Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Did a search for this...hope it's not a repeat.

...

As I see it, there's two ways of looking at this.

1. Best Athlete = Dominance in their sport

2. Best Athlete = Overall athleticism.

Example: Babe Ruth was super-dominant in his sport. But he was also fat and kinda out of shape, even during his prime. He'd be really high for the first criteria, and really lower for the second. Someone who would be high there would be someone like Deion Sanders, who was successful at two sports and was an obvious natural athlete.

My list will be based on #1, not #2. I also take into account how hard it is to be dominant in a particular sport. Thus, the most dominant wrestler isn't weighted as much as, say, the most dominant soccer player, simply because so many more people have played soccer throughout history.

1. Pele

2. Secratariat (the horse)...I dare someone to argue with me at this. Possibly the most dominant athlete ever, even if he wasn't human.

3. Mohammad Ali

4. Jim Thorpe (at one point he was arguably the best baseball and football (american football) player on the planet and also was a gold medalist in the decathalon. By any measure, a superb athlete)

5. Josh Gibson. (Do a google search. Kid was playing in the baseball Negro Leagues at the same time that Babe Ruth lived. And he was better. Lots better (see: 900+ home runs in a comparable span of time)....and by all accounts his league was every bit as good as the major leagues during that era. The physical stats that could be kept were similar, and they'd win the majority of cross-league all-star games, where Gibson had a 400+ batting average against the best pitchers of the regular league.)

Just missing the cut are people like Jordan, Diego Maradona, Jack Nickluas, Donald Bradman, and Lance Armstrong.

...

I'm interested to see what others think. So...go!

-DM

1.Deion sanders-The guy played 2 sports dominated in football and did pretty good in baseball.

2.Bo jackson-Also Played 2 Sports and was very good

3.Micheal jordan-nuff said

1. PELE

2. Micheal Jordan

3. Babe ruth

4. Tiger woods

best is objective... the one athlete i most respect would be Lance Armstrong

I think the top 5 are Pele, Muhammad Ali, Lance Armstrong, Jesse Owens, Mark Spitz.

-AC

Michael Johnson must be worth a mention.

I'd say Jordan, Ali, Pele, Armstrong and Moses Kiptanui (I like his name).

i think i'd have to go for lance also

Ali, Bruce Lee, Jordan, Thorpe, Montana

I'm assuming most of you are going by the first criteria (except for silverspider who seems to have gone with the second).

Everyone's answer seem rather logical and good, though I'd argue against Montana being top 5...you can make arguments for other quarterbacks being as dominant as him, let alone other sports. And I'd honestly have Jerry Rice as my top-ranked football player. No one else is as clear of a "best player ever at his position" than Rice (at football at least). Jim Brown would probably be next in terms of sheer dominance.

By best athlete ever, I'd name people who either were very good to great at many things (stength, speed, stamina, accuracy, agility...combo of those things) or could be "perceived" very good to great at many things. Too many people are being mentioned due to statistical achievements and/or their names. If we're talking purely raw, God given skills, some of these people shouldn't even be in the conversation/team photo with all due respect to your opinions.

For example, I could be wrong, but (and I a big fan mind you), I don't see Ali dribbling a basketball around a defender baseline for a dunk, AND hitting a home run over the green monster, AND taking a soccer ball end to end for a goal. ...am not bashing Ali here people, but please.

Yes, some of it's subjective, but try to look at this as objectively and analytically as possible.

Case in point, Lance Armstrong is the best cyclist ever, but I could probably strike him out the plate, run over him with a football, and possible give him a run in a one on one game of basketball. When you break it down like this, it's easy to see why some of these shouldn't be considered the greatest athlete ever. And please don't give me the cancer argument, ok? Yes, I don't know, nor ever want to know what it means to be a cancer victim and survivor, but this is NOT a reason for choosing him.

Off the top of my head, Bo Jackson (no explanation) and Jim Brown (All American in 4 sports?!) come to mind. The other 3 would be very difficult to come up with.

Ali wasnt even the most dominant boxer of all time so i dont see how he qualifies for #1 and he definantly wasnt #2

Originally posted by BobbyD
By best athlete ever, I'd name people who either were very good to great at many things (stength, speed, stamina, accuracy, agility...combo of those things) or could be "perceived" very good to great at many things. Too many people are being mentioned due to statistical achievements and/or their names. If we're talking purely raw, God given skills, some of these people shouldn't even be in the conversation/team photo with all due respect to your opinions.

Right. Hence my 2 different criteria that I established at the top. But you present the idea very well that you can go off of dominance or simply raw talent. And yes, Bo Jackson would be up there based on the latter of those two.

But any list should differentiate between the two criteria, since the lists for both would be vastly different.

Originally posted by forumcrew
Ali wasnt even the most dominant boxer of all time so i dont see how he qualifies for #1 and he definantly wasnt #2

Interesting. I always suspected that maybe Ali's "aura" made him seem better than he really was. Who would you say is the best then?

Digimark, I see your point. However, we'll just have to disagree with one of your ways one can be greatest athlete. All in all a good thread.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Digimark, I see your point. However, we'll just have to disagree with one of your ways one can be greatest athlete. All in all a good thread.

Fair enough. And thanks. I have all sorts of arguments with my friends over this too....it's quite fun. I stand by Pele, while one of my friends thinks Secretariat should be #1 (I just refuse to have a horse as my best athlete ever) . Another thinks Jordan, and then a 4th agrees with you and thinks it should be solely athletic talent.

The only question that has not been answered is how long a period of dominance has to last in order to qualify. If we are talking about an entire career of dominance then the list looks a lot different than if we are talking about a span of dominance lasting for say 5 to 10 years. If the dominance factor is for a career then the list goes something like:

1. Pele: People that do not know anything about soccer/football are aware of Pele's ability. Case in point if you go out on the street and ask someone about Pele they mat not know anything about soccer but they can tell you he was great. He won three world cups with Brazil, and scored over a thousand goals. He made soccer in America relatively popular. This man is by far the greatest athlete of all time. If there are still doubters check out any stat book.

2. Jim Brown: This one is easy over 12,000 yards in nine seasons. Five time MVP, nine-time pro-bowler, 5.2 yards per carry. He revolutionized the position of tailback/fullback. It took Walter Payton 13 seasons to break this record and no one has come close to 5.2 yards per carry. By far and away the most dominate player in Football history. Some say Jerry Rice is the most dominate and I disagree for these reasons: Jerry Rice never touched the ball as much as Jim Brown nor did he alter defenses the way Jim Brown did. Jerry Rice has two men to thank for his success and those are Paul Brown and Bill Walsh. Their schemes changed football not Rice's talent. Jim Brown made the team the team did not make him.

3. Secretariat/Man o War: Both of these horses were the best of the best and it is hard to separate the two. Both of these horses dominated their sport and combined lost one race. Man o War lost one race to a horse named Upset. This was such a surprise that it entered the vernacular to beat someone considered better was to pull an upset. The two most successful horses and equal to each other. Would love to see them race.

4. Babe Ruth: I know Josh Gibson is the more popular pick now a days or Willie Mays or Ted Williams. Simply put Ruth is, was, and always will be the most dominating player in history. This has to do with his hitting of course, but also his pitching ability. Ruth was not only a hall of fame hitter he would have been a hall of fame pitcher. He won over ninety games out of 160 pitched, he had a 2.24 era, he had a whip of 1.16, Ruth had 17 shutouts, he also had 4 saves (not bad for a starting pitcher coming out of the bullpen). The bulk of these pitching statistics came in only six seasons of work. Then you add his hitting and the fact that he still holds the highest career slugging percentage in baseball history. He was probably drunk or hung over for many of these appearances. Imagine if he was sober. Amazing isn't it.

5. Wayne Gretzky: For starters he has more assists than any other player has points. He made his team better and he was by far the most dominating player in the NHL. He scored fifty goals in only 39 games. He holds every major record in the NHL. This is different than Jerry Rice because everyone would agree that Wayne Gretzky was better than Paul Coffey or Mark Messier. Not everyone would agree that Joe Montana owes his career to Rice. Seeing as how Montana won a Super Bowl without Rice. Gretzky out performed everyone in the regular season and the playoffs. He was unreal.


Just missing out was: Wilt Chamberlain, Dan Marino, Bill Russell, Tiger Woods (career is not over yet otherwise he is on the list), Jerry Rice, Willie Mays, George Mikan, Jack Johnson, Mohammed Ali

Nice commentary there Buzzkiller. I'd disagree with Ruth over Gibson, but he's definitely close. I'd also disagree with Gretzky....I honestly don't even think he was the best hocky player ever (I'd support Mario Lemieux here, and I can back it up if needed... ). But your top 3 are very well-reasoned, and you at least have good reasons for 4-5, even if I disagree. Jim Brown should probably be higher on my own list, and I had forgotten about ManoWar.

The only reason I have Ruth on the list at all is because of his pitching ability and his dominance in that realm of the game. In my opinion Ruth nor Gibson should be considered simply because of their hitting. If a player is simply one dimensional then they are not truly dominant in a sport such as baseball or basketball. This is what prevented me from placing some people on my list.

The whole Lemieux vs. Gretzky argument is one that could go on forever. Both players were extremely talented and dominated any game they played in. The only reason I support Gretzky over Lemieux is longevity and no serious injuries. Lemieux had his career unfairly cut short on several occasions and that prevented him from being as good as he could be.

Another question I had was if we were talking about a span of dominance instead of a career dominance. If we are talking about a span of dominance then names like Mike Tyson, and Michael Jordan should be considered. Just a thought. A span of dominance could be an interesting thread as well.

Yeah, it's an interesting variable to look at.

And I'll try not to dwell on the Lemieux thing, but the primary reason(s) I support him is that he is nearly as good as Gretzky's points-per-game (they're 1 and 2 all-time) and he played in a much lower-scoring era than the Gretz did. If you compare his point totals to league averages, he was doing better for his time than Wayne. He was also a better defenseman...bigger and tougher and all...which would go toward your total dominance thing (which is why, understandably, some people have Willie Mays as the best baseball player ever over someone like Gibson). Gretzky's one argument (and also the point I must concede) is longevity. But that's it. I'd take Lemieux in his prime over Gretzky.

But yeah, the argument changes depending on how you judge the players' duration of dominance. Which is why any good list has to come with asterisks like this because there isn't a set formula for determining the best player ever. But that's also what makes for good discussions.

I will have to give you the Lemieux was a better defender, simply because he was. Edmonton never asked Gretzky to play defense they simply wanted to outscore people. I can completely understand holding Gretz's era against him, but if we do that then we have to reconsider almost everyone in sports history. The question that has to be answered is this: Which of the players were truly more dominant? Mario made Jagr famous, Gretz made Messier, and Coffey famous. Gretz also won a lot of games for Grant Buhr. Gretz is the easy pick and the arguments are easier to make. Lemieux is the gutsy pick and the fact that you know your stuff is impressive. You are a pretty cool cat Digi.

Thanks, and ditto. I agree Gretzky is the easier argument. And living near Pittsburgh, I get called a homer all the time for backing Mario, so I have to know my stuff to be able to justify it. It's a fun argument to have, though, because too many people just assume Gretzky was loads better than the next best hockey player ever, so they're shocked that I can argue for someone else. And even if he's the best, it's not by nearly as much as they think.

...

So back on topic, we're also in agreement on Pele. Long-term domination, and he was far and away the best player in the world's most popular sport. I've actually heard random arguments for Diego Maradona over Pele, but they don't seem to hold too much water. I don't really know enough to say for sure though, so I stick with Pele until someone proves me wrong.

1) Michael Jordan

2) Maradona/Pele

3) Ali

4) Federer

5) Armstrong

Lol. Federer.

Eventually, yes, he'll probably be there. But I'm not ready to put him there yet (same with Tiger in golf). I'd also question his competition. Sampras would've had 20+ majors if Agassi hadn't been around (and probably bice versa for Andre). Roddick is hardly Agassi-caliber (in his prime, that is) and no one else has stepped up. They're practically handing majors to Federer. Whereas, with Tiger, you can't question the level of his competition...golf's as good as it's ever been, and probably better.

For now, though, Pete's still the man in tennis in my book.

Originally posted by Bow Wow
1) Michael Jordan

2) Maradona/Pele

3) Ali

4) Federer

5) Armstrong

Okay, first of all Michael only truly dominated basketball, for about six to eight years. Bill Russell dominated basketball for ten to twelve years. So one could argue that MJ is not even the most dominant player in his own sport. Up until Jordan acquired Pippen as a teammate he was simply Kobe without Shaq. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain were just as dominant if not more dominant than MJ. MJ's career stats per game are: 15 Seasons 1072 38.3 11.4 22.9 0.5 1.7 6.8 8.2 1.6 4.7 6.2 5.3 2.3 0.8 2.7 2.6 30.1. Chamberlain's are a bit more impressive: 14 Seasons 1045 45.8 12.1 22.5 5.8 11.4 22.9 4.4 2.0 30.1. And do not forget this is not even counting Wilt's blocks and a few other stats that were counted then. So Wilt was better statistically and Russell won more Championship. So to say that MJ was more dominant than any other athlete in history is a bit fallacious, because he is not even the most dominant in his sport.

Placing Maradona in the same place as Pele seems like trying to compare Pele was far more dominant than Maradona. The ultimate example is like I said everyone, including my girlfriend who knows nothing of sports, knows who Pele is. Maradona was a great player, do not get me wrong, but he was not in the same league as Pele.

Ali was one of the greatest boxers of all-time and was jipped out of the prime of his career. However, Joe Louis was just as dominant as Ali. And one cannot forget about Tyson, if you want to talk about a span in a career. I love Ali and love what he did in the ring but he simply was not dominant enough for long enough.

Federer HAHAHA. Maybe in five to ten years, when he has done what Sampras did. Like Digi said Federer has no Borg, Agassi, McEnroe, or Conners to compete with.

Armstrong is and was a great athlete but he is simply not in the same category as the rest of these athletes.

for dominance i would have to say valentino rossi of moto GP

you could argue against because he's more of a sportsman than an althete but his record speaks for itself

7 times world champion...won more grand prixs than any other rider in the sports history...

he is on course to win another championship this year...

"Placing Maradona in the same place as Pele seems like trying to compare Pele was far more dominant than Maradona. The ultimate example is like I said everyone, including my girlfriend who knows nothing of sports, knows who Pele is. Maradona was a great player, do not get me wrong, but he was not in the same league as Pele."

look at the team that pele had behind him for brazil when he won the world cup in 1970...rivelino, tostao, gerson, carlos alberto, Jairzinho..all brilliant players

then on the other hand you look at who maradona had in 86...the only other player with exceptional ability was burrachaga...

That's what I've heard about Maradona....just as good, but not as good of a team around him.

All I know is that I once saw a highlight reel of Pele.....he was like Barry Sanders but with a soccer ball. He scored a goal one time without touching the ball...he just faked out the goalie so bad he missed it.

So I can't confirm which is the best, but Pele's World Cup's certainly help him in the "dominant" category, even if it wasn't all him.

pele was a brilliant goal scorer...he could finish equally well with both feet and his head...the problem i have with him is that he never proved himself in european club football because he only ever played in brazil (except at the end of his career) and the brazilian leagues weren't of the standard of European football at the time

maradona was far more skillful with the ball at his feet...the only people that came close were johan cruyff and marco van basten...and perhaps more recently ronaldinho and zidane

Originally posted by jaden101
pele was a brilliant goal scorer...he could finish equally well with both feet and his head...the problem i have with him is that he never proved himself in european club football because he only ever played in brazil (except at the end of his career) and the brazilian leagues weren't of the standard of European football at the time

You obviously know more about soccer than me so I won't refute what you're saying. I do, however, have a hard time believing that Brazillian club soccer was that much worse European when Brazil dominated the World Cup during that era....with or without Pele, they were clearly the class of the world in soccer during that time.

But to kinda agree with you, Maradona is probably closer to Pele than many realize. Pele's just more of a household name so he's easier to recite as the best.

If we are going to judge Pele as being not as dominant because of his lack of European Club football, it seems to me that we are forgetting what he did in the World Cups. He showed that he was the class of the world regardless of where he played his club football. Brazil was indeed the class of the world and Pele was the reason. During Pele's international career Brazil won three out of four world cups. After he retired Brazil did not win another world cup until 1994. I would say something happened to the Brazillian team. And my hypothesis is that Pele retired. He led them to three world cups and when he retied it took them twenty four years to win another. That is the best player in the world lifting a team that may not be the most talented into the highest echilon of football. Yet another reason Pele was and is the greatest athelete of all time.

1.Johhny Unitas best QB ever
2.Hank Aaron better than Babe
3.Pele the guy kicked ass
4.Kareem abdul jabar, the name is cool and so is the play
5.Mike Vanderjagt, sexy and an ass and the best kicker, to ever play and still going, he exceled in four sports, basketball, football, track, and baseball. He also did double duty in the CFL as a PK and a punter

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Did a search for this...hope it's not a repeat.

...

As I see it, there's two ways of looking at this.

1. Best Athlete = Dominance in their sport

2. Best Athlete = Overall athleticism.

Example: Babe Ruth was super-dominant in his sport. But he was also fat and kinda out of shape, even during his prime. He'd be really high for the first criteria, and really lower for the second. Someone who would be high there would be someone like Deion Sanders, who was successful at two sports and was an obvious natural athlete.

My list will be based on #1, not #2. I also take into account how hard it is to be dominant in a particular sport. Thus, the most dominant wrestler isn't weighted as much as, say, the most dominant soccer player, simply because so many more people have played soccer throughout history.

1. Pele

2. Secratariat (the horse)...I dare someone to argue with me at this. Possibly the most dominant athlete ever, even if he wasn't human.

3. Mohammad Ali

4. Jim Thorpe (at one point he was arguably the best baseball and football (american football) player on the planet and also was a gold medalist in the decathalon. By any measure, a superb athlete)

5. Josh Gibson. (Do a google search. Kid was playing in the baseball Negro Leagues at the same time that Babe Ruth lived. And he was better. Lots better (see: 900+ home runs in a comparable span of time)....and by all accounts his league was every bit as good as the major leagues during that era. The physical stats that could be kept were similar, and they'd win the majority of cross-league all-star games, where Gibson had a 400+ batting average against the best pitchers of the regular league.)

Just missing the cut are people like Jordan, Diego Maradona, Jack Nickluas, Donald Bradman, and Lance Armstrong.

...

I'm interested to see what others think. So...go!

-DM

1. Jim thorpe: He won Olympic gold medals in the pentathlon and decathlon, starred in college and professional football, played Major League Baseball and also had a career in basketball

2.Jim brown collegiate hall of fame in football and lacrosse considered the greatest lacrosse player ever and greatest football player ever. Oh and pro football hall of fame and letter in track and in basketball at SU.

3. Bo jackson From 1982 to 1985 Bo proved to be an astounding all-around athlete. In college, Jackson batted .401 with 17 home runs and 43 RBIs in 1985, qualified for the 60-yard dash in his freshman and sophomore years, and won the 1985 Heisman Trophy for his abilities as a running back. He was named MVP of both the Sugar Bowl in 1984 (the 1983 season), and the Liberty Bowl in 1984. Pro baseball career numbers In his eight baseball seasons, Jackson had a career batting average of .250, hit 141 home runs and had 415 RBIs, with a slugging average of .474. His best year was 1989, with his effort earning him all-star status. In '89 Bo ranked fourth in the league in both homers and RBI's with 32/105.

Profootball numbers Prior to his hip injury, Bo at 6'1", 222 lbs., ran a 4.12 40 yard dash at the 1986 NFL combine, as reported in the February 27, 1986, USA Today. This was one of the fastest NFL 40 times ever, regardless of position, and demonstrated strength comparable to the likes of Jim Brown. In his four seasons in the NFL, Jackson rushed for 2,782 yards and 16 touchdowns with an average yards per carry of 5.4. He also caught 40 passes for 352 yards and 2 touchdowns. Jackson's 221 yards on November 30, 1987 is still a Monday Night Football record.

What made his stats so impressive was the fact that he was a back-up to Raiders' legend Marcus Allen and was the person to make the probowl and allstar game in the same year 1989 remakable..

4. Carl lewis a retired American Track and Field athlete who won 10 Olympic medals including 9 gold, and 9 World Championships medals, of which 8 were golds, in a career that spanned from 1980 when he first qualified for an Olympic team to 1996 when he last won an Olympic title.

He was a dominant sprinter and long-jumper who topped the world rankings in the 100 m, 200m and long jump frequently from 1981 to the early 1990s, was named Athlete of the Year by Track and Field News in 1982, 1983 and 1984, and set world records in the 100 m, 4 x 100 m and 4 x 200 m relays.

His lifetime accomplishments have led to numerous accolades, including being voted "Sportsman of the Century" by the International Olympic Committee and being named "Olympian of the Century" by the American sports magazine Sports Illustrated.

He also helped transform Track and Field from its nominal amateur status to its current professional status, thus enabling athletes to have more lucrative and longer-lasting


5. Otto graham In 1942, Graham was drafted by the NFL's Detroit Lions, but was obligated to serve in the United States Navy. Even before Graham's term was ended, head coach Paul Brown of the fledgling Cleveland Browns of the All-America Football Conference (AAFC) offered him a two-year contract for $7,500 per season. In addition, Brown offered a $1,000 bonus and $250 per month for the duration of the war, an agreement Graham quickly signed. Brown knew all about Graham's talent having been head coach at Big Ten rival Ohio State during the latter's college days.

However, Graham also found time to play one year of professional basketball for the Rochester Royals. In what would become one of his trademarks, the Royals captured the 1945-46 National Basketball League title.

Upon joining the Browns in 1946, he was switched to quarterback, where he would lead the team to the league championship game in each of his 10 seasons, winning on seven occasions. During the AAFC's four-year existence, the Browns won the championship each year as Graham threw for 10,085 yards and 86 touchdowns and rushed for 11 more.

The Browns joined the National Football League in 1950, and won the league championship in their first NFL season, deflecting the criticism of their domination of the AAFC. Graham paced the team to a 10-2 record on the season, the only two losses coming against the New York Giants, whose Umbrella Defense proved to be a source of frustration for the quarterback.

During an astounding career in which the Browns compiled a 105-17-4 record, Graham's 86.6 career pass rating served as one of the best of all time, tossing 88 touchdowns in six seasons of NFL play. In his final year of play, Graham won the Hickok Belt as top professional athlete of the year, and ten years later, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.


NFL Draft 1946 / Round 1/ Pick 4
AFL Draft ] / Round {{{AFLDraftedRound}}}
Pro Bowls 4
Awards 1955 UPI NFL MVP,
1953 UPI NFL MVP,
1950 Pro Bowl MVP
Honors NFL 75th Anniversary
All-Time Team,
NFL 1950s All-Decade Team
College Football HOF
Retired #s Cleveland Browns #14

I like the choices chris.

You seem to be using my second criteria, with overall athletes rather than dominance.

And Otto Graham gets overlooked a lot. Forget Montana's 4 Super Bowl's. Graham had something like 10 World Championships pre-SB era.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I like the choices chris.

You seem to be using my second criteria, with overall athletes rather than dominance.

And Otto Graham gets overlooked a lot. Forget Montana's 4 Super Bowl's. Graham had something like 10 World Championships pre-SB era.

Thanks, To me a "Athlete" is someone who dominates multible sports the term athlete is overused and to me these 5 are the best because they dominated multible sports. If i was going by sheer dominace of a sport it would be Ruth just to put in perspective Barry bonds who people say is the greatest offensive threat ever career stats are

barry bonds 299. batting average 443. ob% 608. slugging

Ruth career .342 batting .474 ob% .690 slugging
Ruth pitching career 94 wins 46 loses a 671.winning% In 1915 he went 18-8 in 1916 he went 23-12 1917 he went 24-14 in his best strecth with boston thats right back to back 20+ win seasons with a career era of 2.77 Incredible

In two world series with boston in 1916 and 1918 he went 3-0 with 0.87 era as a pitcher.


His career in the postseason as a hitter:

326. average 467 ob% 744 slugging hit 15 homers 33 rbi 37 runs scored and 42 hits. in 10 world series he went 7-3 he won 7 out of the 10 world series Complete and utter dominace...

Originally posted by chris_64256
Thanks, To me a "Athlete" is someone who dominates multible sports the term athlete is overused and to me these 5 are the best because they dominated multible sports. If i was going by sheer dominace of a sport it would be Ruth just to put in perspective Barry bonds who people say is the greatest offensive threat ever career stats are

barry bonds 299. batting average 443. ob% 608. slugging

Ruth career .342 batting .474 ob% .690 slugging
Ruth pitching career 94 wins 46 loses a 671.winning% In 1915 he went 18-8 in 1916 he went 23-12 1917 he went 24-14 in his best strecth with boston thats right back to back 20+ win seasons with a career era of 2.77 Incredible

In two world series with boston in 1916 and 1918 he went 3-0 with 0.87 era as a pitcher.


His career in the postseason as a hitter:

326. average 467 ob% 744 slugging hit 15 homers 33 rbi 37 runs scored and 42 hits. in 10 world series he went 7-3 he won 7 out of the 10 world series Complete and utter dominace...

You left out Barry's 500 stolen bases, and umpteen Gold Gloves. While Ruth has the stats in a watered down pitching era, don't even compare the 2 as far as athletes are concerned. They are not even close.

Originally posted by BobbyD
You left out Barry's 500 stolen bases, and umpteen Gold Gloves. While Ruth has the stats in a watered down pitching era, don't even compare the 2 as far as athletes are concerned. They are not even close.

Really, How many Championships does barry have how many world series mvp does he own babe was in 10 won 7 Championshps 6 mvps. Like I said before near 350 career batting average and 700 slugging no comparison bud did you actually read what I posted. If your going to argue with me you better bring more than that meaningless factless rant. The Babe has better numbers more Championships and left a mark on the game thats everlasting the only thing barrys going to leave is Was he on drugs?

Teams win championships. Not players. That means next-to-nothing when I'm determining a place for any kind of athlete.

In terms of dominance, Ruth probably takes it. In terms of sheer athleticism, nearly any great athlete has an edge over Ruth. Ruth was a dominant pitcher too, Barry had better fielding and running. Also keep in mind that because of the Negro Leagues Ruth was only against presumably about half of the best players on the planet....the Negro Leagues were every bit as good as MLB during that era.

Walter Johnson 417wins 600. win %
Christy Mathewson 373 wins .665 winning %
Eddie Plank 326 wins .627 winning %
Pete Alexander 373 wins. 642 winning %
Lefty Grove 300 wins .680 winning percentage
There are 18 300 game winners in Baseball hall of fame The 5 above pitch in the Babe era against there are numerous 230 plus game winners he has faced he played in a pitching dominated era that what makes his stats so ungodly. Watered down no I dont think so..

Originally posted by chris_64256
Really, How many Championships does barry have how many world series mvp does he own babe was in 10 won 7 Championshps 6 mvps. Like I said before near 350 career batting average and 700 slugging no comparison bud did you actually read what I posted. If your going to argue with me you better bring more than that meaningless factless rant. The Babe has better numbers more Championships and left a mark on the game thats everlasting the only thing barrys going to leave is Was he on drugs?

Will not argue with you on this (above ^). My point is to illustrate who is the better purer, rawer (is that a word) athlete?

I'm willing to speculate that MOST every baseball historian past and present would say Barry is a better athlete. That is the point I'm trying to make.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Teams win championships. Not players. That means next-to-nothing when I'm determining a place for any kind of athlete.

In terms of dominance, Ruth probably takes it. In terms of sheer athleticism, nearly any great athlete has an edge over Ruth. Ruth was a dominant pitcher too, Barry had better fielding and running. Also keep in mind that because of the Negro Leagues Ruth was only against presumably about half of the best players on the planet....the Negro Leagues were every bit as good as MLB during that era.

Ruth was a dominant pitcher like I brought out ruth had a team of barnstorming players that treveled around they played negro teams he hit 479 against so that kinda evaporates that argument even though it was not fair those players were not in MLB so its tuff to argue them being better but I understand what your saying..

Originally posted by chris_64256
Walter Johnson 417wins 600. win %
Christy Mathewson 373 wins .665 winning %
Eddie Plank 326 wins .627 winning %
Pete Alexander 373 wins. 642 winning %
Lefty Grove 300 wins .680 winning percentage
There are 18 300 game winners in Baseball hall of fame The 5 above pitch in the Babe era against there are numerous 230 plus game winners he has faced he played in a pitching dominated era that what makes his stats so ungodly. Watered down no I dont think so..

Again, a lot of people would say that outside of Walter Johnson and possibly Christy Mathewson none of these ptichers threw above 85 miles an hour. There are thousands of high school pithers each year that throw mid to hi 90's that you and I will never hear of that if they were pitching in that era would be hall of famers.

I could march you up to plate to get a hit off of most of these guys.

Originally posted by chris_64256
Ruth was a dominant pitcher like I brought out ruth had a team of barnstorming players that treveled around they played negro teams he hit 479 against so that kinda evaporates that argument even though it was not fair those players were not in MLB so its tuff to argue them being better but I understand what your saying..

Dominant for his time. But you'd take him yard (today).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Teams win championships. Not players. That means next-to-nothing when I'm determining a place for any kind of athlete.

In terms of dominance, Ruth probably takes it. In terms of sheer athleticism, nearly any great athlete has an edge over Ruth. Ruth was a dominant pitcher too, Barry had better fielding and running. Also keep in mind that because of the Negro Leagues Ruth was only against presumably about half of the best players on the planet....the Negro Leagues were every bit as good as MLB during that era.

I argue it does mean something when that player is so dominant in World series play 6 mvp 11 ws homers 384 ws batting average I would say that is a big determining factor in sheer dominace.

Originally posted by chris_64256
I argue it does mean something when that player is so dominant in World series play 6 mvp 11 ws homers 384 ws batting average I would say that is a big determining factor in sheer dominace.

That just means he was the best player on a chamionship-caliber team. Ruth didn't get to all those World Series' alone...take him off the team, and the Yankees would have still been dominant during that era.

Originally posted by BobbyD
To be honest with you, neither is one the best 5 athletes ever.

I agree.

Originally posted by chris_64256
I argue it does mean something when that player is so dominant in World series play 6 mvp 11 ws homers 384 ws batting average I would say that is a big determining factor in sheer dominace.

We can argue this all night (about who was better Barry vs Babe).

Tomato, toe-mah-toe.

To be honest with you, neither is one the best 5 athletes ever.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Again, a lot of people would say that outside of Walter Johnson and possibly Christy Mathewson none of these ptichers threw above 85 miles an hour. There are thousands of high school pithers each year that throw mid to hi 90's that you and I will never hear of that if they were pitching in that era would be hall of famers.

I could march you up to plate to get a hit off of most of these guys.

What? Dont waste mind time this arugment holds no water so your telling me men who 300 games against hitters like ty cobb, babe ruth etc cant compete with high schoolers are you kidding me dont make my dick laugh..

Originally posted by chris_64256
What? Dont waste mind time this arugment holds no water so your telling me men who 300 games against hitters like ty cobb, babe ruth etc cant compete with high schoolers are you kidding me dont make my dick laugh..

It's apples n' oranges, my friend. That's what you're not seeing. And please, keep lil Chris inside his pants where they belong. No need to get personal.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That just means he was the best player on a chamionship-caliber team. Ruth didn't get to all those World Series' alone...take him off the team, and the Yankees would have still been dominant during that era.



I agree.

I really doubt that that weak arguement the guy hit 60 home runs when the league hit 52.

Originally posted by BobbyD
It's apples n' oranges, my friend. That's what you're not seeing. And please, keep lil Chris inside his pants where they belong. No need to get personal.

Well anytime somebody claims todays high school kids are better than chritsy mattheson is a joke of all jokes and then claiming you could take them yard.

Originally posted by chris_64256
Well anytime somebody claims todays high school kids are better than chritsy mattheson is a joke of all jokes and then claiming you could take them yard.

Ah, but I did not say Christy, did I? I thought he might be an exception...go back and read, my friend.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Ah, but I did not say Christy, did I? I thought he might be an exception...go back and read, my friend.

Whats your point you challenge all the pitchers I put up loosing faith in your argument?

By the way Digi I know this thread is Best athlete ever top 5 if you want me to stop my discussion so it doesnt eat your thread just say so. I just love debating sports..

Originally posted by chris_64256
Whats your point you challenge all the pitchers I put up loosing faith in your argument?

No, not at all...and duly noted.

Let me break it down for you.....

If I were to ask you if you were starting a team today, and you were a GM for a baseball team, and you could choose between 2 high school pitchers....one who throws blistering 95 mile an hour heat for say 6-8 innings (AND not knowing he would have no future career in baseball), ORRRRRR, you the other who throws 85 (AND probably less) miles per hour (BUT never know he'd end up being a hall of famer for his time), which high schooler would you pick?

I hope I wrote that so it make sense.....

Originally posted by BobbyD
No, not at all...and duly noted.

Let me break it down for you.....

If I were to ask you if you were starting a team today, and you were a GM for a baseball team, and you could choose between 2 high school pitchers....one who throws blistering 95 mile an hour heat for say 6-8 innings (AND not knowing he would have no future career in baseball), ORRRRRR, you the other who throws 85 (AND probably less) miles per hour (BUT never know he'd end up being a hall of famer for his time), which high schooler would you pick?

I hope I wrote that so it make sense.....

I kinda get it I think let me reply.

I will take the guy who throws low 90's with movement accuracy and durablity who wont eat up your bullpen. Nothing has been proven of the velocity by the way and you have to respect the pitching and 3 days and the fact most guys either finished there game or ate up 8 innings..

Look Chris, I'm not trying to diminish Ruth's importance or mark on the game, which is ironically/hypocritically what I'm doing in trying to prove my point.

But, you brought Barry into the conversation against Ruth. I personally think Barry is a better athlete. If you disagree, that is fine. We'll agree to disagree. I'm tired.....

Originally posted by chris_64256
I kinda get it I think let me reply.

I will take the guy who throws low 90's with movement accuracy and durablity who wont eat up your bullpen. Nothing has been proven of the velocity by the way and you have to respect the pitching and 3 days and the fact most guys either finished there game or ate up 8 innings..

Indeed. The players of that era were better players...no such thing as throwing less than 150 pitches. ...no weight room, off season conditioning, team trainers, protein pills, in house chef, blah, blah, blah...

The whole "you'd hit Ruth" comment was a hyperbole. It was just meant to show that there's a huge difference between athletes then and now. It didn't literally mean that Ruth would get jacked by high schoolers.

Originally posted by chris_64256
I really doubt that that weak arguement the guy hit 60 home runs when the league hit 52.

Fair enough. Which goes to show you that HRs didn't mean quite as much back then. But you can only do so much when you're 1/9 of the lineup and team....regardless of how good you are.

My opinion stands. Teams win championships. I have no problem if you want to argue for Ruth over Bonds. But I have to disagree strongly if your rationale is championships.

...

Oh, and let's try and keep it respectful. I don't care if my thread gets "buried" but a couple of your comments definitely seemed a bit condescending.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Look Chris, I'm not trying to diminish Ruth's importance or mark on the game, which is ironically/hypocritically what I'm doing in trying to prove my point.

But, you brought Barry into the conversation against Ruth. I personally think Barry is a better athlete. If you disagree, that is fine. We'll agree to disagree. I'm tired.....

Barry might be a better athlete but baseball is a game of numbers greatness is measured through numbers Babe ruth is the most dominant Baseball player ever you cannot deny that..


And if you read my list ruth is not in My top 5 greatest I just said as far as one sport athletes go Ruth is the most dominant..

Now just think that 5 year span barry put up of the homers on base slugging Ruth did that his whole career. 346 478 ob 691 slug enough said.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The whole "you'd hit Ruth" comment was a hyperbole. It was just meant to show that there's a huge difference between athletes then and now. It didn't literally mean that Ruth would get jacked by high schoolers.



Fair enough. Which goes to show you that HRs didn't mean quite as much back then. But you can only do so much when you're 1/9 of the lineup and team....regardless of how good you are.

My opinion stands. Teams win championships. I have no problem if you want to argue for Ruth over Bonds. But I have to disagree strongly if your rationale is championships.

...

Oh, and let's try and keep it respectful. I don't care if my thread gets "buried" but a couple of your comments definitely seemed a bit condescending.


If I come off bad I dont mean it and the only reason I brought up the buried thread is because I know how frusurating it can be when you get a debate started totally off the thread just trying to respectful thats all.

My rationale was not championships just showing dominace but his numbers alone do that but there are a lot of people who dont know alot about ruth when it comes his pitching, championships etc.

Top Athlete's of All Time
Deion Sanders - NFL and MLB Hall of Fames
Mark Messier and Gordie Howe - longevity and toughness combine with great skill make them better athletes (not better hockey players) than Gretzky or Lemieux or Orr
Lance Armstrong - Incredible
Pele - Incredible
Nolan Ryan - he wasn't the best, but I admire his record number of complete games and innings pitched combined with unmatched power

Originally posted by Nellinator
Top Athlete's of All Time
Deion Sanders - NFL and MLB Hall of Fames
Mark Messier and Gordie Howe - longevity and toughness combine with great skill make them better athletes (not better hockey players) than Gretzky or Lemieux or Orr
Lance Armstrong - Incredible
Pele - Incredible
Nolan Ryan - he wasn't the best, but I admire his record number of complete games and innings pitched combined with unmatched power

Deion sanders is not in Either hall of fame.
He will eventually make NFL Hall
But baseball are you kidding me where did you get that at

Does a info check... Wow, I'm an idiot. Still, he will definitely make the NFL Hall of Fame as perhaps the greatest cornerback (one of the most athletic positions) of all-time. In addition he was a very good baseball player at the university level, and was a very good MLB player in his short career (stealing 52 bases in less than 100 games). So I would still put him in my top athletes of all time. And as a Canadian I would add Lionel Conacher who is in the NHL Hall of Fame and the CFL Hall of Fame.

sorry but he really wasnt even a very good MLB player. He was an alright player. He had no power and didnt hit for average. Yes he had 1 year when he stole 52 bases but was never close to duplicating that. He was a so-so baseball player and easily replacable. He was a great NFL player though.

Originally posted by forumcrew
sorry but he really wasnt even a very good MLB player. He was an alright player. He had no power and didnt hit for average. Yes he had 1 year when he stole 52 bases but was never close to duplicating that. He was a so-so baseball player and easily replacable. He was a great NFL player though.
I disagree. Deion Sanders was extremely valuable to his team. He created a lot of havoc on the base paths. He hit a decent average (albeit definitely not great). Most importantly he won the World Series. He still the only athlete to win both a World Series and a Superbowl. An impressive accomplishment.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I disagree. Deion Sanders was extremely valuable to his team. He created a lot of havoc on the base paths. He hit a decent average (albeit definitely not great). Most importantly he won the World Series. He still the only athlete to win both a World Series and a Superbowl. An impressive accomplishment.

Sure, it's impressive, but teams win championships, not players. There was a lot of luck involved in that too.

In any case, he deserves the Hall for football, but yeah he was replacable in baseball.

But if we're just going for sheer athletic prowess rather than dominance, he's one of the best all-time because of his dual sporting acheivements.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But if we're just going for sheer athletic prowess rather than dominance, he's one of the best all-time because of his dual sporting acheivements. That is what I am trying to get at.

Dominance: Jordan, Ali, PELE, Shaq, Wilt.
Athleticism(shape): Kobe Bryant is in the best shape physically.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Dominance: Jordan, Ali, PELE, Shaq, Wilt.
Athleticism(shape): Kobe Bryant is in the best shape physically.

lol. Kinda basketball-biased, aren't we?

I have no problem with the 1st list, but half the soccer or tennis players on the planet have more endurance than Kobe, and any of the all-time greats at various skill sports have as much coordination and athleticism as he does.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
lol. Kinda basketball-biased, aren't we?

I have no problem with the 1st list, but half the soccer or tennis players on the planet have more endurance than Kobe, and any of the all-time greats at various skill sports have as much coordination and athleticism as he does. Well thats just IMO. Don't watch tennis or soccer. Kobe is in the best shape out of anyone in the NBA tho.

in no order Pele, Ali, MJ, Tiger woods and federer (spelling)

Kobe Bryant

Michael Jordan

Terrell Owens

Deion Sanders

Lance Armstrong

In no order

Michael Jordan (obviously, some people will say Wilt because his numbers, but last time I checked, Wilt wasn't the face of the NBA).
Deion Sanders (people say Jerry Rice but I'd say that when you think about it Randy Moss is a lot closer to Jerry then anybody is to Deion in their respective positions)
Mike Tyson (I'm a Tyson fanboy, sue me :P )
Rocky Marciano (that record is probably the only untouchable record in any sport)
Tiger Woods (just because)

Wilt has numbers. MJ has rings. Kobe, MJ, Russel have more rings and are considered better on my list. Rings count most.

Originally posted by B dot Rob
Tiger Woods (just because)

im not sure i would consider tiger an athlete though.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
im not sure i would consider tiger an athlete though. He is in shape tho.

i know golf takes a lot of stength and stability, but the sport is basically hitting the ball, watching the ball, walking towards the ball (key note: walking), and hitting it once more into the hole. i wouldnt really call that raising your heartbeat.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
i know golf takes a lot of stength and stability, but the sport is basically hitting the ball, watching the ball, walking towards the ball (key note: walking), and hitting it once more into the hole. i wouldnt really call that raising your heartbeat.

Agreed; and correct. Now while Tiger is probably a good athlete in his own right. He is simply NOT one of the 5 greatest athletes ever.

Muhammed Ali

Oscar De La Hoya

Wilt Chamberlin

OJ Simpson

Michael Johnson

1) Muhammad Ali (There is a reason he is still called The Greatest)
2) Lance Armstrong (Tour de France Domination until retirement)
3) Michael Jordan (Thanks for all the Nike Posters! lol)
4) Bret Hart (yeah I know it is predetermined, but this spot is due to all the matches he had with a spotless safety record of not dealing out serious injury, call him a stuntman all you want, just my opinion, anyway)
5) Dale Earnhardt (was always a threat, despite the track)

Pele
Ali
Jesse Owens
Pete Sampras
Wayne Gretzky
Lance Armstrong
Maradona
Rocky Marciano

Just a number of people that could be in the list.

Just noticed going through this thread, no women have actually come up as canditates

Originally posted by Maestro
Just noticed going through this thread, no women have actually come up as canditates

The only worthy one would be Babe Diedricksen. Don't know if I spelled her name correctly. But, my guess is she's the only one who would come close.

Originally posted by BobbyD
The only worthy one would be Babe Diedricksen. Don't know if I spelled her name correctly. But, my guess is she's the only one who would come close.

Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, to name a few could be up there IMO.

Michael Jordan
Pele
Ed Coan
Mohammed Ali
Marion Jones

Originally posted by Maestro
Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, to name a few could be up there IMO.

Mia Hamm too, perhaps?

Michael Jordan

it is hard to say or define what the best athlete is, i came up with these

1. what athelete domininated in their respective sports most

or

2. what HUMAN was the most athletic person ever

or

3. who was the most clutch (if that is proper english) player

for the first you could have many people;
tiger woods- already the best golfer ever and is what 31
michael phelps- had 6 gold medals and 2 bronze at his first olympics
pele-beast of a soccer player
roger federer- isnt best of all time yet but will be is only late 20's
wayne gretzky- easily the best hockey player, sorry lemieux
michael jordan- air jordan, took the bulls to be one of the best teams ever
gary gait- he was a lacrosse player for those of you that dont know, he played both field lacrosse and indoor/box lacrosse, and dominated entire teams, also had air gait- air jordan of lacrosse
jesse owens- track god
lance armstrong- won 7 tour de frances in a row, simpily unbelievable, and he only has one nut

for the second;
jim brown- all american football and lacrosse player and i heard he was all-american in 4 sports
deion sanders- great football player and decent baseball player
jesse owens- again absolute animal


for the third;
michael jordan- famous buzzer beater, led his team in many comback victories, and led the bulls to numerous world titles
chris drury- led team to little league world series championship, was rookie of the year when playing in colorado where he had 6 game winners and a stanley cup victory, and helped lead buffalo sabres to eastern conference finals twice. (plus he lives two houses down from me).


TOP FIVE OVERALL ATHELETES
1. Jim Brown
2. Jesse Owens
3. Pele
4. Michael Jordan
5. Tiger Woods

1. Lance Armstrong = Cycling. Cycling 3 weeks long in various scenarios including up massive mountains is grueling as most other sports. And Lance dominated in an awesome way

2. Some Iron man winner, not into the sport but surely this is the summit of athleticism.


How can anyone put Tiger woods in there or was it a joke. Strolling over a few fields hitting a ball now and again isn´t very athletic is it?

tiger woods is in the same category as lance, their sport is not the most athletically challenging but they each took their respective sports to new heights. tiger is more deserving than lance though he has dominated more

What about the guy who won that rock/paper/scissors championship they showed last Saturday on ESPN?

Originally posted by towenlax
tiger woods is in the same category as lance, their sport is not the most athletically challenging ...

Congratulation, you won STUPIDEST comment of the month award.

Have you ever ridden a bike?

I´d rather play some field sport like soccer, or run 100, 800, or even 25 Miles than cycle 3 weeks long sometimes over 6 hours a day, up Humongous mountians. They don´t just roll about on their bikes!!

And golf isn´t a sport, more a pastime like chess or poker.

Yeah, cycling is pretty grueling. I didn't think anyone thought that it wasn't.

i do bike in a couple of moths im biking 100 miles in one day i no that it is hard but i also golf and i beilieve it is harder. you have to have natural talent and good hand eye coordination and you dont have to be in great shape but in pro golf you arent alowwed to use carts and the courses on the professional tour are long as hell and you end up walking miles. bike riding doesnt take any skill all you have to do is train. almost every person in the world knows how to ride a bike. golf is a harder sport period. and im not saying tiger is the most athletic person ever but he is one of the most dominating athletes ever in his respective sports. more so than lance was at cycling

and. they call baseball americas favorite pastime so are you calling baseball not a sport. also i do agree with you on the iron man comment it slipped my mind but surely one deserves to be up there

I´m not a golf fan so I´m not too familiar with Tigers prowess in this sport. Never played so I thought it was a doddle

Crazy golf is annoying enough.

Joe montana...he leads the quarterbacks in almost every stat
Jerry Rice...leads recievers in almost every stat
Walter Payton...has his own college award, inducted into hall of fame his first year and leads runningbacks in every category that barry sanders or emmitt (woop) smith

in no order:

1. micheal jordan
2. lance armstrong
3. hank arron
4. muhammed ali
5. tiger woods (does he count?)

Originally posted by Bicnarok
And golf isn´t a sport, more a pastime like chess or poker.

Tell that to Tiger, after he thumped the field in the PGA Championship largely because the 100+ degree heat didn't phase him at all because he's in impeccable shape, and a more complete athlete than many in other sports.

Yeah, he'd stare you down and kick your ass.




...granted, you can be good in golf without being an "athlete" in a strict sense, but that brings us again to the two criteria options I presented way back in the first post (dominance or athleticism)

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Tell that to Tiger, after he thumped the field in the PGA Championship largely because the 100+ degree heat didn't phase him at all because he's in impeccable shape, and a more complete athlete than many in other sports.

Yeah, he'd stare you down and kick your ass.




...granted, you can be good in golf without being an "athlete" in a strict sense, but that brings us again to the two criteria options I presented way back in the first post (dominance or athleticism)

i went with dominance cuz everyone on my list was (or is) the king of their sport.

I understand why people say Tiger, though I disagree. He's likely the best athlete in his sport, but he does not fit MY definition of athlete. Again, I understand why people choose him however.

Two things. Michael was better than Wilt. Wilt would never be scoring like he did if he played in the 90s. Back then men that tall with enough coordination were a rarity now the guys are getting bigger and stronger and Wilt would be nothing special. Look at his highlights decent post moves and a nice shot from like 5-10 feet this combined with his height made him a killer and damn near unguardable because most of the competition sucked. There wer plkenty of guys coring inobscene numbers during wilts time that tall white guy on the lakers and such regularly scored 30ish points. Nto to take away form their skills but quite frankly they wouldn't have gotten away with that stuff in the late 80s and 90s.

As time passed the difference in skills narrowed more and more. Jordan didn't accomplsih things just because of his height he was a gunner and he seemed to magically get the ball in the hoops when it should have missed. Jordan was the best player to pick the ball up. Now for the best athlete...

I'm going to catch a lot of hate for this but screw it. I am going to pick Lebron James. This guys is built like a football player yet he is incredibley fast and agile. This is the guy who ran down Leandro "Road Runner" Barbosa blocked his shot then in the same play ran right back up the court and dunked it before the rest of Phoenix which is a running team could even catch up. Not to mention the obvious fact that he can jump over pretty much anyone. What some people don't know is that he was named all state wide receiver in high school before he decided to focus on basketball.

Can you imagine a guy like that in the NFL. 6'8" as fast as he is and as high as he can jump. He could definelty dominate more than one sport. Allen Iverson is another guy who could have been a something in football.

Originally posted by Warmonger
Now for the best athlete...

I'm going to catch a lot of hate for this but screw it. I am going to pick Lebron James.

I smell what you're cooking.

You and are on the same page as far as what is OUR definition of athlete.

However, some people see it as dominance in their sport.

Micheal Jordan
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Joe Montana
Tiger Woods

Larry Bird and Tiger don't really belong on that list to me. Both of these guys are in great condition but Tiger really sin't all that athletic and neither was Larry.

Originally posted by Warmonger
Larry Bird and Tiger don't really belong on that list to me. Both of these guys are in great condition but Tiger really sin't all that athletic and neither was Larry.

That cause you're going by athletic prowess. I'm going by athleticism. Or actually talent. Which involves that something in you that naturally allows you to do better than even the most and/or better conditioned athletes.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
That cause you're going by athletic prowess. I'm going by athleticism. Or actually talent. Which involves that something in you that naturally allows you to do better than even the most and/or better conditioned athletes.

I still disagree, FON. What if guitar playing were considered a sport? Is he/she, the best guitar player in the world (another debate in itself) also not doing something naturally better than his/her peers?

How about the greatest professor in the world? The greatest scientist?

See my point?

Again, I understand why people choose Tiger-though I disagree. But, he probably couldn't beat hundreds of GOOD (key word) high school WRs/RBs in a sprint, a game of basketball, wrestling, and certainly couldn't tackle them either. And they'd probably wreck him if he had to get to past them with a football in his hands.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Again, I understand why people choose Tiger-though I disagree. But, he probably couldn't beat hundreds of GOOD (key word) high school WRs/RBs in a sprint, a game of basketball, wrestling, and certainly couldn't tackle them either. And they'd probably wreck him if he had to get to past them with a football in his hands.

And again that's because your going on prowess which is a performance based on strengtht or on a high skill level or a high ability. (that of course can be achieved by virtually any full-bodied and able person through practice and training.) I'm talking about the possession of inborn natural talent. That which you don't have to really practice for because it comes effortlessly to you. Even though I wouldn't call practicing a talent practicing for it but honing it, rather.

Larry Bird and Tiger Woods have uncanny superior hand-eye coordination the likes of only a few people in the sports world. The proof is in the records they keep/have kept shattering.

Aleksandr Karelin
Michael Schumacher
Sergey Bubka
Martina Navratilova
Eddy Merckx

One of these are outsiders:
Pele/Carl Lewis/Michael Jordan/Bjoern Daehlie/Jack Nicklaus/Wayne Gretsky/Lance Armstrong

Probably forgot some - but this was free from the memory...

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And again that's because your going on prowess which is a performance based on strengtht or on a high skill level or a high ability. (that of course can be achieved by virtually any full-bodied and able person through practice and training.) I'm talking about the possession of inborn natural talent. That which you don't have to really practice for because it comes effortlessly to you. Even though I wouldn't call practicing a talent practicing for it but honing it, rather.

Larry Bird and Tiger Woods have uncanny superior hand-eye coordination the likes of only a few people in the sports world. The proof is in the records they keep/have kept shattering.

Yes-good point. However, I don't agree entirely. Tiger and Larry practice/d ungodly amounts of hours to get where they are/were today. But, yes I see your point.

Maradonna
Pele
Jason Robinson (greatest Rugby player in either code ever)
Jonah Lomu
Ali

All sports played by lots of countries.

Although I do admire Tiger and Feddera a lot at the moment.

I would think to search for the greatest athlete of all time, the criteria should be as follows:
1. Speed
2. Strength
3. Coordination
4. Endurance

The truly great athlete would possess a balanced combination of these qualities that clearly sets him above the pack. While there are many fine athletes who have been incredibly dominate in one particular sport, it seems ludicrous to include them in the list of greatest athletes based on these four criteria! Would Babe Ruth be able to win a foot race against any competent runner? Of course not! Is there any individual sport anyone can conceive of Ruth being dominant in? I think not. Can anyone in their wildest dreams imagine Tiger Woods impressing anyone with a show of strength? I think you see what I am driving at. And I hate to hurt feelings, but Ali was by no means the dominant boxer of his day, and fell far, far short of being the greatest athlete of his time, let alone all time. Honestly, there are many athletes who would have beaten Ali at any sport other than boxing. I challenge you to look at the people on your lists, and imagine then being paired in say, 15 random individual athletic contests against Jim Thorpe (tests of speed, endurance, strength, soordination), and honestly tell me who you think would come out on top. This would be the true test of the better athlete. Of course we will never know!

My list would be
1. Jim Thorpe-Decathlon and Pentathlon Gold Medalist, Professional football, baseball, and basketball player.
2. Dave Winfield-only man ever drafted in 3 pro sports (NBA, MLB, NFL)
3-5. I would take lots of people, but they would all be distant third place finishshers to the two above.
Bo Jackson, Lance Armstrong, and Mildred Didrikson-Zaharius would round out my list.
Honorable mentions to Maradona, Owens, Sugar Ray Robinson (greatest boxer), Micheal Jordan, and Jim Brown.

About Ali:
According to the University of Manchester, Welterweight Boxer Rickey Hatton's punches are between 24-34 MPH. He is widely recognized as the fastest hitter today. No formal study has ever been done on Ali that I could find, however, an analysis of films of Ali leads me to believe his punches were in the 22-30 MPH range. Other heavyweights have matched this. Ali was not the hardest hitter of all time either. Mike Tyson was a far, far faster fighter. My film study has lead me to believe Tyson could throw punches at least 35 miles an hour. This is pushing maximum human speed. Somewhere around 35-6 MPH, the torque would shatter the elbow (this is why baseball pitchers top out around 100 mph,, by the way). George Foreman was kind enough to speak with me about this (the man answers his own email, how cool is that?). George was very emphatic that Joe Frasier was the hardest hitter of that era. I challenge any of you to tell me you know more about boxing than George Foreman. A study of Rocky Marciano found he could hit with a force of over 900 FT/LBS. If Ali was truly a hard hitter, why weren't similar studies done on him?
Ali is a coward and an agitator, in and out of the ring. I am sick of people making excuses for his 3 years of inactivity. Ali chose the cowards way out, refusing to serve his country. A man of character would have served, then came home and protested.
In the ring, Ali spent more time laying in the ropes than fighting. This may have made him "smart", but it did not make him a great boxer. The only Ali fight I can think of where he slugged it out (and I have seen every Ali fight that was filmed) was verses Frazier, and He lost. He was dominated by the much smaller, half blind, man.
Evander was champ more times, Foreman's two reigns covered a much larger timespan, and he was inactive for a MUCH longer time and came back. I fail to see why anyone has such respect for Ali. On what grounds? Objectively, what criteria can you use to include him among the greatest boxers, let alone the greatest athletes?
I have demonstrated he was not the fastest or most powerful boxer. What other athletic prowess did he posses that would warrant his inclusion on this list? Was he fast? A Powerful Lifter? A good ball Handler? What was his time in the 40? Of course, none of this information is available, Ali was to busy laying in the ropes to do any of this. You folks are including a completely undeserving man on this list based on very nonobjective emotional appeal. Unless appeal and popularity is going to be one of your criteria, then this should be a discussion of most popular athletes, which would be Ali hands down.
Sorry to be a hater here.

Well said, and no, you're not being a hater--just brutally honest. Countless guys in the UFC could take out Ali, in a ring or alley...is no difference.

And I LOVE Ali.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I disagree. Deion Sanders was extremely valuable to his team. He created a lot of havoc on the base paths. He hit a decent average (albeit definitely not great). Most importantly he won the World Series. He still the only athlete to win both a World Series and a Superbowl. An impressive accomplishment.

I did not know Deon Sanders won a world series and a super bowl! I did not even know individuals could compete in those sports! I thought they were all team sports! What years did he win them?

Seriously, Deon never won a World Series, nor was he ever a member of a team that did. He did play for the Braves in the 1992 World series, losing 4 games to 2.
Deon was a member of two Super Bowl championship teams. The 49ers in Superbowl XXIX, and the Cowboys the next year.

In all fairness, Deon's performance in the 1992 Series was incredible. He hit 533, with four runs, 8 hits, 2 doubles, and 1 RBI. He played in an NFL game the same week. Kudos to Deon.

i like how almost none of KMC's US contingent mention any non US athletes in their lists....skewed?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Micheal Jordan
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Joe Montana
Tiger Woods Why do people keep putting Micheal Jordan at the top of their list? Basketball is possibly the least athletic sport ever.

Originally posted by ~KoK!~
Why do people keep putting Micheal Jordan at the top of their list? Basketball is possibly the least athletic sport ever.



Originally posted by jaden101
i like how almost none of KMC's US contingent mention any non US athletes in their lists....skewed?

Look a little deeper and you'll see that they're there. Pele's at the top of my list, for example (based on the dominance criteria) and maradona just missed out of my top 5. But for the most part its due to lack of knowledge....no one knows enough to place, say, Donald Bradman for being the best cricket batsman ever.

Originally posted by ~KoK!~
Why do people keep putting Micheal Jordan at the top of their list? Basketball is possibly the least athletic sport ever.

compared to what...,baseball, football and bowling?

Originally posted by jaden101
i like how almost none of KMC's US contingent mention any non US athletes in their lists....skewed?

I dont watch international sports. The sports i hold interest in are Hockey and football. I believe you have just neglected to read peoples posts improperly. Of course the athletes AMERICANS list relevant to baseball, basketball and football are going to be mainly American. The professional leagues of these three sports consist primarily of american players. THe people whom have listed players of such sports like soccer and hockey have listed mostly non american players.

Bautista is the greatest athlete ever.

It says so in Raw vs Smackdown 2008.

Originally posted by ~KoK!~
Why do people keep putting Micheal Jordan at the top of their list? Basketball is possibly the least athletic sport ever.




I have what he's having.

Originally posted by ~KoK!~
Why do people keep putting Micheal Jordan at the top of their list? Basketball is possibly the least athletic sport ever.

u think u can run back and forth on a basketball court (fast-paced)
for 82 games?? u gotta have some pretty good cardio to do that

Originally posted by chris_64256
Really, How many Championships does barry have how many world series mvp does he own babe was in 10 won 7 Championshps 6 mvps. Like I said before near 350 career batting average and 700 slugging no comparison bud did you actually read what I posted. If your going to argue with me you better bring more than that meaningless factless rant. The Babe has better numbers more Championships and left a mark on the game thats everlasting the only thing barrys going to leave is Was he on drugs?

I beg your pardon, but baseball is a team sport. Babe Ruth never won a world series, although the teams he played for one several. Had Barry played with the same leval of talent on his teams, he would have won numerous championships. You may be able to make the argument that Babe Ruth was the better baseball player, although that is somewhat debatable. I will give you that though.

It is still obvious to me that Barry is clearly the better athlete. He would beat Babe in any track and field event I can think of. One on one basketball, or soccer, it is laughable to think babe would win. Should we go for weightlifting? Boxing? football? How about an iron man competition? The decathalon? Who would you bet on? Barry! why? Because he is clearly the better athlete between the two.

I have a new list, since this is best athletes EVER:

1. Sparticus- best gladiator of his time....
2. Samson- recognized by three major religions as the strongest man who ever lived
3. Phidippides- early runner who ran 140 miles to get help
4. Conall Gulban
5. Tiger Woods (ha ha ha ha ha )