Greatest Sportsman of All Time?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Comparing achievements in different sports and different eras is really difficult.

I’d vote Jordan for a mix of his achievements + the wide appeal of the sport (e.g. vs the unknown cricket of Bradman or limited appeal boxing of Ali) + the massive cultural effect. Sure, that’s a credit to Nike and NBA marketing as much as it is to him (and his rise was timed perfectly with the rise of globalization), but there was no athlete in the world that came close to him in the 90s, fame and adulation wise, and his appeal went really wide, well beyond existing basketball fans.

Boxing had a Jordan, but boxing never was and never will be a wide appeal sport and Ali wasn’t exactly universally popular at the time.

Jordan wins for both dominating a sport with wide, global appeal, with multiple wins across three peak competitions (college, NBA, Olympic – not to mention the shopping list of personal achievements and records within those competitions), and because of how that dominance was translated into a sporting cultural force unseen before or since.

michael_jordan1242892345.jpg

I think Ali is getting overlooked just because of the passage of time. In the 70's, boxing, specifically heavyweight boxing was hugely popular worldwide (you'd think someone with a screen name like Earnie Shavers would acknowledge that :wink:). And Ali was the face of it, he was by far the most recognizable athlete on the planet, was a polarizing figure to an extent with his antics and anti-war stance, but everyone knew him and had an opinion of him. The Ali/Frazier/Foreman battles were massive events worldwide (Thrilla in Manilla, Rumble in the Jungle), had the internet and ESPN been around, Ali's popularity would have eclipsed that of 90's Jordan tenfold.
He's still one of the world's most recognizable figures 3 decades after retiring and while being ravaged by Parkinson's.
 
While Wayne Gretzky didn't make hockey as popular as basketball, he totally put it on the map for a lot of people, especially in the U.S. Jordan turned a sport that was already popular into something bigger, no doubt, but it's hard to give him credit for the nature of the sport itself, something fast-paced and high-scoring for the MTV crowd that was growing up at the same time.

The difference between Jordan and Gretzky is that the latter's stats completely annihilate those of his predecessors and contemporaries in the sport. While Jordan's skills were greater than everyone around him, I don't think the margin was that great. Plus Gretzky was competitive without being an asshole.

Go look at the list of the records Gretzky broke (40 regular season records, 15 playoff records), note his 4 championships, 9 MVPs and 10 scoring titles, and then come back here and try to tell me why it's Jordan.
 
It's apples and oranges, obviously, because they played two completely different sports. I would probably put Gretzky at #2, though.

But would Gretzky be able to go and play at the professional level in a different sport and not make a complete ass of himself? No.

Jordan%20White%20Sox%20(bestweekever.tv).JPG


And then if we're gonna go down that route, Bo Jackson would have to be in the discussion. But I suppose that's more a "Best Athlete" as opposed to "Best Sportsman" thing.
 
Dennis Compton
Played cricket for England
5807 runs at an average of 50
17 International Hundreds and 28 50's
Has record # of centuries in an English summer
Served in the British Army in WW2
Played Football for England
Played for Arsenal and won the FA Cup and the League title

LEGEND
 
While Wayne Gretzky didn't make hockey as popular as basketball, he totally put it on the map for a lot of people, especially in the U.S. Jordan turned a sport that was already popular into something bigger, no doubt, but it's hard to give him credit for the nature of the sport itself, something fast-paced and high-scoring for the MTV crowd that was growing up at the same time.

The difference between Jordan and Gretzky is that the latter's stats completely annihilate those of his predecessors and contemporaries in the sport. While Jordan's skills were greater than everyone around him, I don't think the margin was that great. Plus Gretzky was competitive without being an asshole.

Go look at the list of the records Gretzky broke (40 regular season records, 15 playoff records), note his 4 championships, 9 MVPs and 10 scoring titles, and then come back here and try to tell me why it's Jordan.

Can you please provide some actual stats, and half-explain them for me mate? I'd love to actually see what the hell you're all talking about.
 
Sounds exactly like baseball.

Did I mention that Michael Jordan is the correct answer to this question? I can't remember.

Yedah sorry, as someone who has followed Basketball fairly closely my whole life, and someone who loved and admired MJ, The fact of the matter is, he did not DOMINATE the sport in the way Bradman has dominated cricket. There are players over time that have matched or better his stats. MJ's ranking goes up because of his sheer athleticism and his propensity to do the impossible, but honestly, if you look at stats, like most american sports love to do, Wilt Chamberlain is a big chance.

The reason Bradman is the obvious choice is that there is NO-ONE in the 200 year history of the sport he played that has come anywhere near close to his stats.

A batting average of 40 is seen as great. An average of 50 is seen as incredible, hall of fame stuff. An average of 60 is nera impossible, and only a handful have ever come close. Bradman averaged 99.94. No-one in the history of any sport (not even Federer, Jordan, Ruth, Woods) has been so dominant.

When the Australian cricket team were on the way back from England on a tour in the late 1920's, he wanted to meet Babe Ruth. They stopped the boat in the US, and Ruth showed him how to hit a baseball. Bradman proceeded to hit some 36 pitches in a row over the fence. The quote from Ruth "I thank God he was born in Australia, because if he was born here, no-one on earth would know my name".

End of discussion
 
So have we concluded on Sir Donald Bradman as the worthy holder of the title of the "Greatest Sportsman of All Time"? :hmm:
 
If I understood the quote correctly the Poms took a very deep breath and were very relieved after Bradmans retirement.

I suggest that we put together a short list of the great sportsmen from each popular and then produce a poll.

Cricket - Sir Don Bradman
Basketball - Micheal Jordan
Tennis - Roger Federer
Ice Hockey - Wayne Gretzky
Football (Soccer) - Pele

etc. etc.

This is not a definitive list just an example, we can go from there.
 
He'd be up there most definitely.

IIRC he only lost one race in the '04 season. Champ. :up: :up: :up:
 
It's almost too difficult for me to comprehend the fail in this thread. cricket? really? you're gonna seriously compare a fucking cricket player to michael jeffrey jordan? nigga please.
 
It's almost too difficult for me to comprehend the fail in this thread. cricket? really? you're gonna seriously compare a fucking cricket player to michael jeffrey jordan? nigga please.

yes. See, Basketball is hugely popular in the US, some european countries, but you forget that India has more than 3 times the population of the US, and cricket in general is more widely supported worldwide.

Honestly, Jordan was great, but you cannot ignore fact. Statistically Jordan was marginally better than his nearest rivals. Bradman was more than 50% better than his nearest rival, who in turn was significantly better again than the next. Of the 1000's to have played Test cricket, no-one has ever even looked like coming mildly close to anywhere near him.

To even begin to find a way of getting an answer to the question, you must assume that sports are considered of equal value. Therefore an average skill level must be ascertained based on the average performance of competitors. Noone has ever dominated any major sport ever in this way. I can't see how there can even be an arguement.

You are all acting incredulously because you dont follow a particular sport, but look at this objectively: you cannot argue with statistical facts or solid numbers. It is impossible to come up with any other solution. Just because a sport is outside your realm of understanding, doesnt make it invalid.
 
If I understood the quote correctly the Poms took a very deep breath and were very relieved after Bradmans retirement.

I suggest that we put together a short list of the great sportsmen from each popular and then produce a poll.

Cricket - Sir Don Bradman
Basketball - Micheal Jordan
Tennis - Roger Federer
Ice Hockey - Wayne Gretzky
Football (Soccer) - Pele

etc. etc.

This is not a definitive list just an example, we can go from there.

That's a good idea actually. For women's tennis I mentioned earlier Martina Navratilova. :up: I don't know if it is possible though to have an American football representative with so many distinct positions compared to other sports. :hmm:


I want to throw out a name in the greatest sportsman discussion and that's Bob Gibson (a baseball pitcher for those that don't know.) He was incredibly dominate in his prime, so much so that the league lowered the mound from 15 inches to 10 to help the batters by altering the trajectory of the baseball. I don't understand cricket that well but it would be like moving the bowler back because one of them was too dominate. How many athletes create rule changes like drastic? He was also great in the regular season and excelled in the post season.

Some stats:

In his prime he won 156 games and won 2/3 of his games. In total he had 251 wins including 56 complete game shutouts. In 1968 he had arguably the best season by a pitcher with a live ball era record of a 1.12 ERA and 13 shutouts along with 22 wins and 268 strikeouts. He won a Gold Glove, NL Cy Young and MVP. In the World Series of that Year he went 2-1 and set a World Series record with 17 strikeouts in the 1st game. :up:
 
It's almost too difficult for me to comprehend the fail in this thread. cricket? really? you're gonna seriously compare a fucking cricket player to michael jeffrey jordan? nigga please.

Step outside the myth, wigga

You can't dismiss the man because he "only played cricket". We're talking about a man who was almost utterly flawless.

Schumacher personally I don't think can be considered. Yes, he is the best F1 driver. But that's an oxymoron. He had the best car, the best team, the most money, and won many a race because his team strategically asked Rubens Barrichello to pull over. He wouldn't have won seven championships in a Minardi.
 
It's almost too difficult for me to comprehend the fail in this thread. cricket? really? you're gonna seriously compare a fucking cricket player to michael jeffrey jordan? nigga please.

If you stepped outside your MLB/NFL/NBA shaped cocoon you'd see that there are other sports out there that exist. cricket is played to the highest international level on four different continents across the globe.

Bradman was so far ahead of his peers that comparatively he is the only real answer to this question.
 
It's almost too difficult for me to comprehend the fail in this thread. cricket? really? you're gonna seriously compare a fucking cricket player to michael jeffrey jordan? nigga please.

Step outside the myth, wigga

If you stepped outside your MLB/NFL/NBA shaped cocoon you'd see that there are other sports out there that exist.

Ohhhhh SNAP.

I think it can be broken down to who is the most dominant in their respective sport, but apart from that, it's impossible to say who's the best unless... UNLESS... they were all put into some epic decathlon at their absolute physical peak, and you'd see who would win.

It'd be a combination of American Gladiators and an actual decathlon.
 
Back
Top Bottom