Best Sportsman Ever

[Alex]

Who does everyone think is the most dominant at their particular sport ever? I say most dominant, as obviously comparing eras, comparing sports etc can be complicated.

My vote would go to Sir Donald Bradman. He was an Australian cricketer in the 30s and 40s. His batting average was 99.94. To those who don't know cricket, that means be averages 99.94 runs between getting out. The next best is 60 (there are then a plethora of people between 40 and 60). A 99.94 Test batting average in cricket is equivalent to a .392 career batting average in baseball and 43.0 career points per game in basketball.

Other candidates I guess are Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Babe Ruth.

I'm sure there are loads I don't know of. Any nominations?

 

[Sepak]

He has it all!

 

[Bobby]

 

[Mus]

Federer and Michael Jordan. The only two undisputed GOATS. Bradman was the only batsman of his time to play with technique and hence the bloated statistics

 

[regularcat]

you might laugh at this but i'd have to say mike tyson in a sport that is nothing other than brutal was a monster who dominated his sport in an era before the sport became what it is today with the likes of mayweather who only fights boxers he knows he can beat.

before his incident with bowe and holyfield he was hands down the best to ever box even better than ali.

with a record of 50 wins, 6 losses, 0 draws and 2 no contests and 44 of those wins knockouts.

he pummeled opponents with reaches sometimes a foot more than his.

most of these athletes in other sports in their prime i would have no problem facing off with in their respective sport but in no way would i get in the ring with mike tyson in his prime or now for that matter.

enjoy.

 

[yoyo913]

I agree about Tyson. At his peak he was the most ferocious and could beat anyone (imo).

 

[Bobby]

We going on achievements, ability, or both? Because if we're going on ability alone you could make a real argument for Bo Carlos*son.

 

[MaestroZidane]

you might laugh at this but i'd have to say mike tyson in a sport that is nothing other than brutal was a monster who dominated his sport in an era before the sport became what it is today with the likes of mayweather who only fights boxers he knows he can beat.

before his incident with bowe and holyfield he was hands down the best to ever box even better than ali.

with a record of 50 wins, 6 losses, 0 draws and 2 no contests and 44 of those wins knockouts.

he pummeled opponents with reaches sometimes a foot more than his.

most of these athletes in other sports in their prime i would have no problem facing off with in their respective sport but in no way would i get in the ring with mike tyson in his prime or now for that matter.

enjoy.

This is why I don't buy the "Mayweather is one of the greatest boxers" He may be in the top 100, but wouldn't cut the top 50

 

[newbie original]

Federer

If you think about it, you will see that Rod Laver and Pete Sampras were better.

For Sampras:
At the start of his career, he had a rival who had achieved success earlier than he did - Jim Courier. Courier was the #1 and was regularly wining tournaments. Sampras' route to a Grand Slam went through Courier. Not to mention, the presence of Boris Becker, Michael Stich and a slowly developing Andre Agassi. Despite all these truly great players playing at a very high level (Becker reached the Wimbledon final in 1996), you see Sampras continually establishing his domination through Grand Slam victories. Not to mention, Pat Rafter and Goran Ivanesevic were around and a threat at multiple finals (Rafter won 2 US Opens and Goran reached several Wimby finals, wining one in 2001). Then, around late 1994, Andre Agassi emerged and the rivalry of Sampras vs Agassi was born. It was NOT truly ignited in the 1989 US Open final because both were hugely inconsistent after that.

Let's consider Federer:
Well, he won Wimbledon in 2003. Up until 2007, Nadal only knew how to play on clay. Between 2003 and 2007, Safin was falling like a pile of bricks and neither Sampras nor Agassi were a Grand Slam threat. Not to mention Lleyton Hewitt was bouncing around between girlfriends and David Nalbandian never realized his potential. Clay court specialists prevented Federer from wining at Paris - Rafael Nadal was a clay court specialist from 2005-2008. Between 2003-2008, Federer had very little opposition. Also, the quality of opposition was horrible. When Nadal finally won in 2008 on grass, the rivalry was born. The Nadal - Federer rivalry lasted from 2007-08 until 2011, when Djokovic emerged and was followed soon after by Andy Murray. After 2011, Federer was washed up and could not handle the competition. The Federer-Nadal rivalry was fading quickly. As further evidence, Roger Federer won two Grand Slams after 2010 - AUS in 2010 and Wimbledon in 2012.

If the level of competition facing Federer at the beginning of his career was as strong as it was at the end (2011-end), then I do not believe that Roger Federer would have won more than 10 Grand Slam titles.

I would pick Rod Laver as #1 and Pete Sampras as #2. I would put Rafael Nadal as #3, but he still has a chance to move ahead of Sampras.

 

[Mus]

Sampras and rod laver beat chumps their whole career. Feds has been forged in the most competitive era of tennis ever

 

[Alex]

Federer and Michael Jordan. The only two undisputed GOATS. Bradman was the only batsman of his time to play with technique and hence the bloated statistics

The fact that he was so far ahead of his time is MORE reason why he was so good. All greats revolutionised sport in one way or another. If Bradman was the only guy playing "with technique" why didn't others copy. It was much much more than that. And the fact that he is STILL statistically so far superior to everyone else says that it was more. Anyway, as I said, if it was simply revolutionizing technique, and it worked that well, I believe that's reason enough in itself.

 

[Alex]

If you think about it, you will see that Rod Laver and Pete Sampras were better.

For Sampras:
At the start of his career, he had a rival who had achieved success earlier than he did - Jim Courier. Courier was the #1 and was regularly wining tournaments. Sampras' route to a Grand Slam went through Courier. Not to mention, the presence of Boris Becker, Michael Stich and a slowly developing Andre Agassi. Despite all these truly great players playing at a very high level (Becker reached the Wimbledon final in 1996), you see Sampras continually establishing his domination through Grand Slam victories. Not to mention, Pat Rafter and Goran Ivanesevic were around and a threat at multiple finals (Rafter won 2 US Opens and Goran reached several Wimby finals, wining one in 2001). Then, around late 1994, Andre Agassi emerged and the rivalry of Sampras vs Agassi was born. It was NOT truly ignited in the 1989 US Open final because both were hugely inconsistent after that.

Let's consider Federer:
Well, he won Wimbledon in 2003. Up until 2007, Nadal only knew how to play on clay. Between 2003 and 2007, Safin was falling like a pile of bricks and neither Sampras nor Agassi were a Grand Slam threat. Not to mention Lleyton Hewitt was bouncing around between girlfriends and David Nalbandian never realized his potential. Clay court specialists prevented Federer from wining at Paris - Rafael Nadal was a clay court specialist from 2005-2008. Between 2003-2008, Federer had very little opposition. Also, the quality of opposition was horrible. When Nadal finally won in 2008 on grass, the rivalry was born. The Nadal - Federer rivalry lasted from 2007-08 until 2011, when Djokovic emerged and was followed soon after by Andy Murray. After 2011, Federer was washed up and could not handle the competition. The Federer-Nadal rivalry was fading quickly. As further evidence, Roger Federer won two Grand Slams after 2010 - AUS in 2010 and Wimbledon in 2012.

If the level of competition facing Federer at the beginning of his career was as strong as it was at the end (2011-end), then I do not believe that Roger Federer would have won more than 10 Grand Slam titles.

I would pick Rod Laver as #1 and Pete Sampras as #2. I would put Rafael Nadal as #3, but he still has a chance to move ahead of Sampras.

Nadal, Sampras, Agassi and Laver are also reasons why I wouldn't have Fed number 1. He was great, but best in any sport ever? I don't think so.

Eddy Merckx would make any list in my eyes too. The way dominated all sorts of road races, not just one, and over a long long period. He won classics, he won all three grand tours, he won all three jerseys on the TdF.

 

[Mus]

Re-reading your question yeah I agree he was most dominant. I thought you said best

 

[Alex]

Sampras and rod laver beat chumps their whole career. Feds has been forged in the most competitive era of tennis ever

Most competitive based on what? The way he dominated would suggest it wasn't as competitive. Hewitt was number 1 for a year before Federer started his reign. That to me shows their was a lull in quality.

Sampras had some brilliant players in his era - Agassi, Becker etc.

If you're comparing eras, it's pretty hard to disqualify all of the best from that era as weak. That was the best of the best for that time.

That argument is even weaker than your Bradman argument, which was bordering on ludicrous itself. A guy dominates an era by substantially more than any other before or after him - regardless of how he did it, he did it. Generally the greats leave a legacy. If, in Bradmans case, that's technique as you claim (which I disagree with) than he should be credited as a great simply for. revolutionizing the game. The way Jordan played basketball, LOADS of guards copy now. Bryant being the obvious one. But that doesn't make Jordan less of a great for being the first to do it, it makes him greater.

 

[Mus]

My original argument was that a peak federer would beat those guys easily. As I already stated I misread the question

 

[Alex]

Re-reading your question yeah I agree he was most dominant. I thought you said best

I did say best. And I think it's hard to compare eras without considering dominance. There are so many factors - training, technique, field condition, equipment, rules etc.

Fact is, around Bradman's time other good batsman averaged similar to what other good batsman always have. Bradman averaged double that.

 

[Mus]

Its infinitely harder to dominate in a modern era

 

[newbie original]

I will say that it is very hard to compare across:
- eras
- sports

as Alex said, so I can't vote for that.

However, I would like to quell the notion that Roger Federer is the GOAT. He is not.

Sampras and rod laver beat chumps their whole career. Feds has been forged in the most competitive era of tennis ever

When Federer's competition stiffened up (after 2011 or so) he fell apart and could not cope - he won 2 grand slam titles after 2010.

From 1993-2000, Sampras consistently faced tough competition - Becker, Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Krajicek, Ivanesevic and won the majority of his grand slams in the face of sterling competition. Such a statement cannot be made of Roger Federer.

 

[Mus]

No one will ever will more grand slams than Roger and probably not even reach as many finals as he has

 

[jschuck12001]

I cant ever go against MJ, Tyson was dominant but he fell off and when he did he got beat by everyone.

Jordan maintained dominance after leaving the NBA for a couple years and coming back. He scored 40 points in a game when he was 40 years old.

Then you have the global brand and none of the guys mentioned would be known in every part of the world but Jordan would, you even have today's superstars wearing his shoes.