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.
~ "Beyond the senses is the mind, and beyond the mind is reason. it's essence.
beyond reason is the Spirit in man, and beyond this is the Spirit of the universe. the evolver of all.
When the five senses and the mind are still, and reason itself rests in silence, then begins the Path supreme"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 12th, 2006 08:10 PM
. Another thinks Jordan, and then a 4th agrees with you and thinks it should be solely athletic talent.
). 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.
