During the 2006 U.S. Open, there was a fair bit of chatter regarding whether Roger Federer might be able to lay claim in the future to the title as the “greatest athlete” in sports.  Of course, when Tiger Woods, Federer’s new friend, appeared at the men’s finals to cheer Roger on, the inevitable comparisons were made between their careers to date.  For the record, Federer is 25 and now has 9 Grand Slam titles, 5 behind Pete Sampras.  Tiger Woods, who is 30, has 12 golf “Grand Slam” titles, 6 behind the great Jack Nicklaus.  Of course, there are other legendary athletes who could lay claim to the “greatest ever” from Michael Jordan to Michael Schumacher to even Lance Armstrong.  Let alone the great champions from previous generations.  But how do you compare athletes from different sports, let alone different generations?  And what constitutes “greatness”?  Is it the number of major titles someone has won and the longevity of his/her career?  Clearly, the record books matter a lot when one is doing this sort of comparison, but I think natural brilliance at his/her respective sport, a player who can create magic on the court, on the field or along a course is what separates “the great” from “the legendary.”  Those are the athletes who will leave memorable mental images in fans’ hearts, as well as a record number of entries in the history books.