[quote]Azzurri wrote:
what bout tom glavine? i know he’s past his prime but heres a guy whose a hof pitcher and was drafted by the NHL.
I dont know much about current athletes but you can look at Dave winfield who was drafted in three pro sports
[/quote]
But Bo Jackson and Deon Sanders played two pro sports.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
He is not a great athlete. focus doesn’t make a great athlete. Physical gifts are what make a great athlete. Physical gifts coupled with extreme mental focus makes a great player. [/quote]
I suppose that’s where subjectivity comes in. To me a great athlete is somebody who dominates their competition, not necessarily who performs an amazing combine. However, starting an argument about stupid semantics like that is dumb. I understand your point of view. I just think it is foolish to discount Tiger’s abilities; not that you were doing so.
Roman Sebrle definitely deserves the top spot considering the winner of the World Championships/Olympics is dubbed “The Worlds Greatest Athlete”. He is also the world record holder.
The decathlon also uses an objective measurement system. The times and distances today mean the same as they did 50 years ago. You can’t do that with any other sport outside of track and field. It takes subjectivity out of the equation.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
He is not a great athlete. focus doesn’t make a great athlete. Physical gifts are what make a great athlete. Physical gifts coupled with extreme mental focus makes a great player.
I suppose that’s where subjectivity comes in. To me a great athlete is somebody who dominates their competition, not necessarily who performs an amazing combine. However, starting an argument about stupid semantics like that is dumb. I understand your point of view. I just think it is foolish to discount Tiger’s abilities; not that you were doing so.[/quote]
No one is discounting Tiger Woods’ abilities. Everyone here would probably agree he is the most dominant golfer of all time. But golf is not an athletic event. He does not run or jump. He’s not cutting or reacting to a visual stimulus and making an athletic play on the basis of that reaction. No one is hitting balls back at him or distracting him from hitting his shot. They make people be quiet when he swings for christsakes. Is Bobby Fischer a great athlete? How about Jeanette Lee? I’ll say it again for [hopefully] the last time: Tiger Woods is an insane golfer, he is not athletic.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
No one is discounting Tiger Woods’ abilities. Everyone here would probably agree he is the most dominant golfer of all time. But golf is not an athletic event. He does not run or jump. He’s not cutting or reacting to a visual stimulus and making an athletic play on the basis of that reaction. No one is hitting balls back at him or distracting him from hitting his shot. They make people be quiet when he swings for christsakes. Is Bobby Fischer a great athlete? How about Jeanette Lee? I’ll say it again for [hopefully] the last time: Tiger Woods is an insane golfer, he is not athletic.[/quote]
Tiger is a good athlete, don’t kid yourself. He’s not competing against ‘fat 50 year olds’ – those days are gone. He may not be a GREAT athlete, but athleticism is at least one component of golf. It involves the generation of power, timing, muscular control and balance, and stamina. But he does not belong on this list. He may indeed be the most SKILLED professional athlete in the world – but not the most athletic.
There are some wrestlers who, in their day, could crack this list – Aleksandr Karelin, Dan Gable, Valentin Jordanov, Osamu Watanabe, Alexander Medved… Current-day, maybe somebody like Cody Sanderson. It would be great to see a fighter other than a boxer on this list.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
He is not a great athlete. focus doesn’t make a great athlete. Physical gifts are what make a great athlete. Physical gifts coupled with extreme mental focus makes a great player.
I suppose that’s where subjectivity comes in. To me a great athlete is somebody who dominates their competition, not necessarily who performs an amazing combine. However, starting an argument about stupid semantics like that is dumb. I understand your point of view. I just think it is foolish to discount Tiger’s abilities; not that you were doing so.
No one is discounting Tiger Woods’ abilities. Everyone here would probably agree he is the most dominant golfer of all time. But golf is not an athletic event. He does not run or jump. He’s not cutting or reacting to a visual stimulus and making an athletic play on the basis of that reaction. No one is hitting balls back at him or distracting him from hitting his shot. They make people be quiet when he swings for christsakes. Is Bobby Fischer a great athlete? How about Jeanette Lee? I’ll say it again for [hopefully] the last time: Tiger Woods is an insane golfer, he is not athletic.[/quote]
I disagree but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
How come Lebron isn’t ranked higher should be your question? At 6’7 255 5% body fat, high hand eye coordination, speed, power, agility, and reaction why wouldn’t you have him there?
[/quote]
he is actually 6’9 260 which makes it even more amazing
[quote]ericbyrnesjr wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
How come Lebron isn’t ranked higher should be your question? At 6’7 255 5% body fat, high hand eye coordination, speed, power, agility, and reaction why wouldn’t you have him there?
he is actually 6’9 260 which makes it even more amazing[/quote]
I don’t understand why they said he’s slow. Nobody has really tested a 40 speed faster than Iverson (unfortunately hand timed, and in HS so who knows about accuracy but it’s still an account of his speed) and Lebron keep keep up with both him and Kobe, laterally and back and forth. How is speed his problem?
The closest thing I can see to a problem for Lebron is that he’s not smooth. I want to say not agile, but he does some how accomplish necessary agility task, like cortoting yourself 3 different ways while avoiding certian players to hit a shot but it’s just not as smooth and pretty as some players. Like Kobe, Federer, or Gretsky.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
ericbyrnesjr wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
How come Lebron isn’t ranked higher should be your question? At 6’7 255 5% body fat, high hand eye coordination, speed, power, agility, and reaction why wouldn’t you have him there?
he is actually 6’9 260 which makes it even more amazing
I don’t understand why they said he’s slow. Nobody has really tested a 40 speed faster than Iverson (unfortunately hand timed, and in HS so who knows about accuracy but it’s still an account of his speed) and Lebron keep keep up with both him and Kobe, laterally and back and forth. How is speed his problem?
The closest thing I can see to a problem for Lebron is that he’s not smooth. I want to say not agile, but he does some how accomplish necessary agility task, like cortoting yourself 3 different ways while avoiding certian players to hit a shot but it’s just not as smooth and pretty as some players. Like Kobe, Federer, or Gretsky.[/quote]
I like his style better, he just goes through you and gets the foul. I don’t see any problem in his game really, he just doesn’t have a great supporting cast yet. His jump shot is not one of the best either, that could use more work though its very good. He has the whole package from an athletic stand point, height, strength, speed, endurance, agility, explosivness, reaction time, skill everything.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
No argument that a decathlete is number 1. Just how many sports do they do? (I am kidding).
The rest of the list is crap. I am not buying that LeBron is 5% BF either. That argument is for another thread[/quote]
Looks like 5% to me and you cannot get more accurate than this.
Tiger is athletic and a great golfer, but my biggest issue is that his competitors aren’t great athletes. Take Lebron James or LaDanian Tomlinson, we can argue that Kobe Bryant or DE Mario Williams should be on the list instead. Hell, you can argue about 10 other NBA or NFL players. The point is their comptetion consists of some of the greatest athletes in the world. No one ever talks about Tiger’s competition as being great athletes. Some may argue that Tiger should be on this list, but no one is arguing that any other golfer should be on this list.
MMA fighter will eventually make that list. You just can’t ignore their skills.
Yeah but people who read the Wall Street Journal are more familiar with yachts than semi trailers I would imagine. Buncha snobs.
What was the guy’s name, the American Decathlete who also made it to stage 2 (or maybe even stage 3) on Ninja Warrior? That guy gets my vote. Also, don’t forget Charlie Ward, Heismann trophy winner turned NBA point guard.
[quote]Melvin Smiley wrote:
tmoney1 wrote: If they would have said “He could throw a 16-pound ball the length of a semi-truck trailer” that would have been better.
Yeah but people who read the Wall Street Journal are more familiar with yachts than semi trailers I would imagine. Buncha snobs.
What was the guy’s name, the American Decathlete who also made it to stage 2 (or maybe even stage 3) on Ninja Warrior? That guy gets my vote. Also, don’t forget Charlie Ward, Heismann trophy winner turned NBA point guard.[/quote]
Charlie ward will always be looked over as an athlete but what he did was amazing. People really don’t understand the complexity of being an NBA point guard, as well as a running/throwing quarterback. Unlike other quarterbacks who usually specialize in one or the other.
I think the 2 sport freaks need to be in the top 10, being the best at 1 sport is outstanding but someone has to be the best. To me being elite at more than one sport really shows me your general athleticism is very high.
By my definition here the poster boy is Bo Jackson because he was very good at 2 sports. I think guys like Deion Sanders and Charlie Ward and slightly less impressive because they were not very good in their primes at BOTH sports. These 2 also relied mainly on speed and agility whereas Bo has muscular power also.
Another name I haven’t seen mentioned is Ricky Williams who in his prime circa 1998-2002 was ridiculous and probably could have been an all star in MLB, we’ll never know.
Brian Jordan, now there’s a guy who was mediocre at two sports.
[quote]mjc381 wrote:
I think the 2 sport freaks need to be in the top 10, being the best at 1 sport is outstanding but someone has to be the best. To me being elite at more than one sport really shows me your general athleticism is very high.
By my definition here the poster boy is Bo Jackson because he was very good at 2 sports. I think guys like Deion Sanders and Charlie Ward and slightly less impressive because they were not very good in their primes at BOTH sports. These 2 also relied mainly on speed and agility whereas Bo has muscular power also.
Another name I haven’t seen mentioned is Ricky Williams who in his prime circa 1998-2002 was ridiculous and probably could have been an all star in MLB, we’ll never know.[/quote]
Heisman Trophy winner, conference final starting point guard. Not good in his prime?
I actually think Tiger Woods should be on that list!
I agree that golf does not exactly qualify as a sport! however He is head and shoulders above everyone as far as his play and his fitness levels are concerned!
He trains very hard look back at when he won his first pro even he looked like a twig hes build a good physique definally after adding near on 50lb’s of muscle!
[quote]Dave.F wrote:
I actually think Tiger Woods should be on that list!
I agree that golf does not exactly qualify as a sport! however He is head and shoulders above everyone as far as his play and his fitness levels are concerned!
He trains very hard look back at when he won his first pro even he looked like a twig hes build a good physique definally after adding near on 50lb’s of muscle![/quote]
I’m not really for or against tiger. but since when is putting on muscle qualify you as an athlete. T-Nation members should all be greatest athletes then.
In Charlie Ward’s best season in the NBA he averaged 7.8 points per game, and yeah he did win the heisman but was really never considered nearly good enough to be a star or even journeyman in the NFL. So no I do not consider him being very good at a top level in 2 sports.
[quote]tmoney1 wrote:
A friend told me that he read that when LeBron was a baby, he received a shot from a doctor that had some sort of steroid strain in it, and that shot reacted with his body and genes, and basically allowed him to grow taller and faster and stronger and more athletic than other kids, and become the superior athlete he is today.
I don’t know how true that is, but just passing along information. Take it for whatever it’s worth.[/quote]
Not even worthy of a serious reply. Is your friend 12 and reads comic books?