Greatest Athlete of the 20th Century Elimination Thread

[Ironslave]

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.

Give me a break, that's such a strawman, of course it's more physically demanding to be a pro football player. I certainly never said that golfers were specimens. However, it is MUCH more difficult to develop the skills to be a champion golfer, than it is to be a pro football player. I don't doubt for a second the physical demand of being a pro football player, it is among the most grueling sport there is.

Yes, with practice, someone can hit the ball 300 yards and straight from time to time. However, to be able to do it consistently in competition, along with iron shots to the green, bunker shots, shots from the rough, and then putting, golf has much less room for error, it's not even close.

 

[Pickle]

I would vote but im not scrolling back 2 pages to find the scores. Stop writing essays you whores. Or at least finish ur top 10 athletes of all time ironslave lol

 

[Ironslave]

I would vote but im not scrolling back 2 pages to find the scores. Stop writing essays you whores. Or at least finish ur top 10 athletes of all time ironslave lol

LOL. I'll get at least one done this weekend.

 

[Braaq]

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 24
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 16

+1 Jordan
-1 Michael Johnson

 

[Lionheart]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 10
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 19
Michael Jordan 24
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 16

-2 Tiger

 

[Line]

I understand what your saying, at Ruth's time he was one of most (if not the most) dominant players of his time.

He's arguably the most dominant player of any sport ever. I can't reiterate enough that he had seasons in which he had more home runs in a season than entire teams did. Could you imagine such a feat today? That's how far above and beyond he was and, again, players such as him allowed sport to become what it was. You're understanding concept but seem to be misplacing the impact those early-century athletes had. Without them the progression of sport would have been much maligned.

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.

Far from the only reason those respective teams had histories as they did but I won't quibble over small matters such as this.

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.

Again, who's to say that, as a whole, today's athletes are inherently better? Yes, advancements in training recourse and technology in sport have, over the years, produced better athletes. This is because we know more about, not only the human body, but science in general and thus can produce not only more effective equipment to play with but to also train players on. Again (again) the interest in gaming generating by players of yesteryears are greatly responsible for the longing of scientists and athletes to discover what the human body is truly capable of. Such talented genetic abnormalities are the reason that every level of athletes today are playing at a higher level than in the past. The context of what those players did is immeasurable which is the difference between someone being "more athletic" and someone being "one of the greatest athletes of all time". I'll refer to the marathoner I mentioned in my prior post and how he ran 50 marathons in 50 days; his final time being his best. Who are we to say that he does not possess more trained, athletic skill than those on the list? It's a lack of contextual, that's why.

The difference of athleticism of today's athletes far surpasses those of yesteryear, and I know you know that.

Yes, but this was never my point.

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.

Dead-ball era?

But we are talking about apples and oranges here wouldn't you say?

Which is why I'm reaffirming the importance of relevance.

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.

Bodybuilding relies on subjective scoring and doesn't really compare adequately to other sports in this nature. Still, Arnold's impact on the sport was much more beneficial in terms of marketing and popularization, not on progressiveness of competition itself in comparison to Coleman.

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.

Which is why some of Ruth's most important record's still stand to this day and, in reality, had he played his whole career in stadiums that had foul poles he'd probably have an additional 50+ home runs to his total. Again, he's doing this with inferior batting and training equipment and comparetively long fields. Let's see how most major leaguers would fare hitting with a ball (size, winding tightness, core material, etc...) and bat (far inferior wood, not nearly as well crafted) made to the specifications of Ruth's era. The man had abilities that still make today's great players look pale in comparison yet you knock him because he appears overweight.

the playing field should be even and we should be measuring the athletes on their physical capacity and their accolades in the sport.

Okay, you dig up all the information you can on Ruth's VO2max and other modern tests of performance capabilities and we'll directly compare these numbers because, surely, these bland figures will tell us who's better.

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 .

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?

What 60 year old is competitive professionally in golf anymore? I mean actually competitive as in winning majors. There's a reason there's a senior or "champions" tour and while golf isn't as physically tiring or wearing of a sport you continuously damn it despite how difficult it is to actually play at an elite level. I've listed several facts about the golf swing and it's complexity and, believe me, there's a reason more and more tour players are taking to exercising and training between events. There's an incredible combination of strength, balance, and control in a swing that is unduplicated in terms of difficulty of athletic movement. And yes, that's even when the ball is sitting so nicely on the tee. If you'd like me to comment further on neurological mapping and it's involvement in, not only golf but sport in general, (which I very lightly breezed over before) I'd be happy to.

 

[Pickle]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 8
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 19
Michael Jordan 24
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 16

-2 ruth. Because baseball requires less skill then

 

[Ironslave]

-2 ruth. Because baseball requires less skill then

Are you seriously kidding me? Didn't you have Ian Thorpe, Don Bradman, and Cathy Freeman in your list? Come on dude.

 

[Duality]

Give me a break, that's such a strawman, of course it's more physically demanding to be a pro football player. I certainly never said that golfers were specimens. However, it is MUCH more difficult to develop the skills to be a champion golfer, than it is to be a pro football player. I don't doubt for a second the physical demand of being a pro football player, it is among the most grueling sport there is.

Yes, with practice, someone can hit the ball 300 yards and straight from time to time. However, to be able to do it consistently in competition, along with iron shots to the green, bunker shots, shots from the rough, and then putting, golf has much less room for error, it's not even close.

this is also a partial response to line's post, most notably the last paragraph in his last response.


you know what? i agree with you. the skill set a golfer must have is very hard to obtain and isn't easy. it takes many years of practice. however, that is the only aspect of the sport, meaning, there is absolutely nothing physically demanding or challenging to accompany this skill set they have. this to me makes the golfer's inclusion in the term "athlete" incomplete, there is no physical excellence or God given ability required to become the best. this is where our criteria is vastly different in that an elite athlete to you doesn't need to have any outstanding physical traits/abilities and can have the bulk of their ability if not all obtained through practice and not genetic superiority. i think this is pretty safe to say because i don't see how you can consider a golfer an elite athlete and not have standards as such.

 

[Duality]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 8
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 18
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 16


jordan +1 woods -1

 

[Braaq]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 8
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 18
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 14


-2 Johnson

 

[skid9832004]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 7
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 25
Tiger Woods 18
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 14
Pele 25

Someone forgot to copy Pele back in so i added him back

Pele +1 Ruth -1 <( Fuck that fat fuck)

 

[Braaq]

Someone forgot to copy Pele back in so i added him back

Oh yeah, good looking out bro...happened a while back too

 

[skid9832004]

yea i was like wtf hes my fav top athlete he is like the micheal jordan or arnold of soccer he set the stage and made it the beautiful sport it is today

 

[Rageking]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 7
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 23
Tiger Woods 18
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 14
Pele 25

-2 gretzky


-edit lets get back on topic and stop hijacking this thread, move the athlete discussion elsewhere....

 

[Line]

there is absolutely nothing physically demanding or challenging to accompany this skill set they have. this to me makes the golfer's inclusion in the term "athlete" incomplete, there is no physical excellence or God given ability required to become the best.

LL

 

[Duality]

LL

you have a very poor definition of physically demanding and God given ability.

perhaps you were the unathletic one at your high school who envied the real athletes and thus why you justify golf as you do? though this is a very juvenile personal stab, it's as good a response as you simply posting "lol" towards my post in your subtle little fashion of mockery. another clear example of your perceived superiority and really making it impossible to have an arguement with you because you are absolutely unquivering in your mindset that you are "right". i really hope you don't turn around and say the same about me because i have been very open to what you and ironslave have had to say.

i also want to say you have made many good points and have been pretty respectful. but it's little comments like this here and there that just reaffirm my beliefs. have a nice day.



Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 7
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 23
Tiger Woods 16
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 14
Pele 25


woods -2

 

[Lionheart]

Jim Brown 24
Eddie Merckx 20
Muhammad Ali 25
Jesse Owens 24
Babe Ruth 7
Jim Thorpe 24
Wayne Gretzky 23
Tiger Woods 14
Michael Jordan 25
Lance Armstrong 21
Bo Jackson 20
Michael Johnson 14
Pele 25


woods -2

 

[Ironslave]

you have a very poor definition of physically demanding and God given ability.

perhaps you were the unathletic one at your high school who envied the real athletes and thus why you justify golf as you do? though this is a very juvenile personal stab, it's as good a response as you simply posting "lol" towards my post in your subtle little fashion of mockery. another clear example of your perceived superiority and really making it impossible to have an arguement with you because you are absolutely unquivering in your mindset that you are "right". i really hope you don't turn around and say the same about me because i have been very open to what you and ironslave have had to say. have a nice day.

Oh shit, now you've done it

I agreed with much of your last post, btw. Golf is not physically "demanding" as far as endurance or rough contact, but the golf swing is the most complex movement in sports, bar none.

Though there's no god, thus, no god given ability. Genetics and natural talent are a result of the interaction of genes from mommy and daddy, not magic from an imaginary friend.

 

[Duality]

Oh shit, now you've done it

I agreed with much of your last post, btw. Golf is not physically "demanding" as far as endurance or rough contact, but the golf swing is the most complex movement in sports, bar none.

Though there's no god, thus, no god given ability. Genetics and natural talent are a result of the interaction of genes from mommy and daddy, not magic from an imaginary friend.

hmm, fair enough. like i said i think you place more importance on the technical aspect of athletics whereas i favor the raw God given athletic talent and ability. the golfers craft is not easy no doubt, but neither is the football players and the football player's genetic and physical superiority wins in my mind. but in terms of the golf swing being the most complex movement around, i agree.


alright there buddy there is no need to insult christians at the slightest chance available. would you like it more if i called it superior genetic makeup? i know you know what i am saying here regardless of how it is termed. you silly little athiest