Sports Who, in your opinion, is the greatest athlete of all time?

Remove this Banner Ad

I was being slightly facetious with my post H, I think to be classified an athlete you need to engage in some sort of physical exertion.

Chess, Poker, Darts, Snooker I would class as pass times not sport even though there can be plenty of dollars on the line. I do enjoy watching the poker and the darts occasionally though.

Yeah I questioned the definition of athlete vs sportsman and also questioned whether it was only humans.

Athletes its probably Bolt and Phelps. Maybe Roger Bannister for showing the world that its mental limitations holding people back.

Sportsmen opens up a much wider discussion. And much more interesting because most of the best athletes tend to be dopers... or doing things only dopers are meant to be able to do.
 
Phelps is the most overrated athlete of all time.

23 Olympic gold medals, but only ONCE was he ever the fastest swimmer at any distance: the 200m Freestyle in 2008

Imagine if someone won 23 gold medals for running backwards like an AFL umpire, or running with one arm behind their back, or running and hopping every other step. Would we say they were a greater athlete than Usain Bolt?

Olympic gymnasts are far greater athletes than Olympic swimmers anyway. There is no comparison. They blow them out of the water. They can do everything else that most people can do (at a rudimentary level.) Run, swim, cycle, etc. But then they can also do the incredible athletic monkey s**t which our bodies were originally designed to do, that 99.9% of us have never trained ourselves to do.
 
Last edited:
Phelps is the most overrated athlete of all time.

23 Olympic gold medals, but only ONCE was he ever the fastest swimmer at any distance: the 200m Freestyle in 2008

Imagine if someone won 23 gold medals for running backwards like an AFL umpire, or running with one arm behind their back, or running and hopping every other step. Would we say they were a greater athlete than Usain Bolt?

Olympic gymnasts are far greater athletes than Olympic swimmers anyway. There is no comparison. They blow them out of the water. They can do everything else that most people can do (at a rudimentary level.) Run, swim, cycle, etc. But then they can also do the incredible athletic monkey s**t which our bodies were originally designed to do, that 99.9% of us have never trained ourselves to do.

Phelps didnt care how fast he was at Pan Pacs or World titles. His only interest was Olympic medals. So all of his training was designed to hit his peak right at that time.

Unlike Sergey Bubka who consistently broke his world record at World cup events where there was prize money but failed all but once at the Olympics where there was no prize money.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bradman competed against a war ravaged England, slight asterisk beside his record, I'd rate Shane Warne above him.
Michael Phelps won a ton of gold in an era of swimming that has a huge asterisk next to it because of the LZR suits, but he continued to dominate once they were outlawed.
 
Sir Donald Bradman. Nobody has ever dominated a sport like he did - and he still stands head and shoulders above the rest, seventy years after his retirement.

Edit: beaten to it :)
As pointed out earlier Heather McKay didn't lose a match in about twenty years. Her record is astonishing.
 
Both probably drug cheats.

Bolt is faster then the top ten other 'fastest' men... who are all done for doping.

Up there with a certain female Australian tennis player as some of the most obvious drug users in sport.
n.

anyone who does sport profesionally, especially if they are at least moderately successful, is on dat der juice
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bradman competed against a war ravaged England, slight asterisk beside his record, I'd rate Shane Warne above him.
Michael Phelps won a ton of gold in an era of swimming that has a huge asterisk next to it because of the LZR suits, but he continued to dominate once they were outlawed.

Bradman never had to compete against the mighty NZ Black Caps either as they didn't start playing tests against Australia until the early 1970s.

Of his 52 tests, 37 of them were against England, 5 were against South Africa, 5 were against the West Indies and 5 were against India and those sides weren't as strong as they were in subsequent decades.

Bradman never had to face a West Indies bowling line up containing the likes of Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Garner, Ambrose and Walsh and he never had to face a Pakistan bowling line up of Wasim Akram, Wagar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar.

Bradman was really just a downhill skier who was fortunate to play in an era with very little strong opposition.
 
7957452-3x2-700x467.jpg
 
Sir Donald Bradman. Nobody has ever dominated a sport like he did - and he still stands head and shoulders above the rest, seventy years after his retirement.

Edit: beaten to it :)

Err Wayne Gretzky says hi - and he wasn't a complete prick of a bloke
 
Yeah, Gretzky dominated wherever he went, and was a big enough player to demand that his mates came with him when he was traded. Really hard to judge across eras and sports, but I don't think anybody can convince me that Gretzky isn't the most dominant of all time in a relatively even competition.
 
Bradman never had to compete against the mighty NZ Black Caps either as they didn't start playing tests against Australia until the early 1970s.
You must love living in WA, home of the overly parochial moron. There isn't a NZ batsman fit to oil Bradman's bat, all I'm saying is that his record is overblown because of the war. He's also a s**t bloke, when Keith Miller was bowling to some Englishman he knew in the war he went easy, Bradman had a go at him for it and Miller told him to GAGF.

Keith Miller represented Australia in cricket and Victoria in AFL, who else has represented two sports at the highest possible level while also fighting Nazis?
 
All valid points, but Bradman batted on uncovered pitches without a helmet and still averaged 99.94.

Of the top 60 batsmen in test history (by average, min 20 tests), only 12 of them can be considered Bradman contemporaries. If it was so easy in the 1920s, 30s and 40s why aren't the record books stacked with players from that era?

Four throughout history average 60+, 37 average between 50 and 60, Bradman 99.94.

The 'average average' of the next best 59 batsmen in history is 52.8. Bradman 99.94 is 89% better.

No amount of statistical bias, ease of era, quality of opponent accounts for Bradman's record being so far ahead of everyone else.
 
All valid points, but Bradman batted on uncovered pitches without a helmet and still averaged 99.94.

Of the top 60 batsmen in test history (by average, min 20 tests), only 12 of them can be considered Bradman contemporaries. If it was so easy in the 1920s, 30s and 40s why aren't the record books stacked with players from that era?

Four throughout history average 60+, 37 average between 50 and 60, Bradman 99.94.

The 'average average' of the next best 59 batsmen in history is 52.8. Bradman 99.94 is 89% better.

No amount of statistical bias, ease of era, quality of opponent accounts for Bradman's record being so far ahead of everyone else.
He was a war squib though.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top