[Other Sport] Best sportsman / athlete of all time

[stewart12]

If doping doesn't disqualify you from this award, the Bolt is a good shout. Of all sports, sprinting probably has the most people attempt it, and Bolt is the best there's ever been. Not as big a sport, but if doping is allowed, then Lance Armstrong was also pretty good.

As for clean athletes - that's a tough one. But it's not Mohammed Ali. His mouth and status are bigger than his achievements.

i'm not expert at all, but it is a wildly held opinion that Bolt's achievements were a result of doping?

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Sugar Ray Robinson.

Amateur career.......85 fights 0 Defeats ( 69 k.o )
Turned pro in 1940 aged 19.
1943 to 1951...91 fights unbeaten.
ONE DEFEAT in his first 131 Pro fights ( Jake laMotta ) before losing to Randolph Turpin at Earls Court in 1951.
Held World Welterweight title between 1946 - 1951.
Retired in 1952. Made a comeback, regaining the World Middleweight title and fighting until 1965.

Career record......201 fights.....174 wins....8 draws....19 losses...( many late in his career when well past his prime )

Boxing historian Bert Sugar......GOAT.
Ring Magazine 2002.................No. 1 out of top 80 boxers of all time
BoxRec Nov 2021.....................Pound for pound GOAT.
Muhammad Ali..........................The Greatest

In a league of his own. Quick hands, quick feet, powerful punch, skillful, courageous, fought everybody for 25 yrs, including LaMotta six times. Charasmatic, bringing glamour and excitement to a rather seedy sport back then. Trailblazer. Unique. The greatest boxer of all time and a massive claim to best sportsman of all time.

 

[phoenix]

Daley Thomson

 

[Half Time Pies]

Yes, it's hard to compare across different eras but I'd say that scoring runs in Bradman's era was much more difficult. He was batting on uncovered wickets (and some of them very rough indeed), with minimal protection. Facing Larwood bowling at 90+ mph on a bouncy Aussie track, with those flimsy spiked gloves and no helmet must have been a tough proposition. If you look at averages pre-1980 bowlers tend to be slightly better than they are now, while batters are slightly lower.

And he rarely faced English toffs: Larwood, Voce, Bowes, Tate, Verity, Bedser, Laker, Hollies were all professionals

I didn't know the professional game started so early! The point remains valid though that he only played England so the international game wasn't well developed at the time. Very different to the game of cricket nowadays and other global sports in the modern era.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

i'm not expert at all, but it is a wildly held opinion that Bolt's achievements were a result of doping?

No.

https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/Did-Usain-Bolt-use-performance-enhancing-drugs

 

[Gwylan]

The point remains valid though that he only played England so the international game wasn't well developed at the time.

He didn't. He played against South Africa, West Indies and India.

And if what you saying is true - that it was easier batting then - why don't top batters of that era have averages in the 80s and 90s? He was streets ahead of other players (and don't forget that he lost several of his peak years to the war)

 

[Albion in the north]

Thompson/Ennis and their counterparts miles ahead of single-discipline athletes IMO, the technical ability to be decent at 10/7 events, plus the fitness, concentration and endurance to do all of them in a couple of days is mind-blowing.

Totally agree. Jess Ennis was going to be my suggestion.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Redgrave for me. 1st Olympic gold 1984, his last 2000. The later whilst being a diabetic and suffering from colitis.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Half Time Pies]

He didn't. He played against South Africa, West Indies and India.

And if what you saying is true - that it was easier batting then - why don't top batters of that era have averages in the 80s and 90s? He was streets ahead of other players (and don't forget that he lost several of his peak years to the war)

Sorry I meant to type 'in' England'! The only tests he played outside of Australia where in England.

I am not saying that he wasn't a great sportsman, and streaks ahead of those of his time, but thats very different to saying he's the best sportsman of all time. You cant compare someone of that era playing a minority sport of cricket in two countries with someone who gets to the very top in a game like football which is played by 100's of millions of people across the world and is truly a global sport.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Totally agree. Jess Ennis was going to be my suggestion.

How on earth could the answer be Jess Ennis, when there are a load of athletes ahead of her, in an event defined by points scores?

She's not even the best of her own era (Kluft was), or the best ever Brit (Johnson-Thompson). Jackie Joyner-Kersee is mile out ahead overall.

https://www.worldathletics.org/reco...mbined-events/heptathlon/outdoor/women/senior


She's a much better suggestion than Daley Thompson, mind, who is 85th on the men's all time list!

https://www.worldathletics.org/reco...=false&firstDay=1900-01-01&lastDay=2022-09-22

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Sorry I meant to type 'in' England'! The only tests he played outside of Australia where in England.

I am not saying that he wasn't a great sportsman, and streaks ahead of those of his time, but thats very different to saying he's the best sportsman of all time. You cant compare someone of that era playing a minority sport of cricket in two countries with someone who gets to the very top in a game like football which is played by 100's of millions of people across the world and is truly a global sport.

There is an argument that Mike Atherton has made in the past, that when the general standard of a sport is lower, more players will have outstanding records, since it's easier for a good player to prosper when everybody else is relatively rubbish. I think in a cricket context this generally explains the greater number of players averaging in the high 50s in the past, rather than Bradman's freakish average.

As far as Bradman's record against England is concerned, it's worth bearing in mind that while the difference that uncovered pitches made to people's overall record can be overplayed (there were plenty of flat pitches in the 30s) there was much more variety in conditions in those days, so it's not like he was playing on what you might now imagine as a typical English/Australian wicket every game. The English bowlers of that time would have been extremely good at what they did as well, they were playing about 5 days a week in a system that had been around for about 50 years at that point, so while there may well have been relatively few genuine quick bowlers around, they absolutely knew what they were doing.

As far as minority sport is concerned, cricket was probably the most popular sport in both countries at the time. The player pool in England was probably significantly larger than it is now, given the decline in cricket's popularity since then.

Of course it's still a completely different challenge to what a modern player has to deal with, but you could just as well argue that Messi isn't very good at lawn bowls, it's just a different skill set for a different challenge.

Personally, as far as greatest sportsman goes, I'd go for somebody who'd reached the top in more than one sport/skill anyway, rather than somebody who's totally bossed one thing.

 

[Half Time Pies]

There is an argument that Mike Atherton has made in the past, that when the general standard of a sport is lower, more players will have outstanding records, since it's easier for a good player to prosper when everybody else is relatively rubbish. I think in a cricket context this generally explains the greater number of players averaging in the high 50s in the past, rather than Bradman's freakish average.

As far as Bradman's record against England is concerned, it's worth bearing in mind that while the difference that uncovered pitches made to people's overall record can be overplayed (there were plenty of flat pitches in the 30s) there was much more variety in conditions in those days, so it's not like he was playing on what you might now imagine as a typical English/Australian wicket every game. The English bowlers of that time would have been extremely good at what they did as well, they were playing about 5 days a week in a system that had been around for about 50 years at that point, so while there may well have been relatively few genuine quick bowlers around, they absolutely knew what they were doing.

As far as minority sport is concerned, cricket was probably the most popular sport in both countries at the time. The player pool in England was probably significantly larger than it is now, given the decline in cricket's popularity since then.

Of course it's still a completely different challenge to what a modern player has to deal with, but you could just as well argue that Messi isn't very good at lawn bowls, it's just a different skill set for a different challenge.

Personally, as far as greatest sportsman goes, I'd go for somebody who'd reached the top in more than one sport/skill anyway, rather than somebody who's totally bossed one thing.

There are very few of those though, that reached the top in multiple sports. Although you get the feeling that certain sportsmen would be good at anything, Usain Bolt was a decent Cricketer and could play football to a decent standard apparently.

Using the same train of thought, in Cricket perhaps a 'allrounder' like Imran Khan or Garfield Sobers has a bigger claim than Bradman as an overall sportsman?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Usain Bolt was a decent Cricketer and could play football to a decent standard apparently.

From personal experience, I can categorical say, that this is not actually true.

 

[Live by the sea]

Lots of fantastic choices but I’m going to have to go with Federer .

 

[Clive Walker]

Miguel Induráin
Waisale Tikoisolomoni Serevi
Roger Federer
Shane Warne
Sir Don Bradman
Micheal Jordan
Hermann Maier
Ronnie O'Sullivan
Steve Redgrave
Tiger Woods
Serena Williams
Martina Navratilova
Jonah Lomu
Dan Carter
Carl Lewis
Michael Johnson
Usain Bolt
Rafa Nadal
Sachin Tendulkar
Pele
Maradona
Michael Phelps
Eliud Kipchoge

But undoubtedly the award goes to kemy agustien

 

[pb21]

Miguel Induráin

Of all the cyclists!

 

[Brighthelmstone]

He wasn’t head and shoulders above all others as both Norton and Frazier beat him in his prime.

True, but he avenged them. Great thing with these types of questions, everyone has a differing opinion

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

There are very few of those though, that reached the top in multiple sports. Although you get the feeling that certain sportsmen would be good at anything, Usain Bolt was a decent Cricketer and could play football to a decent standard apparently.

Using the same train of thought, in Cricket perhaps a 'allrounder' like Imran Khan or Garfield Sobers has a bigger claim than Bradman as an overall sportsman?

There have been a fair few double internationals in cricket/football and cricket/rugby, but that's not possible anymore because the seasons and preseasons overlap too much. Presumably there are equivalent pairings in other sports but I wouldn't know (or to be frank, care) about those.

I've certainly heard people propose Sobers or Kallis as candidates for greatest cricketer. I'd argue Imran didn't score enough hundreds to be considered for that conversation, great a player though he clearly was. Some people would probably make an argument for Sydney Barnes as a bowler but you really are getting into pointless historical comparisons at that point.

 

[Mr Putdown]

C.B. Fry.

International cricketer and footballer.

Long jump world record holder. Also played rugby for the Barbarians.

He was also offered the vacant throne of Albania. Amazing man.

 

[zefarelly]

Think we are trying to find the best sportsperson, not the nicest.

Like Ben Johnson

I don't think anyone in modern cycling or athletics can be serious contenders due to, shall we say, 'un-natural preparation practices'