Greatest Athlete of the 20th Century Elimination Thread

[Braaq]

Lets have a greatest bodybuilder of all time elimination thread.

I'll start for Duality and Braaq

-2 Arnold Schwarzenegger

That is fine, Arnold was great but I am not so sure I think he is the best of all time though. He definitely brought our sport to where it is today with his charisma and acting.. but IMO Ronnie Coleman is the best.
As for Ruth, I played many sports for years... baseball included and it's not as hard and Ruth was fat... so his athletic ability in comparison is not up to par with the others on this list. You can argue all you want, but that is my stance. To me Bo Jackson deserves to be on this list more than Ruth because he played two professional sports and was good at both. Ruth was great in his day, probably the best to many... but he will be eliminated none the less

 

[Duality]

That is fine, Arnold was great but I am not so sure I think he is the best of all time though. He definitely brought our sport to where it is today with his charisma and acting.. but IMO Ronnie Coleman is the best.
As for Ruth, I played many sports for years... baseball included and it's not as hard and Ruth was fat... so his athletic ability in comparison is not up to par with the others on this list. You can argue all you want, but that is my stance. To me Bo Jackson deserves to be on this list more than Ruth because he played two professional sports and was good at both. Ruth was great in his day, probably the best to many... but he will be eliminated none the less

we just have higher standards for what constitutes an athlete.

and arnold isn't the greatest of all time though he is probably the most important bodybuiler of all time.



Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 10
Jim Thorpe 25
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 22
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 19



ruth -1 woods -1

 

[Ironslave]

This thread has completely gone to shit. Such a shame b/c it was a great idea.

Didn't you claim Tom Brady was one of the greatest athletes of all time? Woods and Ruth are easily just as (probably more) athletic than just throwing a football. Yeah i know, you're going to come back with getting hit, big deal.

 

[Braaq]

This thread has completely gone to shit. Such a shame b/c it was a great idea.

Didn't you claim Tom Brady was one of the greatest athletes of all time? Woods and Ruth are easily just as (probably more) athletic than just throwing a football. Yeah i know, you're going to come back with getting hit, big deal.

I never said that Brady was one of the greatest athletes of all time, I do however, think he is one of the greatest quarterbacks of this decade... but ok I will leave Ruth alone... maybe you need to vote more and help keep the guys you want on and the get rid of the ones you don't want

 

[Duality]

This thread has completely gone to shit. Such a shame b/c it was a great idea.

Didn't you claim Tom Brady was one of the greatest athletes of all time? Woods and Ruth are easily just as (probably more) athletic than just throwing a football. Yeah i know, you're going to come back with getting hit, big deal.

first i am NOT saying your view is wrong. i have only been trying to argue my side just so those who disagree with me can see where my line of though is coming from. it's all subjective. it's all good.

i'm sorry but ruth and brady are "easily if just as if not more athletic than just throwing a football" do you realize all the skill and ability required to put the quarterback in the situation to even throw the football effectively? it's the same as the jumpshot comparison i explained to you.

but since you brought up the Brady comparison, here we go.

an NFL quarterback MUST posses;

*an exceptional arm with strength and accuracy (the only similarity we will find between the golfer and the pitcher)

*superior or at least above average athletic ability (fun fact; tom brady's 40 yard time is 4.9, not very optimistic that a golfer or mr. ruth can duplicate even this "subpar" time that is a solid example of raw athletic ability, the average time in the NFL in the 40 is a 4.6)

*immediate unquivering reflexes that must have him throw to many moving targets that are defended by other elite level athletes. (fun fact; a quarterback has an average 4.5 seconds to throw the ball before being sacked, baseball and golfers can take their sssswwwweeettt time for as long as they please, which they always do)

again we only see one similarity between the real and faux athletes (golf is more my emphasis here). the rest of the difference makes it much (MUCH) harder on the quarterback to perform at a higher level and requires a far superior conditioning level and raw athletic ability, and thus makes him the superior athlete.

and i would like a real retort to what i just wrote here. for the most part you have just ignored points i have made in what appears to be an effort to avoid a topic/point that hurts your arguement. is anything i wrote here wrong?

 

[high_five]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 10
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 23
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 19

+1 Tiger
-1 Thorpe

 

[Braaq]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 10
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 23
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 17

-2 Michael Johnson

 

[Duality]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 10
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 21
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 17


-2 woods

 

[Ironslave]

I never said that Brady was one of the greatest athletes of all time, I do however, think he is one of the greatest quarterbacks of this decade... but ok I will leave Ruth alone... maybe you need to vote more and help keep the guys you want on and the get rid of the ones you don't want

Sorry dude, I was referring to Duality's nonsense of claiming Brady, Allen Iverson, Randy Moss and Adrian Peterson belonged in the discussion for top 10 athletes of all time in my thread.

brb, gotta own Duality, will edit this.

 

[high_five]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 10
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 21
Michael Jordan 23
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 17

-2 Jordan

 

[Duality]

Sorry dude, I was referring to Duality's nonsense of claiming Brady, Allen Iverson, Randy Moss and Adrian Peterson belonged in the discussion for top 10 athletes of all time in my thread.

brb, gotta own Duality, will edit this.

btw i misunderstood that thread i thought it was the top 100 athletes of all time. obviously none of those listed athletes should be in the top 10 of all time. sorry for the confusion

you may post a good response (i still await one of those ) but sorry no ownage will occur

 

[Ironslave]

i'm sorry but ruth and brady are "easily if just as if not more athletic than just throwing a football" do you realize all the skill and ability required to put the quarterback in the situation to even throw the football effectively? it's the same as the jumpshot comparison i explained to you.

And bringing back a golf club doesn't? That's just absurd, bringing back a golf club into position is easily more difficult than bringing an arm back into throwing position.

*an exceptional arm with strength and accuracy (the only similarity we will find between the golfer and the pitcher)

Oh okay, and hitting a golf ball 300 yards to a small target, where even the slightest miscalculation means hitting it way wide, doesn't?

How about Ruth's dominance as a pitcher? How is this any different than Brady throwing?

How about Ruth hitting a ball moving 90+ MPH for over 300 feet? Even an inch or two off and it's a foul, or a pop up.

*superior or at least above average athletic ability (fun fact; tom brady's 40 yard time is 4.9, not very optimistic that a golfer or mr. ruth can duplicate even this "subpar" time that is a solid example of raw athletic ability, the average time in the NFL in the 40 is a 4.6)

I'd imagine Babe Ruth in his prime could certainly run as fast as Brady, the notion that because he had a beer gut he wasn't athletic is absurd, and shows how little you know about Ruth. Besides, many quarterbacks don't run fast times, Peyton Manning sure as hell doesn't, and he's one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time.

immediate unquivering reflexes that must have him throw to many moving targets that are defended by other elite level athletes. (fun fact; a quarterback has an average 4.5 seconds to throw the ball before being sacked, baseball and golfers can take their sssswwwweeettt time for as long as they please, which they always do)

Oh give me a break, are you even entertaining the notion that a quarterback has less time to make a throw, than someone like Ruth trying to hit a ball coming at 90 miles per hour? Ignoring this is the stupidest thing you've said yet.

A quarterback has like 4.5 seconds to throw the ball, as you said. Assuming a ball is thrown 90 miles per hour, from the mound to home plate 60 feet away, this means a baseball player has 0.45 seconds from release, to when he has to hit the ball. You think this doesn't require reflex, coordination, strength??

the rest of the difference makes it much (MUCH) harder on the quarterback to perform at a higher level and requires a far superior conditioning level and raw athletic ability, and thus makes him the superior athlete.

Golfers can get away without being conditioned, as can many baseball players (though most usually have great speed). But it's a different kind of sport, and there is absolutely no way on earth it's harder to be a high level football player, than it is to be a champion golfer. The margin of error in golf is the tiniest of any sport.

and i would like a real retort to what i just wrote here. for the most part you have just ignored points i have made in what appears to be an effort to avoid a topic/point that hurts your arguement. is anything i wrote here wrong?

Yes, many of it is. What have I ignored?

 

[Ironslave]

Anybody who can even thing for a second that this is not incredible athleticism is wrong.

 

[Line]

your just way too convinced of your own superiority to even have a real arguement with.

I've shown you nothing but respect and answered your questions thoroughly throughout the course of this thread until your last post in which you, for some unbeknownst reason, decided to play the victim. Mind you this is after you've admitted to being unfamiliar with both baseball and golf despite have preconceived, undeveloped opinions of the sports and the impact of two specific athletes in question. While being courteous to the statements and statistics I've provided you it seems you've continued to ignore them and fail to realize the net positive contributions these men have made to, not only their sports, but athletic competition in general.

As for Ruth, I played many sports for years... baseball included and it's not as hard and Ruth was fat... so his athletic ability in comparison is not up to par with the others on this list.

Again, you seem to be falling into the same pitfall as Duality in the sense that you're completely ignoring the era in which these men participated and what the common man/athlete looked like in those times. You have no facts other than images of his physique in which you're gauging Ruth's athleticism and as someone as supposedly learned as you I'd assume you realize this doesn't supply the appropriate information to judge someone's training and performance capacities. This is why statistic in conjunction with perspective related to time (as well as impact) are far more important yet they are continuously being ignored by naysayers.

Also, I'm not in any way doubting your athletic ability but if you fail to see the correlations amongst the aforementioned than it seems your actual understanding of said sports are limited.

we just have higher standards for what constitutes an athlete.

I'd label your standards as different and ill-informed. It's fine that you think someone of what you consider to be the ultimate athletic criterion to be the best athletes but this severely limits your range in terms of perspective. Too much emphasis being placed on peak capacity means you lose sight of what got sports to where they are in the first place. There's a sense of importance, much like that of the films I hold in such high regard, as there is here.

but since you brought up the Brady comparison, here we go.

an NFL quarterback MUST posses;

*an exceptional arm with strength and accuracy (the only similarity we will find between the golfer and the pitcher)

Not to mention Ruth, once again, would have gone down as one of the greatest pitchers in history hadn't his emergence as a hitter taken a priority. Could you imagine such a multi-faceted talent that they made him leave his already dominating position to focus on an entirely different asset of the game...of which he became the best ever at?

*superior or at least above average athletic ability (fun fact; tom brady's 40 yard time is 4.9, not very optimistic that a golfer or mr. ruth can duplicate even this "subpar" time that is a solid example of raw athletic ability, the average time in the NFL in the 40 is a 4.6)

How much do you think average 40 times amongst professional athletes have changed over the decades. Again, the influences due to prior stars is what grew all sports to what they are today.

*immediate unquivering reflexes that must have him throw to many moving targets that are defended by other elite level athletes. (fun fact; a quarterback has an average 4.5 seconds to throw the ball before being sacked, baseball and golfers can take their sssswwwweeettt time for as long as they please, which they always do)

Laughable statistic when it comes to relevance. If I had you try to complete a 15 yard pass while your receiver is being defended by an moderately familiar athlete you'd be able to do it quite quickly. If I placed you in the fairway from 100 yards out, a very, very short approach shot, and told you to hit the green you'd be much less likely to do it...let alone get within the 12-15 foot range that most skilled amateur players would. The precision required to hit a golf ball is above and beyond that of any other individual task in any professional sport. Think of every angle that is measurable during the act of throwing a football. While such important attributes to a throwing motion such as arm angle, plant and release points, and establishing a strong center of gravity are important, many other biomechanical measurements are considered afterthoughts. Yes, if something becomes unstable within a quarterback's release, said changes will be videotaped, magnified, analyzed, etc...but I can guarantee you that professional golfers have at least 12 figures (joint angles, COG's, clubhead angle, torque...) measured at 8 different points of their golf swing constantly. They know this data they're given, they know what it means, and they will change things to the degree if it means hitting a few hundred balls a day in order to correctly make such an emphatic shift in their swing.

the rest of the difference makes it much (MUCH) harder on the quarterback to perform at a higher level and requires a far superior conditioning level and raw athletic ability...

Again, you don't seem to be understanding the differences in pressures from sport to sport, nor are you even attempting to. You're perspectivist umbilicus is quite limited in scope.

for the most part you have just ignored points i have made in what appears to be an effort to avoid a topic/point that hurts your arguement.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

Anybody who can even thing for a second that this is not incredible athleticism is wrong.

The strength and balance of Woods' swing is astounding. There are several points throughout his backswing which show how strong his arms, shoulders, and core truly are to maintain such an athletic posture without "breaking down" at any of the common golfing fail points. I could watch it all day.

EDIT: If we're going to get silly, where's the love for Dean Karnazes? He ran 50 marathons in 50 days in 50 different states. What arguments do we have against his capabilities as a top athlete?

 

[Skeptic]

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

 

[Braaq]

Again, you seem to be falling into the same pitfall as Duality in the sense that you're completely ignoring the era in which these men participated and what the common man/athlete looked like in those times. You have no facts other than images of his physique in which you're gauging Ruth's athleticism and as someone as supposedly learned as you I'd assume you realize this doesn't supply the appropriate information to judge someone's training and performance capacities. This is why statistic in conjunction with perspective related to time (as well as impact) are far more important yet they are continuously being ignored by naysayers.

Also, I'm not in any way doubting your athletic ability but if you fail to see the correlations amongst the aforementioned than it seems your actual understanding of said sports are limited.

I understand what your saying, at Ruth's time he was one of most (if not the most) dominant players of his time. I also understand the differences in the eras of today's athletes compared to almost a century ago. Ruth made any team he was on dominant and it was evident when he left the Red Sox for the Yankees. But my argument is that just because they were dominant athletes of their era does not mean that they are better than the athletes of today who are even better against a more competitive field of players. The difference of athleticism of today's athletes far surpasses those of yesteryear, and I know you know that. So when I am comparing today's athletes with athletes such as Babe Ruth in the same list, I am clearly going to pick athletes that dominant today's genre because in comparison they are more athletic, and play against a deeper more competitive pool of players. If I was to make a list of the best athletes of all time you better believe I would put Ruth and the others that Ironslave put on his top ten list. But we are talking about apples and oranges here wouldn't you say?
Also, I may not think much about golf... but Tiger Woods came and dominated that sport and still does. He is also in great shape, so although the sport may not require much athleticism I still think he is truly an amazing athlete.

 

[Rageking]

+2 line
+2 IS

 

[Braaq]

+2 line
+2 IS

were any of us competing? I was unaware...

 

[Duality]

I understand what your saying, at Ruth's time he was one of most (if not the most) dominant players of his time. I also understand the differences in the eras of today's athletes compared to almost a century ago. Ruth made any team he was on dominant and it was evident when he left the Red Sox for the Yankees. But my argument is that just because they were dominant athletes of their era does not mean that they are better than the athletes of today who are even better against a more competitive field of players. The difference of athleticism of today's athletes far surpasses those of yesteryear, and I know you know that. So when I am comparing today's athletes with athletes such as Babe Ruth in the same list, I am clearly going to pick athletes that dominant today's genre because in comparison they are more athletic, and play against a deeper more competitive pool of players. If I was to make a list of the best athletes of all time you better believe I would put Ruth and the others that Ironslave put on his top ten list. But we are talking about apples and oranges here wouldn't you say?
Also, I may not think much about golf... but Tiger Woods came and dominated that sport and still does. He is also in great shape, so although the sport may not require much athleticism I still think he is truly an amazing athlete.

i read your post Line and this a partial response to what you wrote last as well.



these are very good points. a good example would be something ironslave brought up: who do you think is the greatest bodybuilder of all time? many say arnold, because (and this is going on the line of though Line is using) he brought the sport to fruition, was the first man to dominate the Olympia, and was wildly successful mostly as the result of bodybuilding and that in turn benefited the sport greatly. however while his exploits make him the most important bodybuilder ever, it does not make him the best. Ronnie, despite having the era difference and the chemical advantage, must be viewed as the greatest because competitvely he was simply unbeatable in his prime. you just can't say arnold was better in shot by shot comparisons.

this is where i believe line's reasoning is different than mine. he views ruth as a superior athlete because of the historical advancements he brought to the sport. and that is not a bad nor incorrect view. however i do not have pity for him (ruth) when comparing him to athletes of now due said "era". the fact of the matter is that there have been and are currently far superior athletes and they should not be knocked for playing in the era they play in today just as ruth should not be given special consideration for his. the playing field should be even and we should be measuring the athletes on their physical capacity and their accolades in the sport. i mean ruth isn't even the greatest baseball player ever, Barry Bonds is from from a statistical and physical standpoint. yet ruth is the only representation the MLB has on this list. that in and of it self should eliminate ruth right off the bat because he's not even the best athlete in his sport .

question for Line; do you think a given sport is less challenging, physically demanding, and the quality of athlete lower, if said player can compete at the highest level possible, while in their 50's and 60's?

you responded to that question but incorrectly sometime ago. you said something like "you can't be 60 and shoot a jump shot" and that was waaayyy off the point. point being, you can't be 60 and compete in the NBA. if a 60 year old can still play competively at a professional level, this doesn't make the level of difficulty in the sport less in your eyes?

 

[Duality]

and there is absolutely no way on earth it's harder to be a high level football player, than it is to be a champion golfer.

i have immense respect for you, but this is the absolute silliest, absurd, thing i have heard yet in this thread. have you ever played football? been to practices for a whole season including preseason 2-a-days (btw don't ask me if i have, because i have)? seen how physically beaten to shit the players are after games? there is a MAJOR reason the NFL season is only 16 games and the NFL players' career is FAR shorter than the PGA golfer (didn't jack nicklaus compete relatively recently, and isn't he in his 60's? the day you see someone playing at that age in the NFL or NBA is the sign of the apacolypse) just as you say i am ignorant to the "plights" the pro golfer faces to be successful, i echo that sentiment to you about the NFL player, and multiply it by 10.

i don't want this to get ugly or insulting. but maaaaannnn do we have different levels of respect for physical capacity and raw athletic ability. your only points for golf are "precision" "accuracy" "timing and coordination" "they don't need any level of physical conditioning because it's not part of the sport" (btw that's no excuse to be out of shape if not just fat). you know who else posses all of these qualities? Kirk Hammet (lead guitar, Metallica) and this was obtained through practice and not God given athletic talent, same as the golfer. your rebuttal to this would be "the guitar player doesn't have to hit a ball 300 yards" and i ask you, do these golfers look like physical specimens to you? do you not think that with practice and proper training geared towards golf at a high level, you couldn't hit the ball 300 yards with decent accuracy? these men are not blessed with more fast twitch fibers or better ability, the simply practice their ass off. while this is admirable, it pails in comparison to the NBA player who practices just as hard, and is vastly physically superior to the golfer in every aspect.