still though man how can you possibly call this a list of the greatest athletes ever.....and put a woman on the list? seriously this isn't being sexist, women are physically and athletically inferior to men (when comparing athletes of similar caliber, obviously allison felix is a far superior athlete to the average man). it's just how it is. how you can put a female golfer ahead of the greatest basketball player ever (who is arguably one of the greaest physical specimens as well, ever) makes this a list of who you find to be the most influential ever, not the best.
edit: i am aware this is ironslave's list. i just want to hear more of a justification for the selection process here.
its not about whose better than who blah blah, its about how they dominated in their sport. the fact that shes female doesnt mean the domination she had is any less than the domination of guy. you're comparing totally different sports. and im pretty sure youve had arguments with people (tim i think it was??) about the same thing you're talking about
Oh please, hockey doesn't take more skill than basketball? Granted, nobody is saying that Gretzky was a wrecking crew, but hockey requires less physical superiority than basketball?
It is infinite times easier to dominate a basketball game than a hockey game, this is absurd if you think otherwise. Gretzky did it better, and longer than Jordan. Sorry, its not even close.
no i did not. where did this even come from? i don't have any qualms with gretzky being higher than jordan as that is fairly subjective as to who dominated their sport more. i think you know what "sport" it is i think deserves no place on this list.
umm did i question gretzky's placing on this list??
, had to rep you on that. I cannot argue with his placing because when you look at it how you put it, you are right. 
. Golf is a hard sport to be good at, but IMO it is much harder to become well known in golf than say compared to football or basketball.
Yes, yes it is harder to become an elite golfer than most other sports. Golf has the most participants of any sport on the planet, has the most professional and semi-professional athletes and requires a large skillset and ability to just be consistent let alone dominate. I can think of a few examples of pro athletes that started out with golf scholarships but changed sports (tennis, cricket and hockey I think were where they ended up from the e.g. in mind) as they had less chance of making it.
While I understand what you are saying and agree to some extent you are being particularly misogonistic with your statement.i disagree with the bold portion of this statement and i'll tell you why and this is my arguement against the female ironslave has at #4. they seperate male and female competitors for a reason, correct? this is to promote a even and competitive playing field. so in my mind, a women can never be considered one of the greatest athletes ever because their competition is not the greatest in the world (and i mean greatest, not greatest for a woman, see what i'm saying) this is an unfair characteristic of life that both sexes are not created equal. even if a woman does dominate her sport, the fact that she is doing it against less than the best means she can not be considered one of the greatest ever to play the sport. she can however be considered the greatest female to ever play the sport.
example: did you know that legally the NBA, NFL, or PGA cannot discriminate due to sex? technically if a woman is good enough, she can make an NBA team
however because a woman has never made one of these pro teams (or in annika sorenstam's case, not done well at all) based entirly off of physical ability, leagues were then formed to make competition fairer for women as seen in the LPGA and WNBA.
Originally posted by Tim290280
While I understand what you are saying and agree to some extent you are being particularly misogonistic with your statement.
. That circumstances influence peoples' abilities to succede? idk please elaborate.
hopefully this doesn't influence peoples' ability to accept what i am saying.
As I said I think your point while valid was not in the context of realism and smacked of misogonism. If that isn't your intention then you need to be more clear.
It isn't technically the same sport, they play in a womens league. In the golf example they play off of different course positions (bringing different factors and elements into play), often entirely different courses to the men. THe only true example of the same sport I can think of (off the top of my head) is track and field. This is why I acknowledged the fact that women and men are different and should be viewed as such, as the women aren't the same athletes. But to say that they are some how less great due to their gender is to say that the women's competition is a joke, which it is not.
Yes this was what I was saying. You have to compare apples with apples, not oranges and pears and apples. Jack Nicklaus was previously the best golfer in the world and still has more title than Tiger Woods. Why is he not regarded as the best still (since he does hold more titles)? Because Tiger has done it on harder courses against more competition. Yet you can't compare the two easily as technology has changed etc, and they have never played against each other in their respective primes. There were also several great historic golfers that dominated when they still had regular jobs, played with hickory stick clubs, etc. They really need to be put in a play off with Woods and Nicklaus to decide whom is the greatest golfer.
I'm saying that you can't say that X athlete is not as good because they can't hack it against Y athletes. By that assertion all other factors that limited athletes and any comparisons suddenly becomes valid. I could claim that Tiger Woods isn't as good as Bobby Jones because Bobby had it tougher. How do you compare the achievements of golfers in the era of the featherie ball, a sewn leather sphere stuffed with feathers, to the modern era of aerodynamically tested Surlyn balls and titanium-shafted clubs? How do you rank players who had different opportunities to win championships? Or those who competed before there were large money purses or, indeed, any at all?i'm not gonna lie, i don't understand what you're getting at
No doesn't change what we accept from you. It just means that your opinion is very much formed from a limited knowledge base. While this is true of a lot of people (old and young) you do tend to grasp an awareness of what you don't know with age.well i guess i am rather young
