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.

cobl04

45:33
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
59,299
Location
East Point to Shaolin
Just a convo I was having with a mate recently... it's a topic that can be hotly debated, and, realistically, there is probably no real answer, as it's too hard to compare sportsmen across sports. But let's chew the fat anyway, huh?

I suppose the obvious ones are your Babe Ruths, Michael Jordans... Phelps is of course phenomenal, but to be fair I'm pretty sure he's a cyborg, and not actually human. Lance Armstrong.

Don't know enough about soccer, baseball, basketball etc to comment, but let me lay down my claim: Sir Donald Bradman. An Australian cricketer for those who don't know, he simply has to be it. He averaged 99.96, meaning any score less than 99 when he went out to bat was technically a failure. His average is almost 39 higher than the next best. There has been over 200 years of competitive cricket. And of course, he's Australian :D
 
Bradman statistically, and I think most Aussies and Poms and Indians would agree with this. Mind you, cricket is not the hardest sport to excel at and not all that physically taxing compared with the majority of other sports.

North Americans will nominate Wayne Gretzky 'cause he apparently had some ridiculous statistical record and dominance in his sport of ice hockey, as obscure that sport is to anyone outside of that continent. I really don't know anything about the sport though.

Some will say Pele, but to me he had nothing on Zidane.

Cycling appears to me the most physically demanding sport of the lot of them, and I am left in awe and admiration of these cyclists who spend 6 hours a day on a bike for 3 weeks straight. Unfathomable endurance and commitment. So Lance Armstrong would be a contender.

Probably a marathon runner or someone, or even an athlete like Usain Bolt, breaking all sorts of records at the most basic of sporting competitions.

What about Greatest Sportswoman of all time? :wink:
 
People always use that word when referring to Bradman, 'statistically'. Don't undersell cricket though, it is hard to excel at.

You'd just use that thread to post pictures of Ana Ivanovic... :wink:
 
People always use that word when referring to Bradman, 'statistically'. Don't undersell cricket though, it is hard to excel at.

You'd just use that thread to post pictures of Ana Ivanovic... :wink:

I've got a new flame now, Sorana Cirstea. :wink:

Nah but seriously, might wanna make it "sportsperson" just so it is inclusive of women and men, cause there are likely to be some sportswomen who have dominated their sport even more than their male counterparts, just they get less coverage.

Not trying to undersell cricket, but certain factors need to taken into consideration.
 
She's fantastic... and also not taken by Adam Scott :up:

Yeah, probably should have, just didn't even think after the convo we had, and women's sport just didn't come up.

Looks like this is going to die anyway though :lol:
 
You into F1s? or V8s? Webber's on pole tonight...

I think it's fair to throw them up to, I mean you have to have serious amounts of balls to do what they do. Not to mention keeping fit. But I'll always wonder, would Schumacher have been the best had he raced in a Minardi? No.

Soft spot for the late, great Peter Brock, too.
 
Can't stand the V8's, used to enjoy the F1's until all the rules became unfollowable and the teams kept renaming themselves.

Yeah, the thing going against an F1 driver like Schumacher is that a lot of his success is unquestionably attributable to the fact he was driving a Ferrari as opposed to an Arrows, so it therefore makes his sporting greatness difficult to assess. It's like with jockeys in horse racing.

What about John Coleman? What a champion ful-forward he was. The Bradman of Aussie Rules maybe.
 
Why no V8 love? I grew up with it so I'm a bit biased I supposed, but I much prefer it to F1's, now anyway.

Favourite Arrows driver? Damon Hill :up: Surely jockeys couldn't come anywhere near this argument.

It really is a tragedy to the game that he did his knee (career ending injury back then) and then died so young... had he played on injury free I think he'd probably be rated as just about the best we've had. People forget he only played 99 games.
 
roger.jpg
 
Michael Jordan.

No question, no doubt, no argument. Any other answer is patently incorrect.

Bradman is statistically the most successful, but since I don't consider cricket a sport, I'm partial to agreeing with you.

What about John Coleman? What a champion ful-forward he was. The Bradman of Aussie Rules maybe.

Problem is, never got to see him play. I guess you could say much the same for Bradman, but anyway... out of my modern era I'm still a big Carey and Plugger fan - Cuz too. But I couldn't call any of them the best Aussie Rules player ever, let alone greatest sportsman.
 
Any american sports & golf
DONT count as they are shit sports
Tiger Woods is nothing on King Fed

Bradman is a possibility - amazing record
Zidane?????? Great player but should be remembered for the headbutt. What a way to go out!
Thierry Henry is the man! (If i am being even more biased then Dennis Bergkamp is GOD)
Roger Federer
 
Yeah cricket is a bizarre sport, for those who don't get the game, it's a load of wank. Fair dinkum, a summer sport, where the players where long pants. Wiping their spit on the ball, not playing in the rain, going for 5 days. Strange sport, when I think about it.

Henry isn't/wasn't THAT good.
 
a summer sport, where the players where long pants. Wiping their spit on the ball, not playing in the rain, going for 5 days.

Sounds exactly like baseball.

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

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

I know you know nothing about cricket, and I know little about American basketball, but you can't argue with 99.94, and I'll argue that until I'm kicked out of the pub :lol:






Here's an interesting one for you all... when weighing up this argument, does or should off-field negativity and poor behaviour detract from them?
 
there's a fair call.

reminds me, i went to see amateur boxing the other night... i've never been more bored in my life! the best part was the 10yo fight, one kid almost knocked the other one out :lol:
 
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. Federer and Woods dominate their sports and are up there, but don’t have the same reach or appeal. There have been plenty of huge name, stunning football (soccer) stars, but they’re still not quite in the same utterly dominant, freakish category as Jordan was within his sport.

Football/soccer has had plenty of Larry Birds and Magic Johnsons and Wilt Chamberlains and Kareem Abdul Jabars, but no singular Jordan type. Tennis has a Jordan, but he’s not on a poster on every teenage boys wall in every corner of the globe. People respect Federer and his achievements, but I don’t think he’s created any surge in popularity or participation within tennis (in fact some suggest his dominance has actually hurt the sports popularity). Golf has a Jordan but I bet 95% of people who namecheck him have never watched a minute of him playing. Cricket had a Jordan 70yrs ago, but who gives a fuck about cricket, then or now? 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. Same with cycling, and their Jordan. People respect Lance Armstrong and his achievements, but he hasn’t inspired millions of kids to spend weeks on end riding around their neighborhood with a baguette under one arm, pissing down their legs. Swimming, athletics – will have their Jordans from time to time, but the peak events are too few and far between and come and go too quickly. Who really knows or cares what Michael Phelps is doing between now and London 2012 (apart from hitting bongs and fucking hot Australian swimmers)?

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
 
To steer away from that discussion of their personal lives, I will now resume and nominate Pele. That guy was one in a million, brilliant player. Perhaps you can throw Diego Maradona in too, but if we are considering whether they've been involved in any off field scandals (like Maradona with drugs etc.) then i'd have to say no.

It's still a mystery to me who the greatest Australian Rules Football player ever is. :hmm:
 
Well that (and this) is an endless argument. Chicken or the egg. Length of a piece of string. Fully divine or fully human.

But it's Gary Ablett sr :wink:
 
Well that (and this) is an endless argument. Chicken or the egg. Length of a piece of string. Fully divine or fully human.

But it's Gary Ablett sr :wink:

Maybe that's a little biased. :wink:

To me it's quite surprising. When you think about soccer you think the best is Pele/Maradona, Cricket and you've got the great Don Bradman, Ice Hockey has Wayne Gretzky, tennis has now got Roger Federer, most would argue after his 15th grand slam honour. But you can discuss and discuss but you just can't find the best ever AFL player, though Ablett Sr, Lockett, Coventry, Barassi, Coleman etc. you'd think would be up there.
 
This is true. There are just far, far too many greats. Lockett, personally, I think is the one who probably doesn't deserve to be up in that group, I know he's got the record, but he had the luxury of just being a massive unit who could have beat Andre the Giant one-on-one in the goalsquare, knew where and when to lead and had a good midfield. Basically a fat full forward who marked and kicked goals.
 
Back
Top Bottom