Athletic Debate: Who Is The Greatest Of All Time?

[BigFatCoward]

Joey Chestnut. 

Anyone playing a niche sport (baseball cough cough) has a huge advantage in compiling stats far beyond their peers. 

Greatest athlete is probably going to be a decathlete/heptathlete/triathlete. 

Preeminent athlete we did a few years back and clearly this is Bradman, or Phil 'the power' Taylor. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, polishgenius said:

But even if you set all that aside, note that I did say 'statistically', and in that arena, it's pretty much unquestionable. The quote in the article I linked about it being the most outsize talent in the history of human achievemnt is a bit hyperbolic, but I certainly can't think of anything else where achievement can be directly measured where anyone has even come close to being as much better at doing a thing than everyone else who has ever done that thing.
 

Statistically he was the greatest.......in one sport. I'm not asking who is the best player relative to their sport, but who is the greatest overall of all time. Thorpe dominated numerous sports, and again, he was comparable to today's athletes 100 years ago. Imagine what he could have been with modern training and medicine. That's why I think he's the GOAT of the GOATs.

[The Marquis de Leech]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Statistically he was the greatest.......in one sport. I'm not asking who is the best player relative to their sport, but who is the greatest overall of all time. Thorpe dominated numerous sports, and again, he was comparable to today's athletes 100 years ago. Imagine what he could have been with modern training and medicine. That's why I think he's the GOAT of the GOATs.

Greatest of All Time does not imply multi-disciplinary success - otherwise you really should have said Greatest All-Rounder of All Time.

Bradman wasn't simply the greatest in one sport. He towers above that sport to a level matched by no other sportsman in any other field.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

I think you can make a reasonable argument batting in cricket is easier that it was when Bradman with playing with the addition of helmets, pitches better designed for batting (and covered) and a few other changes in the rules.

IIRC, it was argued at the time (mostly by English writers) that Bradman never really scored heavily on a dodgy pitch (whereas Jack Hobbs did). Sticky wickets are a thing of the past - so, yes, I'd think Bradman would do significantly better in modern conditions.

(Fun fact - he was interviewed in 1980, and asked how he thought he would do against modern bowlers. He said he'd average about 50-60, whereupon the interviewer expressed surprise. Bradman then said "well, I am 72 years old.").

[Nictarion]

2 hours ago, maarsen said:

Gordie Howe. NHL. When Lebron can play in the NBA in his fifties he can be the greatest in his sport. 

Howe was before my time, but as someone who loves the history of the game, he has to be right up there with Gretzky. Howe didn’t need anyone to protect him on the ice either...

That said, I still think Gretzky is the GOAT. 2857 points in 1487 GP! Just beyond insane. 

I do wonder how Ovechkin would have fared in the wide open run and gun 80’s. I think he might be best natural goal scorer the game has ever seen. 

[Maithanet]

2 hours ago, ljkeane said:

That's nuts by the way if you're being serious. He's extremely athletic but football (soccer), baseball and golf are predominantly skill sports it's not at all clear he has the requisite skill sets to be anywhere near professional level at, let alone probably be the best.

Soccer especially he doesn't really have the body type usually associated with the very best players (it's a bit of a stereotype but guys as big as him are probably going to end up goalkeepers or maybe centre backs and nobody's going to call players in those positions the best players in the sport). On top of that you have to be both fantastically naturally talented and pretty much dedicate your life to the sport from an early age to reach the very, very top level.

I really do think that you are selling short the skill, athletic IQ and body control of elite basketball players.  The difficulty of basketball is in every way comparable to those sports you listed.  Maybe there are a few exceptions where raw size and power allows you to dominate (looking at you here Shaq), but Lebron is not that. 

When people talk about Lebron's dominance, they cite his combination of size, speed, strength, body control and court vision.  All of those would definitely be useful for either a center back or a forward.  The idea of a 6-0, 200 lb defender trying to control Lebron on a cornerkick strikes me as laughable. 

Not that I would argue for Lebron as greatest athlete of all time, but he is exceptional athlete, quite capable of dominating other sports if he chose to play them. 

[Jo498]

Baseball and Cricket are a) boring and mostly for stats nerds b) tiny niches and c) rather unathletic as people are mostly standing around. Why not pick darts, there is probably also a pudgy guy with great throwing stats? Hockey is athletic but also a rather small niche.

That is, there are several football, soccer, basketball players who were national class (or sometimes even international class) athletes in their youth in track and field (which is basically athletic excellence condensed in a few "elementary tests" like running, jumping etc.). Or could have been world class sprinters, long/high jumper or decathletes. Or middle distance runners in the case of some soccer players.

[Fez]

If we're talking about the most athletic ever, as in, the best athlete, the fittest person,; I think it is almost certainly either a current NBA player or some NFL running back. Maybe LeBron James, maybe someone else.

If we're talking about who was the most dominant and greatest in a single sport, it's Don Bradman and it's not a debate. Gretzky comes in second.

If we're talking about who is the most capable of performing high-level athletic accomplishments across numerous disciplines, I'd argue it's Kevin Mayer, the current world record holder of the Decathlon. However, it's definitely open to debate and Jim Thorpe and Bo Jackson are both really good answers.

If we're talking about who had the greatest impact on the world and meant the most to the most people, from my Western-centric perspective it's either Jesse Owens or Muhammad Ali. But I suspect there's other good choices too that I don't know about.

[BigFatCoward]

39 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

 

That said, I still think Gretzky is the GOAT. 2857 points in 1487 GP! Just beyond insane. 

 

Fun fact, Gretzky and his brother have the highest combined points total of siblings, Wayne has 2857, his brother has 4. 

 

[BigFatCoward]

27 minutes ago, Fez said:

If we're talking about the most athletic ever, as in, the best athlete, the fittest person,; I think it is almost certainly either a current NBA player or some NFL running back. Maybe LeBron James, maybe someone else.

 

I think you are confusing fitness and explosiveness.  All round fitness a running back would suck, i could beat most of them over 800m and i'm nearly 43 and out of shape. 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

28 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Baseball and Cricket are a) boring and mostly for stats nerds b) tiny niches and c) rather unathletic as people are mostly standing around. Why not pick darts, there is probably also a pudgy guy with great throwing stats? Hockey is athletic but also a rather small niche.

If you can find a darts-thrower who beats everyone else the way Bradman towers over cricket, I'm all ears.

Also - try facing a hard cricket ball at over 130 km per hour. Repeatedly. For six hours a day. Then you come back the next day and do it again. Bradman did that without wearing a helmet, on pitches left to the weather.

That said, the greatest feat of cricketing endurance wasn't actually Bradman. It was Hanif Mohammad, of Pakistan, who batted sixteen hours in the West Indian heat to force a draw in a test match in 1958. Again, without a helmet, and facing some fearsome fast bowling. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Greatest of All Time does not imply multi-disciplinary success - otherwise you really should have said Greatest All-Rounder of All Time.

Bradman wasn't simply the greatest in one sport. He towers above that sport to a level matched by no other sportsman in any other field.

Not true. There are undefeated fighters, for example, and there are fighters that are actually better than the undefeated fighters who have been beaten. And I’m guessing you’ve never heard of Bill Russell, who is the greatest American champion and not a top 5 player in his sport. Or how about the likes of Michael Phelps? There are a lot of athletes who completely dominated their respective sport, but couldn’t play another to save their life. Take Charles Barkley for example. He’s one of the 15 best basketball players to ever live, but he’s also the worst golfer I’ve ever seen. I could beat him by 20 strokes while being blackout drunk. This is why I put so much value on Thorpe. He was elite at everything, even in his older age. And again, it was over 100 years ago and he still measures the same as modern Olympians. Think of what he could have been with modern training and science.

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not true. There are undefeated fighters, for example, and there are fighters that are actually better than the undefeated fighters who have been beaten. And I’m guessing you’ve never heard of Bill Russell, who is the greatest American champion and not a top 5 player in his sport. Or how about the likes of Michael Phelps? There are a lot of athletes who completely dominated their respective sport, but couldn’t play another to save their life. Take Charles Barkley for example. He’s one of the 15 best basketball players to ever live, but he’s also the worst golfer I’ve ever seen. I could beat him by 20 strokes while being blackout drunk. This is why I put so much value on Thorpe. He was elite at everything, even in his older age. And again, it was over 100 years ago and he still measures the same as modern Olympians. Think of what he could have been with modern training and science.

Domination can be measured in statistical terms by comparing standard deviations above the norm. There are undefeated fighters, but there are no cricketers with a batting average remotely comparable to Don Bradman.

See here and here. In all cases, Bradman's dominance in cricket is a greater outlier than any other sportsman - and achieved without the advantages that modern batsman have. You mention modern training and science? Bradman retired in the 1940s, and despite all the pro-batsman changes since, no-one has got remotely close to equalling his average. 

(Modern sport also encourages specialisation. Chances are Thorpe in 2019 wouldn't be the all-rounder he was over a hundred years ago).

[the Greenleif Stark]

4 hours ago, ljkeane said:

That's nuts by the way if you're being serious. He's extremely athletic but football (soccer), baseball and golf are predominantly skill sports it's not at all clear he has the requisite skill sets to be anywhere near professional level at, let alone probably be the best.

Soccer especially he doesn't really have the body type usually associated with the very best players (it's a bit of a stereotype but guys as big as him are probably going to end up goalkeepers or maybe centre backs and nobody's going to call players in those positions the best players in the sport). On top of that you have to be both fantastically naturally talented and pretty much dedicate your life to the sport from an early age to reach the very, very top level.

American football he probably could be really good in many positions but with the nature of the sport can you really be the best without being a quarterback? Again that's a position that's not really primarily down to athleticism.

If I was going to pick the best modern sportsman it'd have to be Messi for me. He's the best player in by far the biggest sport and there's a decent argument he's the best ever.

LeBron was an all-state football player, if he went to college for football and got drafted I have no doubt he'd be a top TE or WR. Translate that to soccer, of he grew up playing soccer I have no doubt he'd be the best goalie in soccer. Golf, if he played that from a young instead of basketball I bet he'd be better than Tiger. LeBron is seriously a freak and more than that, like many of the GOATS, he has the drive and work ethic to be the best at any sport. Obviously I don't mean he could switch right now, I'm talking about if he played those sports from childhood, like he did with basketball.

[Fez]

49 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think you are confusing fitness and explosiveness.  All round fitness a running back would suck, i could beat most of them over 800m and i'm nearly 43 and out of shape. 

I think you underestimate how athletic running backs are now. They are freakish fast and freakishly strong. No they don't train for long distance running, but I think they could be ready for a race incredibly quickly.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Domination can be measured in statistical terms by comparing standard deviations above the norm. There are undefeated fighters, but there are no cricketers with a batting average remotely comparable to Don Bradman.

See here and here. In all cases, Bradman's dominance in cricket is a greater outlier than any other sportsman - and achieved without the advantages that modern batsman have. You mention modern training and science? Bradman retired in the 1940s, and despite all the pro-batsman changes since, no-one has got remotely close to equalling his average. 

(Modern sport also encourages specialisation. Chances are Thorpe in 2019 wouldn't be the all-rounder he was over a hundred years ago).

I guess I have a hard time placing someone who played a minor sport like cricket as the greatest athlete ever. What he did was statistically amazing, but I don’t even know if he can run at an average pace. It’s the same reason I can’t say Bonds is the greatest athlete ever because baseball doesn’t require a comparable amount of athleticism to sports like football, basketball, soccer, hockey and track and field.

[Consigliere]

I find it ridiculous that anyone would refer to Cricket as a minor or niche sport. It has the 2nd biggest fan following globally. When a sport is followed by one third of the world's population, it isn't niche. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

LeBron was an all-state football player, if he went to college for football and got drafted I have no doubt he'd be a top TE or WR. Translate that to soccer, of he grew up playing soccer I have no doubt he'd be the best goalie in soccer. Golf, if he played that from a young instead of basketball I bet he'd be better than Tiger. LeBron is seriously a freak and more than that, like many of the GOATS, he has the drive and work ethic to be the best at any sport. Obviously I don't mean he could switch right now, I'm talking about if he played those sports from childhood, like he did with basketball.

I actually don’t know if LeBron would have been great at golf. One of the few things he struggled with until he hit his prime was dealing with pressure, and golf is all about handling pressure. There’s a decent chance his career would have gotten derailed.

That said, if we’re talking about making the perfect athlete in a lab, LeBron is probably the winner of that contest. On top of having elite size, speed, power and vision, he has a photographic memory, and that is incredibly handy in a lot of sports.

[BigFatCoward]

27 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think you underestimate how athletic running backs are now. They are freakish fast and freakishly strong. No they don't train for long distance running, but I think they could be ready for a race incredibly quickly.

Anyone who trains for a very specific task does so at the expense of all other things. 

[BigFatCoward]

12 minutes ago, Consigliere said:

I find it ridiculous that anyone would refer to Cricket as a minor or niche sport. It has the 2nd biggest fan following globally. When a sport is followed by one third of the world's population, it isn't niche. 

North American's don't seem to realise how little of a shit the rest of the world generally gives about their sports.