You mock what you do not understand: I'm willing to concede some of what you say, but it doesn't really address what I'm looking for. I don't care if football is a harder sport than baseball, and, obviously, the actual game of tennis is more physically demanding than golf. What I'm curious about is whether it's harder for a given athlete or team, within their own sport, to rise to a level of dominance signified by winning the ultimate championship, or even sustaining excellence over a period of time. Is it harder for the best golfer to rise to the top than the best tennis player? Is the sheer physical demand of "putting the shot" greater than the dexterity and touch needed to....uh....whatever the hell you do to the tiddlywink.

As to the stupidity of le Tour, that's just your silly bias. All sports are games, which are childish and unproductive wastes of time (unless there's a fat Nike contract in there somewhere, in which case it's commerce, a noble endeavour indeed). The only thing that distinguishes tennis from badminton is the length of the grass and the amount of perspiration (in fact, these people are pretty serious about their shuttlecocks).

Clearly I'm trying to compare apples and oranges (or pigskins and horsehides), but if you could find the right factors and standardize them for each sport, you could derive a relative difficulty for any achievement. Or, I could just say fuck it. And watch some NASCAR.