[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
I could be overestimating Tiger. It’s certainly possible. However, I don’t think there’s a single athlete with the same mental skills that he has or the ability to constantly elevate his game when it matters. He could be dreadfully foot slow, but then again so is Kyle Korver and he’s doing alright in the NBA.
Regardless, it’s all speculation anyway. I think that if Tiger had taken to basketball, for example, when he was younger that he would’ve spent more time on, and developed, more of the physical abilities required for that. Of course, it’s totally possible that I’m talking way out of my ass here. Agree to disagree.
My main point is that “Greatest Athlete Alive” should not be determined by combine tests but my performance in their sport.
My point is that we don’t know if you’re overestimating him or not. There simply is no evidence whatsoever of his athleticism.
Again, as with your example of Paul Pierce, but to a lesser extent, Kyle Korver is only RELATIVELY slow in relation to the more athletic players he is against. It doesn’t mean he is unathletic. He is not unathletic.
Speculation is correct sir! And it’s speculation to assume he would have developed certain abilities that may or may not have been absent. Think for a minute how difficult it is to get even knowledgeable lifters to address weaknesses.
Fact is that we tend to gravitate and do what we’re good at. If he picked up a basketball and sucked for his age, chances are he drops it - same with baseball, football, etc.
As for greatest athlete alive, that is absolutely subjective in and of itself and it depends, as you point out, how you wish to define it. What parameters will you measure greatness by?
I think at least in the context of their undertaking, they defined what skill set they used to judge their conclusions (I saw no reference to “combine tests”). Tiger does not deserve a mention under those criteria.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying. To me Michael Jordan is great, not just because oh how high he could jump or how fast he was, or even because of how great he was at his sport… but because you knew, I knew, he knew and even his opponents knew, that when it really mattered, he was just going to dominate them. Opponents counted themselves lucky if they somehow survived with a win.
Same thing with Tiger, look at how happy Mediate was to just “give him a good game.” Mariano Rivera in his prime is another one like this, he was so good in the playoffs it was almost a running joke. However, his scope of the game was so limited I’m not sure you can put him in the same mention.
I do see what you are saying about how that doesn’t make them more “athletic” though. That’s one of the reasons I hate these sort of lists, because they always degenerate into speculative arguments about definitions yet I cannot help myself from getting sucked in!
My definition of “greatest athlete ever” tends to be something like this:
A race of Aliens comes down tomorrow to Earth. Physically and mentally they are exactly the same as human beings, with the same general distribution of talent. Much to our dismay, we find that they hold a doomsday weapon and are taking the Earth hostage.
Fortunately, these aliens have a sense of gamesmanship and issue a challenge. We get to send three athletes from Earth to compete in a game of SPACEBALL, of which we have no idea what the game is like. We know it involves athletic ability but it is not nearly as simple as just running or jumping or lifting something heavy.
We can’t know what the game is like until we pick our athletes and they’ll have three days to prepare once they are chosen. The fate of the world rests in their hands. Who do you pick?