Definitely Babe Didrickson Zaharias. I think she competed successfully in every sport she ever heard of.
Not half bad for a gal in an era that didn’t encourage girls to learn and hone skills in competitive sports.
Not quite. He recently clinched his fifth World Drivers’ Championship, equaling the record of Juan Manuel Fangio. It’s impossible to compare talent between eras, but on passion and guts I give the nod to Fangio.
If I was to pick an athlete who dominated his sport like none other it would have to be Gretzky… a guy who was initially deemed too small to play in the NHL. As far as I know, no-one in any other sport has demonstrated this kind of dominance and he was able to break records that some thought would last forever.
Besides his accomplishments on the ice he has always used his fame and given his time to help raise huge amounts of money for a number of charities.
As an all round athlete Jim Thorpe stands alone.
this is for cheesesteak.
Babe changed the way the game was looked at, yes he did, but the changes in the game in 1920 were many. The revelation of the Black Sox scandal that year nearly destroyed baseball and the fans seriously needed a hero. Babe was the perfect hero. He was a “regular guy” and he liked a good time. He also had power never before demonstrated, and this was further augmented by the introduction of the live ball that year. In 1919, Ruth hit 29 homers, which was, granted, the all time record, and in 1920 he upped it to 54, which was unthinkable. I have to admit that I thought since I was a kid the 847 slugging mark would never ever be broken. The Yankees were a second rate team when he joined them and he turned them around, trips to the series in 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 32, and they finished either 2nd or 3rd in every other season he played for them. BUT, Ruth was never really respected by those he played with. He was a show and he wasn’t trusted, and, of course, was never asked to manage.
Cobb on the other hand had his heydey during the height of the dead ball era, but Cobb could do EVERYTHING. He ran better than Ruth, he hit for average better than ANYBODY, he was possibly the most competetive man every to play the sport, christ, he hit .357 at the age of 40. 12 batting titles and one triple crown versus 1 batting title and no triple crowns says a fair amount, and Cobb did indeed have power, he led the league in slugging percentage 8 times (Ruth did 13 times). There’s the classic story of Cobb, late in his career, answering the pregame charge one day that he was no good because he couldn’t homer like Ruth, going out and hitting five homers in a double header that day to prove he could if he wanted.
This debate is sort of silly, and not really anserable, but I like it. The real kicker is that Cobb was not liked…by anyone…at all, but he was respected. The Tigers went on strike after he beat up a heckler during a game and was suspended. You don’t see loyalty like that anymore.
Still, greatest athelete ever? Thorpe and Zaharias.
greatest sportsman? Jackie Robinson, Lou Gehrig, Jesse Owens, Pele (I obviously have an American bias here, I see)
What about the skills of Sammy Baugh?
American football: Brett Favre.
As long as he is in the game, the Packers always have a chance to win. If he keeps playing for just a few more seasons and continues to produce as he has been, he will break all of the career records for passing.
I know that I’m a broken record where this subject is concerned, but Secretariat wins this distinction hands down. He dominated his sport like no other.
Perhaps the most dominating athletic in an individual sport was tennis player Bill Tilden. He won his first Wimbleton at age 27 and his last at age 40.
For much of the 1920s he was virtually unbeatable. For 18 years, he won over 70% of the tournaments he entered, lost in the finals in another 15%. His win-loss percentage was well over 90%.
In 1945 he nearly beat Bobby Riggs, who was still a top player. Bill was then 52 nearly twice Bobby’s age.
I have no desire to bash Ty Cobb (not as a ballplayer, anyway), but as great as he was, there were many guys in his day who put up comparable numbers. He won many batting titles, but there were other guys batting almost as high on a regular basis (Honus Wagner, Nap Lajoie, et al.). In his prime, Ty Cobb WAS baseball’s best hitter, but he wasn’t in a league of his own. he had numerous peers.
Babe Ruth, in his prime, WAS in a class by himself. He was hitting 50+ homers at a time when his closest competitors couldn’t hit half as many.
While that’s true of the very beginning of his career, didn’t his career - and not just the very tail end - overlap with such sluggers as Jimmie Foxx and Hack Wilson? Not to mention his teammate Lou Gehrig, who was no slouch in the power department.
I beg your pardon, since he is a drug addict he shouldn’t qualify. (all of the above was written with sarcasm in case you didn’t notice).
Football is the favourite sport in the world. Maradona is considered by many the best of all time, therefore he can be considered the greatest (taking in mind what december said).
I can assure you Gouda that Maradona is famous and idolized in places as distant from his country as Blangadesh or Norway. The same can not be said about man others. Let be honest neither golf, nor basket (don’t even said F1) are remotely as popular as football. Therefore whomever is considered the greatest football player of all times (Platini, Pele, Maradona, Distefano, etc) is most assuredly the greatest sportman ever. Period.
Maradona isn’t even close to other athletes in other sports. Even in football he’s not a patch on Pele. You can’t separate his peaks from his troughs, and there’s a man who’s dragged his own undoubted talents and the reputation of the game through the mud (drugs, shootings, brazen cheating). Compare what he’s done for football to (say) Pele and there’s no contest whatsoever. I admire Maradona’s skills, but not his willingness to cheat and his self-destructiveness.
I hate to say this, but you dudes have pushed one of my “pet peeve” buttons. Altho I can remember that anyone here actually used the term, I despise the term “sports Hero” or to even apply the term "Hero’ to any pro athelete. They are entertainers, not Heroes. The newest Fireman that died in the WTC disaster was a far greater Hero than any mere entertainer could be. (Some entertainers have been heroic, true, like Audie Murphey, and some had their dedication to entertaining our troops (Bob Hope), etc- rise to a level of heroism, but that’s different)
True, I know some do some good things with their (vastly inflated, godawful) salaries, and some are indeed, good “role models”, but the same could be said about some CEOs. Pro* Sports entertainers are not “heroes”, no matter how good they are at their sport, or how entertaining they are to us.
- I add the caveat “pro” as some could well argue that certain Olympic atheletes (Jesse Owens) are indeed, heroes.
I don’t think the global popularity of a sport should exclude any particular sportsman. Just because soccer/football is the most popular sport does not mean that the greatest athlete of all time chose to be a footballer/soccer player.
I think the greatest athlete of all time is Sir Donald Bradman.
This man, who was an Australian batsmen (cricket) and captained Australia in the 30’s and 40’s retired with a Test batting average of 99.94.
The legend is further enhanced when historians recount that he only needed 4 runs in his last innings (he did not know this at the time, or, as he has said “I suspect the English bowlers would have allowed me 4 runs”–it was a gentleman’s game) and he ended up out for a duck (0).
When you look at this average, compared to the 2nd best in history, in the low 60’s, as a percentage this demonstrates dominance as I do not believe we have ever seen in any sport.
Ali was beaten, Pele has comparables, Nicklaus has Tiger showing potential to beat his records, Jordan was awesome but he wasn’t 50% better than 2nd like Bradman.
It’s not a North American sport, so a lot of you will take this with a grain of salt, but honestly I have followed most sports, and this batting average of 99.94 is about the only record I think most people believe is ABSOLUTELY UNATTAINABLE.
And with due respect to gouda who started this thread:
This is grossly inaccurate, as the only record that really counts at the end of one’s career is the Test batting average.
Tendulkar is a great batsman, but he is merely the best of a good bunch of his generation that includes Waugh, Gilchrist, Dravid, etc.
Bradman was so head and shoulders above everyone else there was no great debate on that topic.
Honorable mention goes to Heather Mackay - OK women’s squash is a finite world - but she was undefeated in 20 years of competition.
It is very hard to go past the Americans as a collective, the standard of elite athletes there is by far the best, but when you’re talking about individual brilliance there are many non-Americans who were amazing.
My bronze medal goes to Bjorne Dahle the Norwegian cross country skiier, this guy is a freak.
Good topic gouda! Cheers!
Regarding Jim Thorpe…
You make a very good point.
Don Bradman (“The Don”) not only had a Test cricket batting average of 99.94.
He played state squash
He trained tennis with the Davis Cup squad
He was a scratch golfer
He was not disgraced in a game of billiards with Walter Lindram.
He was 5 foot 7" too.
andros - We can leave it at this: you are using one definition of “athlete,” and I am using the correct one.
Athlete - somebody who has the necessary abilities to participate in physical exercise, especially in competitive situations such as games, races, and matches
- Encarta
This is the definition right from the dictionary. Tiger Woods is according to this definition, an athlete. He certainly possesses an extremely high degree of athleticism. He is a great competitor. He has had tremendous success.
Joe_Cool
Tiger may indeed be from a wealthy family. This has nothing to do with his athletic ability. He has certainly “specialized”. Specialization does not make it easy to be great. Tiger Woods is great because he has prepared himself for competition with sacrifice and discipline. He possesses some tremendous attributes like mental toughness, physical strength, and hand - eye coordination.
It would be difficult to determine how many NFL players would be great on both sides of the ball. Generally speaking, athletes are stronger and faster than in the past. I think this has alot to do with the training methods used now. I would think that if they trained at two positions, they would be very good at those positions.
I agree with you thoughts about specialization. It is the “trendy” thing. The high school teams that win the most are usually the teams that have a significant number of kids that play year round. They finish the high school season and begin club sports almost immediately. This is not a trend I like. I think it is good for kids to have a variety of experiences in competitive sports, with different sports. This trend often leads to burn-out and over use injuries.
I think that generally speaking track and field athletes possess more athletic attributes than other sports.
Another factor in determining greatness is what you were born with.
It’s a lot easier to be Jordan when you are born as physically gifted as him.
Bradman was below average in stature, like Gretsky.
Also there are different skills of athletes: speed, strength, strategic intuition, and hand-eye coordination.
Can I at least have some support that Bradman was the most hand-eye coordinated person ever?
:: mild hijack ::
Brett Farv-ruh?!
guffaw!
:: end hijack ::
All that is true (except the anecdote was made up after the fact) but Ruth was still better. It’s not really a point of much debate. When you get right down to it, Ruth was better at making runs score than Ty Cobb was.
Cobb’s batting average was better than Ruth’s, .366 to Ruth’s .342. But Ruth actually got on base more than Ty Cobb did, .474 to .433. Ruth had more power even if you account for Cobb playing in the dead ball era; Ruth’s slugging percentage was 290 points higher than average, Cobb’s was 147 points better.
So, we can see that Ruth got on base more than Cobb (by a large margin) and had more power than Cobb (by an enormous margin.) Sure, Cobb won twelve batting title to Ruth’s one - Ruth won twelve home run titles to Cobb’s one. Ruth also led the league in runs scored, RBI, slugging percentage, on base percentage, extra base hits, walks, times on base, and total bases more than Cobb did. By every analytical measurement there is, Ruth was a better hitter. Ruth dominated his league offensively more than Cobb did. Cobb’s stolen bases don’t make up for the difference in hitting. Hell, I don’t even think Cobb was the best center fielder of all time - I think Willie Mays was - but at least that’s a debate. Cobb’s well behind Ruth.
And that’s not even counting pitching. You can say Cobb MIGHT have been able to pitch, but he didn’t pitch. Wayne Gretzky would have been a tremendous baseball player but he didn’t play. Cobb pitched five innings in his whole life; Ruth was a terrific pitcher who won 94 games.
Playoff performance? Ruth is the one of the greatest World Series performers in the history of baseball. In 41 World Series games he hit .326 with 15 home runs. He also started three games as a pitcher and won them all, allowing only three runs. In 17 World Series games, Cobb hit poorly, batting .262 with no homers and few walks.
(Shrug) You don’t see guys beating up fans as often as they used to, either. Cobb, unfortunately, was not the only player to pull that stunt.
I’m from India, as distant from Argentina as Bangladesh is, so I understand where you’re coming from - I think Maradonna is the best footballer ever too. But thats where my resepct ends. With respect to his attitude (drugs, shooting at the press, etc.), I think he should go hide in a hole somewhere. And thats why I don’t think he would be on my list.
Incidentally, this is the same argument (world’s fav sport) that my friend used to push for Pele.
A purist might agree with you about the only record that really counts is the Test batting average. And in this resepct Tendulkar falls a bit short! Incidentally, he is 5ft 4in tall. But since test cricket isn’t the only form of the game played today, I don’t.
You have to remember, back in the 30s and 40s, the only countries playing Test cricket were England and Australia. England was the only competition. The pitches they played on were either in Australia (home ground) or in England. Furthermore, back then, players did not get just 30 days of holiday in a year, the way it happens now - they played maybe for 3 months in the whole year. Exhaustion makes a big difference at that level - this year’s soccer World Cup made that amptly clear. And lastly, there was no one-day cricket back then, which demands a completely different attitude to the game. The conditions under which cricket was played in those days in like a holiday for today’s players.
These days, cricket is played pretty much everywhere in the world, except North American (if I’m not mistaken). Opponents are from Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, England, the West Indies, Bangladesh, Kenya. And a few more non-Test playing nations, i.e. one-dayers. The games are played in even more locations(like Morocco, which doens’t even play the game), meaning the players have to get used to so many different kinds of pitches and climates.
Furthermore, with the technology available today, it has become a lot easier to analyse how a batsman plays, and then target just his weaknesses. The same goes for the batsman vs. bowler too though. It makes scoring that much more difficult. In spite of that, Tendulkar has scored the highest number of one-day centuries, and is 2 shy of the highest number of Test centuries. He is also an accomplished bowler.And finally, The Don himself acknowledged Tendulkar as his ‘successor’, because of the way he played the game.
If anyone is interested in a look at his achievements:
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium/6820/achievement.html
And no, I’m not biased because I’m Indian!