Best Sportsperson in their field - ever

In My Humble Opinion
21

The Babe was a pretty good pitcher. And a durn fine hitter. But an average at best right-fielder. Ty Cobb was a better hitter, and could hit homers(though not like Ruth). He just didn’t like to. It wasn’t the style of game he liked.

Yes, he (Ruth) was clearly head and shoulders above any who played against him at the time. But not against those who have come since. All his records have been broken, under conditions more difficult than he had to face.

Hitters have gotton better. Pitchers have gotton better. Relief pitchers have gotton soooo much better.

22

Eric Heiden Speed Skater

23

Babe Ruth is the best baseball player of all time. Far and away, hands down, no questions asked. Ty Cobb was a fine player, but he wasn’t in Ruth’s league. Ruth got on base more, had more power, AND could pitch; Cobb was not even close to Ruth as a hitter:

OBP: Cobb .433 in a .341 league; Ruth .474 in a .354 league
SLG: Cobb .512 in a .365 league; Ruth .690 (!!!) in a .400 league

Ruth was better than Cobb at getting on base and bettger than Cobb at hitting for power, and that’s 80% of your game. Ruth created more runs than Cobb despite playing 500 fewer games. As hitters, Ruth is WAY better, better by an extremely large margin; the difference between the two is about 40 runs a year, an enormous difference. Cobb’s basestealing isn’t worth anywhere near that much - maybe 10 runs a year, if you’re generous, since Cobb was caught stealing a lot. And the defense sure ain’t 40 runs a year. It’s nice that Cobb allegedly didn’t like hitting homers, but baseball isn’t about what you like doing, it’s about what you actually do. Ruth was better. I might also add that Ruth won the World Series many times and played brilliantly in the World Series; Cobb never did win it, and sucked in the World Series he played in. Ruth, despite his boozing and whoring, was generally a decent teammate; Cobb was a psychopath. Anyone who would rather have Ty Cobb on their team than Babe Ruth is crazy.

And I haven’t even discussed Ruth’s pitching yet.

spooje, All of Ruth’s records have not been broken; significantly, he still holds the record for runs scored in a season, 177. He’s also in second place, with 163. Nobody else has ever come close to that record, and I’d say scoring runs is a pretty significant part of offense. Ruth also still has the best career slugging percentage ever.

Furthermore, the fact that many of his individual records have been broken simply doesn’t change the fact that he was a greater player than any of the guys who broke those records. I love Barry Bonds, but he’s no Ruth. And you surely dont believe Roger Maris was a better player than Babe Ruth.

It’s probably true that ballplayers are better as a group now, but if we dismiss anyone who played prior to 1960 on that basis, you can never compare players of different eras. Ruth, had he played today, would have had all the advantages of modern players. He dominated his era in a way no other player ever has, and that makes him the best ever. There’s no other reasonable conclusion. Even if we break baseball history up into chunks and take the best player from each, Ruth dominated his era more than anyone else.

Ruth towers about all baseball players just as much as Wayne Gretzky does above hockey players or Don Bradford does above cricketers.

24

Not so fast. Cricket wasn’t played as professionally in the 30s/40s as it is today. Especially, fielding. General attitude towards it was also more as a gentleman’s sport. Sachin Tendulkar is all set to break all records barring the test average, if he hasn’t already. The Don himself commented that Sachin reminded him of his own batting.

25

Taken a step further, then, I nominate any pitcher who has ever thrown a perfect game. :slight_smile:

More seriously, Mark Spitz : "In 1977, Spitz was elected as an Honorary Member of the International Swimming Hall of Fame, as a result of his participation in the Olympics and for becoming the first man to win seven gold medals, as well as for the five gold medals he won during the Pan American Games in 1967.

At home, Spitz chalked up 24 national championships, set 25 American records and was named “World Swimmer of the Year” in 1972.

His seven gold medals in the '72 Olympics were distinctive in that they were all world records, achieved at different distances and styles, like in the 100-meter freestyle and the 200-meter butterfly, a severe endurance test. His victories came in the 100- and 200-meter freestyle, the 100- and 200-meter butterfly, the 4 x 100- and 4 x 200-meter freestyle relays, and the 4 x 100-meter medley.

In the '68 Olympic Games in Mexico City, Mark Spitz showed what he was capable of accomplishing. He took home a total of four medals - two gold, a silver and a bronze. In only two Olympics he had collected 11 medals."

26

It should also be noted that many of Richard Petty’s victories came against lower caliber competiton. NASCAR used to race in excess of 40-50 times a year, and many times, regional races counted as NASCAR sanctioned events.

This is not to say that Petty would not be the all time victory leader if he has run a 36 race schedule throughout his career. He may well still be. Davey Allison is 2nd with 105 wins, the only other driver to exceed 100 victories. Bobby Allison, Darryl Waltrip, and Cale Yarborough have 84, 84, and 83 wins respectively. Earnhardt is 6th with 76 wins, and Jeff Gordon will likely pass that in the next two or 3 years.

Earnhardt is the greatest NASCAR driver to this point, based not only on his accomplishments on the track, but as you mentioned, his business deals, marketing ability, and other successes off the track as well.

I am trying to find a link to back me up on this, since I don’t want to come off as a Petty basher. Without King Richard, there would be no Dale Earnhardt, and NASCAR would not be as popular as it is now. FTR, I am a big Dale Earnhardt fan.

27

In tennis, Bill Tilden, for sustained excellence.

In Greco-Roman wrestling, Alexandr Kirelin - obviously.

In Olympic lifting, Naim Shulameinoglu. He set his first world record when he was fifteen. Three consecutive gold medals in the Olympics. Seven world championships.

In judo, Yashuhiro Yamashita won 202 consecutive matches in international competition, 196 by ippon. Seven times all-Japan Champion, five world championships, and Olympic gold. (He would have won two consecutive Olympic golds if Japan had not boycotted the 1980 Olympics. )

These are the only sports I know anything about.

Regards,
Shodan

28

In tennis, I’m going to have to choose Martina Navratilova.

Golf? Nicklaus… for now.

Swimming, definitely Spitz, but the Thorpedo may overtake him.

29

Bodyline, anyone? :smiley:

Maybe so, but Bradman’s records matched against his contemporaries are just as impressive. Among players who played at least 5 Tests in the 1930’s, here are the top batting averages (thanks to the Wisden Wizard):

Bradman (Aus) 102.77
Hutton (Eng) 67.25
Headley (WI) 66.21
Dempster (NZ) 65.72
Duleepsinhji (Eng) 65.46
…
Hammond (Eng) 59.70
Ponsford (Aus) 55.31
Hendren (Eng) 55.20

OK, those averages are higher than your typical batting averages in the modern era. But Bradman is still 50% above his nearest contemporary, Len Hutton. Even more impressive, I think, is that his nearest Aussie contemporary, Wally Ponsford, scored only a little above half of Bradman’s average–on the same pitches, against the same bowlers, and, for much of the time, batting while The Don watched from the other end of the pitch. Any way you slice it, Bradman’s records were astonishing.

Not to disparage Tendulkar, The Little Genius, who IMHO is the best batsman in the world today. I still think Bradman was a better batsman.

30

The greatest sport fencer of all time was Aldo Nadi. Born in 1899, he went pro after the 1920 Olympics.

For 12 years he challenged and defeated everyone who was willing to fight him, amateur or professional, with any weapon. He won the Italian Championships in all three weapons four consecutive times. In a single encounter, he was virtually unbeatable with foil, epee, or sabre.

He defeated the foil champion of France. He ate Olympic medalists for breakfast: in 1924 he crushed Roger Ducret (gold medalist in foil, silver in epee and sabre) 12-5. He equally humiliated Georges Buchard, the triple World Champion in epee.

By 1933, he had all but run out of willing fencers to defeat. So he entered an important tournament, open both to amateurs and professionals. He won, and decided never to take part in such competitions again. He simply didn’t have to.

31

I think the OP is meant to answer the question of dominance in the sportsperson’s arena. With that in mind, I’d probably disagree with Gretzky, Jordan, Tiger or Nicholas, Unitas, and others. Don’t get me wrong, they are all outstanding athletes who are arguably the best of all time in their sport. But I don’t think they were completely dominanting over the competition. Mario Lemieux, Ray Borque, and Gordie Howe are all arguably as good as Gretzky. Wilt Chamberlain was much more dominating in basketball than Jordan was. Nickolas was great, but not so much better than Arnie or Gary or even Lee for that matter. Unitas isn’t better than Elway or Montana. They are all great, but not truly dominant.

With that in mind, I tend to agree with Babe Ruth. He was far and away the best at the time he played, and, arguably, the best EVER. He was revolutionary. I’d also agree with Mark Spitz as an athlete who dominated. My only addition would be Babe Didrickson Zaharias. She was the most accomplished female athlete in history, and did so at a time when she was treated as a freak. She was far and away a better athlete than any other person competing.

Just my thoughts.

32

First off, you’re confusing Davey Allison with David Pearson.

Second, I know the history of NASCAR, and I agree that a good number of Petty’s wins were recorded before the modern era. If I had a media guide handy, I’d compare his modern era wins against everyone else and see where he falls (My guess is, probably behind Gordon and maybe even as low as behind Rusty Wallace’s 51 wins.

As for the “perfect game” comment, notcynical, funny. Really funny. You have to admit, though, that Johnson and Pedro have been virtually unhittable during the time periods I pointed out.

33

Yep, sorry.

Thanks for the backup on Petty.

34

The only thing you can conclude from those statistics is that Bradman was the best among his bunch. He probably didn’t face much quality spin. In fact, until India’s spin quartet came on the scene in the early 70s, spin wasn’t a major factor of bowling attacks. Contemporary batsmen like Tendulkar, Lara, Waugh have to face pace as well as spin coupled with a more energetic fielding.

I don’t mean to disparage earlier players, but the spirit in which the game is played today is quite different than the 40s.

Besides, I think there’s always this mythical quality ascribed to personalities and events of which there is mainly word-of-mouth record. With cricket today, we have so many detailed visual records and analyses of their exploits. Kinda demystifies the contemporaries and puts them at a lower rung.

35

I’m glad someone (Hamlet, specifically) finally mentioned Wilt Chamberlain. There’s no way to compare them head-to-head, but Wilt dominated the game in his day much more than Jordan has in his career. (And that’s from a lifelong Bulls fan.)

36

Figure skating: Kurt Browning.

37

Hamlet, I can’t agree that Gretzky did not dominate the sport the way Babe Ruth did. Statistically, his accomplishments simply dwarf anyone else.

Yes, it’s true Mario Lemieux once scored 199 points in a season. You could also argue that Bobby Orr (not Ray Bourque) was as good a player as Gretzky, at his peak. You could also argue that Ted Williams, Honus Wagner, Barry Bonds and Willie Mays were all as good as The Bambino at their very, very best. But Ruth was that great for about ten or twelve YEARS. So was Gretzky. During the 1980s, Gretzky was absolutely, utterly dominant. He completely overmatched the NHL; he was literally beyond its level of competition.

38

Wilt dominated statistically, and in that he was much larger, stronger, and a better athlete by far than his contemporaries, but he only won two titles, and Russell beat him in the playoffs seven out of eight times, IIRC. Say what you will about the hundred point game, the 50 ppg season, etc, but Jordan’s teams never lost in the playoffs once he hit his stride, and that, I think, is dominance in its purest form.

39

Agreed, Jimmy.

But if you want to consider NBA dominance then Mikan was. He won 7 championships in 9 seasons and was the direct cause of several rule changes including:
[ul][li]A rule against goaltending. It used to be legal because no one thought it was possible. Then Mikan came into DePaul.[/li][li]The creation of the shot clock after the Pistons decided the only way to beat Mikan was to hold onto the ball after gaining the lead - resulting in a 19-18 win.[/li][li]Widening the lane so that Mikan couldn’t camp underneath the basket.[/ul][/li]And when he went to play the Knicks once, the billboard read Geo. Mikan vs. Knicks.

That’s dominance.

40

RickJay, you know, when I was doing my post, I found myself oscillating on Gretzky more than any of the others, because, as you rightly pointed out, he was soooo good for sooo long. It was a judgment call, and you’ve made a great case to include the Great One.

Jimmy, although championships are an important part, I don’t think they are the end all be all. As SCSimmons pointed out, it is really tough to compare Jordan and Wilt one-on-one, but I think that Wilt was more dominate than any other single player in the history of baseketball (O.K., maybe Mikan, I honestly don’t know much about him).