Greatest athlete of last century

[Shabbaman]

Well, if you want to pick the greatest athlete, you'd have to agree on a standard you want to compare them to. Like I said, you need international competition (compare it with the qualifications to be picked as an olympic sport: being played on at least 3 continents).

Early baseball fails in that aspect. It's an international sport now though. Is Babe Ruth the best baseball player ever? I don't know, you tell me. Based on his stats he might be, but those stats are pretty meaningless to me. They're only valid in their own timeframe, because the sport is different now (I assume it has made some progress over the years).

 

[dionysos2048]

Whilst he achieved fame in the footballing world for his abilities. 12 years at the top in the biggest clubs in the world, winning everything going as well as leading his country and achieving over 100 caps. He's obviously more than just 'a good player' or how else would he have done that? if he was really just a 'good player' then he'd have been cut from the team by the hardly compassionate Alex Ferguson or Fabio Capello. I'm not saying he's the worlds best athlete or whatever but he is more than 'just a good player'.

Seriously, here in Spain he was laughed upon. He barely could dribble a defender and he coincided with one of the worst decline in Real Madrid history, and he only was there to sell shirts.
Had he not been English and famous off the pitch, nobody would even mention him here.
I'm not saying he was a bad player, but just a good player. I can seriously
mention 100 players better than him. Since I gather you mostly watch British football, just think about it: in his time in the EPL: Giggs, Scholes, Keane (nobody's heard of them in the US), Henry, Van Nistelroy, Bergkamp, Zola were all better players, and at that time it wasn't the best league in Europe.

 

[holiday_hawk]

(I assume it has made some progress over the years).

Not the only real differences now are most ball parks are a little bit bigger, pitchers have more skill and can throw different types of pitches, and back then pitchers usually pitched entire games so by the end of the game their pitches weren't as good. So if you were great back then you wouldn't be as good today but you would still be great, and if you suck today and would play back then you wouldn't suck as bad but you would still suck.

this is nonsense, you're speaking a different language.
I don't know what's a RBI, a MVP, a pitcher or a world series (of which sport?), so all these numbers mean nothing to me.

I just find silly a post about the greatest athlete of the century which proposes just 4 choices, with 2 unknown names among them, and that doesn't feature Schumacher, Senna, Maradona, Pelé, Cruijff, Federer, Sampras, Carl Lewis, Tiger Woods and any champion for each sport.
And I find a nonsense comparing apples with oranges, anyway.

RBI is Run Batted In, you get it when you hit the ball and someone else is able to score

MVP is short for Most Valuable Player thatch pretty obvious

Pitcher is someone who throws the ball a pitcher in baseball is very similar to a cricket pitcher and most Europeans know about cricket so i assume you do but correct me if I'm wrong

World Series is the best championship in baseball, winning it is like winning the FIFA tournament

Also i knew that you would not know most of the people on here, that is why there is a other option, for all the non American athletes, I'm not saying there not as good I've just never heard of them maybe once you defend them even us stubborn American might change our mind and say they were the best

Last, Tiger didn't do a lot during the 1900s he would be under best athlete so far this century, if i remember right his breakout season was 2000. Also as good as Federer was i just can't agree that he was the best of last century.

 

[Rhye]

Also i knew that you would not know most of the people on here, that is why there is a other option, for all the non American athletes, I'm not saying there not as good I've just never heard of them maybe once you defend them even us stubborn American might change our mind and say they were the best

Alright, but then what's the point in opening such contest? The best American athlete, or even better, the best baseball, tennis player or (american) footballer would have made more sense.
As I said, why compare apples with oranges...Sampras vs Schumacher? McEnroe vs Senna? Maybe it's better Sampras vs McEnroe and Schumacher vs Senna.

MVP is short for Most Valuable Player thatch pretty obvious

Not for me, I'm not a native english speaker and don't know such acronyms. I've always heard of "Man of the match" in that place.

Pitcher is someone who throws the ball a pitcher in baseball is very similar to a cricket pitcher and most Europeans know about cricket so i assume you do but correct me if I'm wrong

No, cricket is unpopular here

 

[holiday_hawk]

Alright, but then what's the point in opening such contest? The best American athlete, or even better, the best baseball, tennis player or (american) footballer would have made more sense.
As I said, why compare apples with oranges...Sampras vs Schumacher? McEnroe vs Senna? Maybe it's better Sampras vs McEnroe and Schumacher vs Senna.

So we can all learn about sports we don't know, and i also wanted to know if people all over the world would mainly agree on someone,even if its not someone i put in the poll.

No, cricket is unpopular here

Well then, in baseball a pitcher throws the ball over the plate attempting to either throw the ball to fast for the batter to make contact, put it in a hard to reach place so that batter can't reach it (its hard to see the where the ball is coming at you 70-90 miles depending on the type of pitch so batters swing even though they can't reach it), they also throw the ball slower than usual or put a curve on it to mess up the batter and make him miss, or they throw it where unless your a great hitter then even if you hit it then you just hit it right to the defense. If they batter misses or hits it foul(if it goes behind a chalk line) he gets a strike once he gets three strikes then the pitcher gets a strikeout, but if the pitcher throws it where it is impossible to hit and the batter is smart/good enough to control himself and not swing at it then the batter gets a ball, and if he gets 4 balls he gets on base automatically.

I don't know much about cricket but what i think i know(once again for cricket fans correct me if I'm wrong) there is something with bars on it behind the batter and the pitcher tries to knock the bars off of it. If he does then the batter is struck out, but in cricket there are no balls and no strikes so the batter stays on base in till the bars are all gone or the batter hits it and the defense gets him out.

Not for me, I'm not a native english speaker and don't know such acronyms. I've always heard of "Man of the match" in that place.

The MVP is the player who did the best that season, but in some sports we have something like a Man of the Match, excpet we call it player of the game but if your the MVP that is a great honor as the league of whatever sport you play says your the best that year

 

[Rhye]

OK, thank you for the info. I guess the Golden Ball award is what corresponds to the MVP.

 

[BCLG100]

Seriously, here in Spain he was laughed upon. He barely could dribble a defender and he coincided with one of the worst decline in Real Madrid history, and he only was there to sell shirts.
Had he not been English and famous off the pitch, nobody would even mention him here.
I'm not saying he was a bad player, but just a good player. I can seriously
mention 100 players better than him. Since I gather you mostly watch British football, just think about it: in his time in the EPL: Giggs, Scholes, Keane (nobody's heard of them in the US), Henry, Van Nistelroy, Bergkamp, Zola were all better players, and at that time it wasn't the best league in Europe.

And yet he was dropped and the regained form and was arguably the most instrumental player in helping Real win the title. He was also obviously instrumental in the promotion of football worldwide. He was also dropped by the national team but forced his way back in, presumably they are all the hallmarkings of a great player.

 

[El Justo]

i wouldn't be so fast to dismiss the old time baseball stats. yes, the game is different now and all that stuff. i concur. however, we should remember that there was far fewer teams and as such, the player pool was much better. in context, we can say that a guy like bonds, steroids or not, hit all of his homers in the expansion era and against 5th starters (no such thing back in the day) and middle relievers. considering that, guys who are at the back end of roations and bullpens in today's game would've been in triple a back in the pre-expansion era.

additionally, by putting ruth's stats against his peers of the era and recognizing the huge disparities, we can see just how impressive an athlete he was.

 

[azzaman333]

Don Bradman without any doubt.

 

[dionysos2048]

And yet he was dropped and the regained form and was arguably the most instrumental player in helping Real win the title. He was also obviously instrumental in the promotion of football worldwide. He was also dropped by the national team but forced his way back in, presumably they are all the hallmarkings of a great player.

Raul and Casillas were a lot more instrumental than he was, and I repeat myself, nobody was impressed by his football skills here. I can guarantee you wouldn't rate him as high were you not English.
Besides, the fact that he was instrumental in promoting football was largely due to off-the-pitch reasons like marketing and gossip press, not for his football skills.
One more thing, he played more than 100 times for England, but what did he win? A few players achieved over 100 caps with teams like Saudi Arabia, it doesn't mean they were great players. Had he played 100 times for Brazil, France or Italy, OK, but what was the alternative for his position in England,
Kieron DYER?
My final point is that outside Britain, people won't remember him as a great football player, but rather for a marketing phenomenon.

 

[Darkness]

Raul and Casillas were a lot more instrumental than he was, and I repeat myself, nobody was impressed by his football skills here. I can guarantee you wouldn't rate him as high were you not English.

Totally agree on Casillas, but IMHO Raul's not been on top of his game for about three years now.
Also, let's not forget Ruud van Nisterlrooy's 25 goals here...

I would classify Beckham as a very good player, perhaps even a great player, but IMHO he's nowhere near the top 10 all-time. Perhaps top 40-50, but that's a completely subjective statement off course...

 

[dionysos2048]

Totally agree on Casillas, but IMHO Raul's not been on top of his game for about three years now.
Also, let's not forget Ruud van Nisterlrooy's 25 goals here...

I agree on all those points. However, I was just comparing Raul's season to Beckham's. And I remain convinced he was much more influential than Beckham.

 

[Stapel]

Donald Bradman.

As explained earlier, his statistics of 99,94 runs per wicket appear to be nearly twice as good as the number 2 of the list of Test Cricket batsmen. That really makes him the greatest, in an objective way. Here's a list of the top 30 best batsmen.

DG Bradman (Aus) 99.94
MEK Hussey (Aus) 68.38
RG Pollock (SA) 60.97
GA Headley (WI) 60.83
H Sutcliffe (Eng) 60.73
E Paynter (Eng) 59.23
KF Barrington (Eng) 58.67
ED Weekes (WI) 58.61
WR Hammond (Eng) 58.45
RT Ponting (Aus) 58.37
GS Sobers (WI) 57.78
JH Kallis (ICC/SA) 57.14
JB Hobbs (Eng) 56.94
CL Walcott (WI) 56.68
L Hutton (Eng) 56.67
Mohammad Yousuf (Pak) 55.49
SR Tendulkar (India) 55.31
KC Sangakkara (SL) 55.19
GE Tyldesley (Eng) 55.00
R Dravid (ICC/India) 54.88
CA Davis (WI) 54.20
VG Kambli (India) 54.20
GS Chappell (Aus) 53.86
AD Nourse (SA) 53.81
ML Hayden (Aus) 53.51
BC Lara (ICC/WI) 52.88
Javed Miandad (Pak) 52.57
DPMD Jayawardene (SL) 51.93
V Sehwag (ICC/India) 51.75
J Ryder (Aus) 51.62

As you can see, only 4 players average in the 60s, only 37 (not from this list) average in the 50s. It also should be noted that the number two on this list, Mike Hussey, has a relatively young career and might very will slip lower (or higher, for that matter ).

 

[Nuisance]

this is a bit of a silly poll imo, sure you put in the "other" choice, but it will probably be very biased, people will most likely pick an athlete from their own country, and then maybe even of a sport that others dont know squat about. Lets approach this a bit different though. What is a great athlete? some may say its statistics, others may say its loyalty and being a rolemodel and some may say its dedication to the sport and not the money, or all of the above. Imo the greatest athletes are the athletes of the past before the big endorsements and the huge amounts of money was put into it. by this im not saying that todays athletes are totally blinded by the money (atleast not all of them) but there is a bigger chance they are these days because of the huge amounts of money in the business. Then again there are still sports without big endorsements etc. but ye, what needs to be done in a poll like this is to define what a great athlete is.

i think id also go for Paavo Nurmi.

 

[Hitro]

no please not fat Cristiano!

Well, don't you support Livorno? If you tell me he sucks as a person alright.

But for me a "great" athlete is not just a guy who can run fast or jump high, but instead a guy who is good at his sport and still knows where he's coming from and what the whole thing means to the supporters. I had the impression - at least until his Ukraine move - that C.L. was rather high up on that.

 

[Rhye]

oh, in that aspect he was a hero indeed. But we shouldn't count the last year.

There are other very loyal players: not many, but a few. Paolo Maldini is one of them.

 

[Syterion]

Well if we're going with athletes as in people who are good in certain sports, I would say people have mentioned the obvious ones already. But if we are looking for the best athlete actually, as in great physical abilities in the purest ways, track and field competitors have to be the ones who get that. Roman Sebrle has the world record in the decathlon and he's probably the best athlete ever. I would also mention Hicham El Guerrouj, as he was as dominant as one can be in the middle and long distances for a long time. Also, I would say Michael Johnson is amazing in the same way.