this list at 56 percent is New York Jets wide receiver Plaxico Burress, followed by Detroit Lions defensive lineman Ndamukong Suh at 51 percent. Suh was suspended during the just-completed NFL season for stomping on a Green Bay Packers offensive lineman on Thanksgiving Day.

Number five on the most disliked athlete list, at 50 percent, is center Kris Humphries of the NBA's New Jersey Nets.

How about the most beloved athlete? Forbes didn't say, but a poll last month from ESPN offered an answer: Tim Tebow. Three percent of Americans named the Broncos quarterback as their favorite sportsman, placing him above Kobe Bryant (2 percent), Aaron Rodgers (1.9 percent), Peyton Manning (1.8 percent), and Tom Brady (1.5 percent).

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.