Top 10 Athletes of Today

Off Topic
21

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What makes an athlete a “top” athlete? Is it strictly success within his/her sport, or does his popularity/recognizability come into play as well? Does the popularity of the sport come into play? Regarding Fedor, Silva and GSP: I would not put them anywhere near the top ten as of yet. While I certainly know who they are, there are way too many people out there who don’t know who they are at all and who are still huge sports fans. None of those fighters have any real visibility outside of their sport, meaning that the only people who really know them are those who are fans of MMA. And, uh, no Tiger Woods?

Here’s my list in no particular order, based on worldwide recognizability, success in their sport, and of course only considering those who are still active. Two things I ask myself when considering someone is: do people who don’t follow their sport know who they are and do they have visibility/recognizability outside of their home country? These athletes all have been extremely successful in their sport and have worldwide visibility.

Tiger Woods (the no-brainer top of the list guy)
Cristiano Ronaldo
Albert Pujols
Peyton Manning
Bobby Crosby
Michael Phelps
Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Lionel Messi
Tom Brady
[/quote]

Baseball and american football are not sports that are followed outside North America. If worldwide fame is a factor, those sports must be scratched. And you don’t cut Messi!

22

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What makes an athlete a “top” athlete? Is it strictly success within his/her sport, or does his popularity/recognizability come into play as well? Does the popularity of the sport come into play? Regarding Fedor, Silva and GSP: I would not put them anywhere near the top ten as of yet. While I certainly know who they are, there are way too many people out there who don’t know who they are at all and who are still huge sports fans. None of those fighters have any real visibility outside of their sport, meaning that the only people who really know them are those who are fans of MMA. And, uh, no Tiger Woods?

Here’s my list in no particular order, based on worldwide recognizability, success in their sport, and of course only considering those who are still active. Two things I ask myself when considering someone is: do people who don’t follow their sport know who they are and do they have visibility/recognizability outside of their home country? These athletes all have been extremely successful in their sport and have worldwide visibility.

Tiger Woods (the no-brainer top of the list guy)
Cristiano Ronaldo
Albert Pujols
Peyton Manning
Bobby Crosby
Michael Phelps
Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Lionel Messi
Tom Brady
[/quote]

Baseball and american football are not sports that are followed outside North America. If worldwide fame is a factor, those sports must be scratched. And you don’t cut Messi!
[/quote]

You mean they don’t follow baseball in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, Ecuador, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, or China?

And they don’t follow football in so many different countries that about 1 billion people watch the Super Bowl every year and my roommate from England didn’t come over here as a huge Tom Brady fan because of the high visibility afforded a team that has played in that game 4 times in the last 11 years?

GET THE FUCK OUT!

23

[quote]kakno wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What makes an athlete a “top” athlete? Is it strictly success within his/her sport, or does his popularity/recognizability come into play as well? Does the popularity of the sport come into play? Regarding Fedor, Silva and GSP: I would not put them anywhere near the top ten as of yet. While I certainly know who they are, there are way too many people out there who don’t know who they are at all and who are still huge sports fans. None of those fighters have any real visibility outside of their sport, meaning that the only people who really know them are those who are fans of MMA. And, uh, no Tiger Woods?

Here’s my list in no particular order, based on worldwide recognizability, success in their sport, and of course only considering those who are still active. Two things I ask myself when considering someone is: do people who don’t follow their sport know who they are and do they have visibility/recognizability outside of their home country? These athletes all have been extremely successful in their sport and have worldwide visibility.

Tiger Woods (the no-brainer top of the list guy)
Cristiano Ronaldo
Albert Pujols
Peyton Manning
Bobby Crosby
Michael Phelps
Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Lionel Messi
Tom Brady
[/quote]

Baseball and american football are not sports that are followed outside North America. If worldwide fame is a factor, those sports must be scratched. And you don’t cut Messi!
[/quote]

Also, why did you highlight Bobby Crosby? Are you unaware of the fact that the entirety of Central/Northern Europe, along with Russia and all of the old Soviet states just west and south of Russia are ardent followers of hockey and as such are undoubtedly well aware of who Bobby Crosby is?

24

If you follow motorsport, which a lot of people do outside of the US, you have to go with Michael Schumacher in F1 and Valentino Rossi for MotoGP. In recent years they were fairly dominant and head and shoulders above the rest.

I’m also going to say driving an F1 car or riding a MotoGP bike at the limit takes some pretty serious athletic skills.

25

Add Big Z and Mariusz to the list.

26

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
MMA fighters are not athletes. They’re thugs who get paid to get into sanctioned street fights although I must say that I enjoy watching. These lists/discussions are always meaningless and devolve into people listing top players from their favorite sports.

One thing I will say, however, is that divegrass players like messi and ronaldo are certainly not athletes.[/quote]
Uh huh you know 80 percent have a college degree.

27

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What makes an athlete a “top” athlete? Is it strictly success within his/her sport, or does his popularity/recognizability come into play as well? Does the popularity of the sport come into play? Regarding Fedor, Silva and GSP: I would not put them anywhere near the top ten as of yet. While I certainly know who they are, there are way too many people out there who don’t know who they are at all and who are still huge sports fans. None of those fighters have any real visibility outside of their sport, meaning that the only people who really know them are those who are fans of MMA. And, uh, no Tiger Woods?

Here’s my list in no particular order, based on worldwide recognizability, success in their sport, and of course only considering those who are still active. Two things I ask myself when considering someone is: do people who don’t follow their sport know who they are and do they have visibility/recognizability outside of their home country? These athletes all have been extremely successful in their sport and have worldwide visibility.

Tiger Woods (the no-brainer top of the list guy)
Cristiano Ronaldo
Albert Pujols
Peyton Manning
Bobby Crosby
Michael Phelps
Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Lionel Messi
Tom Brady
[/quote]

Tiger Woods cannot make this list. Golf is not a sport and doesn’t require much athleticism. And if you don’t believe me, I got two words for you: John Daly. I liked the op’s list, but would add a handful of people, including Serena Williams.[/quote]

Also, the requirements to be a “top” athlete don’t necessarily include what sport requires the most athleticism. If that were the case, the list would be full of running backs, linebackers, gymnasts, basketball players and decathletes. If Tiger Woods doesn’t belong due to a person like John Daly playing the same sport, then MMA athletes don’t belong due to someone like Roy Nelson and basketball players don’t belong due to someone like Zydrunas Ilgauskas and football players don’t belong due to offensive linemen. Golf just requires a degree of athleticism that is far different than what most other sports require. It’s more about the ability to continually repeat an athletic movement over and over again with precision rather than something that jumps off the TV screen like someone dunking or running really fast.[/quote]

See, I think it does. In golf there is no defender, you actually have someone carry your equipment for you, there is no running or jumping or reacting to a visual stimulus, people are forced to be quiet when you swing, etc… It is a very tough game, but it is not a sport and it requires next to no athleticism. It does require skill, but so does darts and no one here would call that a sport.[/quote]

Have you ever played golf? I mean really played and practiced and tried to get better at it and played your friend for X dollars per hole? Have you ever walked 18 holes in 100 degree weather?[/quote]

Yes, and I’m terrible. I also had to carry my own clubs or at least leave them on the cart. Nothing about the game requires athleticism. You hit a ball that’s sitting on a tiny tee while everyone around you is as silent as can be and the only thing that can stop you from reaching your target is the elements or personal lack of skill. It is hard, and does require skill but there is no athleticism required. NONE.

28

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Yes, and I’m terrible. I also had to carry my own clubs or at least leave them on the cart. Nothing about the game requires athleticism. You hit a ball that’s sitting on a tiny tee while everyone around you is as silent as can be and the only thing that can stop you from reaching your target is the elements or personal lack of skill. It is hard, and does require skill but there is no athleticism required. NONE.[/quote]

Define “athleticism”.

29

CHUCK NORRIS!

30

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
MMA fighters are not athletes. They’re thugs who get paid to get into sanctioned street fights although I must say that I enjoy watching. These lists/discussions are always meaningless and devolve into people listing top players from their favorite sports.

One thing I will say, however, is that divegrass players like messi and ronaldo are certainly not athletes.[/quote]

I’ll bite on this fed, cause (1) you know you want me to and (2) the response at the top of this page was retarded.

MMA fighters are athletes, so fuck you.

The soccerfags are just that.

I hope that clears everything up.

31

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
MMA fighters are not athletes. They’re thugs who get paid to get into sanctioned street fights although I must say that I enjoy watching. These lists/discussions are always meaningless and devolve into people listing top players from their favorite sports.

One thing I will say, however, is that divegrass players like messi and ronaldo are certainly not athletes.[/quote]
Uh huh you know 80 percent have a college degree.[/quote]

80% of what have a college degree?? 80% of a graduating class at Slippery Rock have a college degree.

I hope you are not trying to say 80% of mma fighters have a degree. If so you better get more specific…I am trying to figure out what you mean.

Tons of stupid comments here and lack of guidelines.

I think of an athlete as a person who can perform mulitple sports well. Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders did it but there are several others that could have. Local example: Craig Biggio declined a football scholarship to play baseball. There are many examples like this but this one comes to mind.

32

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Yes, and I’m terrible. I also had to carry my own clubs or at least leave them on the cart. Nothing about the game requires athleticism. You hit a ball that’s sitting on a tiny tee while everyone around you is as silent as can be and the only thing that can stop you from reaching your target is the elements or personal lack of skill. It is hard, and does require skill but there is no athleticism required. NONE.[/quote]

Define “athleticism”.[/quote]

Speed, leaping ability, strength, power, agility, dexterity, body control, reaction, hand/eye and foot/eye coordination,etc… all go into athleticism. Golf has hand eye coordination and one could maybe argue body control, but NOTHING else. If you can drink whiskey sours while playing your “sport” and excel, then it ain’t a sport.

33

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What makes an athlete a “top” athlete? Is it strictly success within his/her sport, or does his popularity/recognizability come into play as well? Does the popularity of the sport come into play? Regarding Fedor, Silva and GSP: I would not put them anywhere near the top ten as of yet. While I certainly know who they are, there are way too many people out there who don’t know who they are at all and who are still huge sports fans. None of those fighters have any real visibility outside of their sport, meaning that the only people who really know them are those who are fans of MMA. And, uh, no Tiger Woods?

Here’s my list in no particular order, based on worldwide recognizability, success in their sport, and of course only considering those who are still active. Two things I ask myself when considering someone is: do people who don’t follow their sport know who they are and do they have visibility/recognizability outside of their home country? These athletes all have been extremely successful in their sport and have worldwide visibility.

Tiger Woods (the no-brainer top of the list guy)
Cristiano Ronaldo
Albert Pujols
Peyton Manning
Bobby Crosby
Michael Phelps
Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Lionel Messi
Tom Brady
[/quote]

Tiger Woods cannot make this list. Golf is not a sport and doesn’t require much athleticism. And if you don’t believe me, I got two words for you: John Daly. I liked the op’s list, but would add a handful of people, including Serena Williams.[/quote]

Also, the requirements to be a “top” athlete don’t necessarily include what sport requires the most athleticism. If that were the case, the list would be full of running backs, linebackers, gymnasts, basketball players and decathletes. If Tiger Woods doesn’t belong due to a person like John Daly playing the same sport, then MMA athletes don’t belong due to someone like Roy Nelson and basketball players don’t belong due to someone like Zydrunas Ilgauskas and football players don’t belong due to offensive linemen. Golf just requires a degree of athleticism that is far different than what most other sports require. It’s more about the ability to continually repeat an athletic movement over and over again with precision rather than something that jumps off the TV screen like someone dunking or running really fast.[/quote]

See, I think it does. In golf there is no defender, you actually have someone carry your equipment for you, there is no running or jumping or reacting to a visual stimulus, people are forced to be quiet when you swing, etc… It is a very tough game, but it is not a sport and it requires next to no athleticism. It does require skill, but so does darts and no one here would call that a sport.[/quote]

Have you ever played golf? I mean really played and practiced and tried to get better at it and played your friend for X dollars per hole? Have you ever walked 18 holes in 100 degree weather?[/quote]

Yes, and I’m terrible. I also had to carry my own clubs or at least leave them on the cart. Nothing about the game requires athleticism. You hit a ball that’s sitting on a tiny tee while everyone around you is as silent as can be and the only thing that can stop you from reaching your target is the elements or personal lack of skill. It is hard, and does require skill but there is no athleticism required. NONE.[/quote]

The fact that you admit it is hard and requires skill is reason enough to call it athleticism. What is your definition of athleticism?

And stop referring to the fact that there is total silence. There’s total silence when a tennis player serves, but this does not negate from the athleticism involved with the serve. When there is total silence, one becomes painfully aware of the fact that everyone is silent for YOU and that they are all watching you. There are many different ways for external factors to impeded one’s success in any sport (crowd noise, weather, conditions, etc) and crowd noise is hardly the be-all, end-all of them. Like Bobby Knight always said, if the crowd being loud was really that big of a difference, the home teams would always win and the road teams would always lose.

Plus, if a crowd cheering for you can help you out, isn’t it then possible to surmise that if someone like Tiger Woods (who most would be cheering for) might actually perform better if the crowd was cheering him on rather than sitting there in deafening silence?

34

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Yes, and I’m terrible. I also had to carry my own clubs or at least leave them on the cart. Nothing about the game requires athleticism. You hit a ball that’s sitting on a tiny tee while everyone around you is as silent as can be and the only thing that can stop you from reaching your target is the elements or personal lack of skill. It is hard, and does require skill but there is no athleticism required. NONE.[/quote]

Define “athleticism”.[/quote]

Speed, leaping ability, strength, power, agility, dexterity, body control, reaction, hand/eye and foot/eye coordination,etc… all go into athleticism. Golf has hand eye coordination and one could maybe argue body control, but NOTHING else. If you can drink whiskey sours while playing your “sport” and excel, then it ain’t a sport.[/quote]

Golf requires strength for success (the strongest players hit the ball the farthest), it requires speed (clubhead speed, not leg speed), agility (try hitting from under a tree, on a steep slope, etc), dexterity, body control, eye/hand coordination and it also requires some degree of stamina in order to walk 18 holes for four straight days, many times in very adverse weather conditions. The precision and margin for error (or lack thereof) required to successfully execute a golf swing, especially with different clubs and at different distances, requires an extremely high level of body control.

You’ve basically proven yourself wrong. You have clearly shown that, while golf does not require as much athleticism as other sports, it does in fact require a degree of athleticism. Why are you so fervently berating golf as a sport anyways? Had a few bad rounds and it didn’t sit well with you?

Also, point out one player who has excelled while drinking whiskey sours throughout his match (John Daly doesn’t count; he’s barely been able to stay on the tour and does not drink during play anyways)

35

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What makes an athlete a “top” athlete? Is it strictly success within his/her sport, or does his popularity/recognizability come into play as well? Does the popularity of the sport come into play? Regarding Fedor, Silva and GSP: I would not put them anywhere near the top ten as of yet. While I certainly know who they are, there are way too many people out there who don’t know who they are at all and who are still huge sports fans. None of those fighters have any real visibility outside of their sport, meaning that the only people who really know them are those who are fans of MMA. And, uh, no Tiger Woods?

Here’s my list in no particular order, based on worldwide recognizability, success in their sport, and of course only considering those who are still active. Two things I ask myself when considering someone is: do people who don’t follow their sport know who they are and do they have visibility/recognizability outside of their home country? These athletes all have been extremely successful in their sport and have worldwide visibility.

Tiger Woods (the no-brainer top of the list guy)
Cristiano Ronaldo
Albert Pujols
Peyton Manning
Bobby Crosby
Michael Phelps
Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Lionel Messi
Tom Brady
[/quote]

Tiger Woods cannot make this list. Golf is not a sport and doesn’t require much athleticism. And if you don’t believe me, I got two words for you: John Daly. I liked the op’s list, but would add a handful of people, including Serena Williams.[/quote]

Also, the requirements to be a “top” athlete don’t necessarily include what sport requires the most athleticism. If that were the case, the list would be full of running backs, linebackers, gymnasts, basketball players and decathletes. If Tiger Woods doesn’t belong due to a person like John Daly playing the same sport, then MMA athletes don’t belong due to someone like Roy Nelson and basketball players don’t belong due to someone like Zydrunas Ilgauskas and football players don’t belong due to offensive linemen. Golf just requires a degree of athleticism that is far different than what most other sports require. It’s more about the ability to continually repeat an athletic movement over and over again with precision rather than something that jumps off the TV screen like someone dunking or running really fast.[/quote]

See, I think it does. In golf there is no defender, you actually have someone carry your equipment for you, there is no running or jumping or reacting to a visual stimulus, people are forced to be quiet when you swing, etc… It is a very tough game, but it is not a sport and it requires next to no athleticism. It does require skill, but so does darts and no one here would call that a sport.[/quote]

Have you ever played golf? I mean really played and practiced and tried to get better at it and played your friend for X dollars per hole? Have you ever walked 18 holes in 100 degree weather?[/quote]

Yes, and I’m terrible. I also had to carry my own clubs or at least leave them on the cart. Nothing about the game requires athleticism. You hit a ball that’s sitting on a tiny tee while everyone around you is as silent as can be and the only thing that can stop you from reaching your target is the elements or personal lack of skill. It is hard, and does require skill but there is no athleticism required. NONE.[/quote]

The fact that you admit it is hard and requires skill is reason enough to call it athleticism. What is your definition of athleticism?

And stop referring to the fact that there is total silence. There’s total silence when a tennis player serves, but this does not negate from the athleticism involved with the serve. When there is total silence, one becomes painfully aware of the fact that everyone is silent for YOU and that they are all watching you. There are many different ways for external factors to impeded one’s success in any sport (crowd noise, weather, conditions, etc) and crowd noise is hardly the be-all, end-all of them. Like Bobby Knight always said, if the crowd being loud was really that big of a difference, the home teams would always win and the road teams would always lose.

Plus, if a crowd cheering for you can help you out, isn’t it then possible to surmise that if someone like Tiger Woods (who most would be cheering for) might actually perform better if the crowd was cheering him on rather than sitting there in deafening silence?

[/quote]

Uhh, no. Tiger has and will continue to bitch if and when someone talks “during his back swing”. My definition is directly above your post.

36

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
MMA fighters are not athletes. They’re thugs who get paid to get into sanctioned street fights although I must say that I enjoy watching. These lists/discussions are always meaningless and devolve into people listing top players from their favorite sports.

One thing I will say, however, is that divegrass players like messi and ronaldo are certainly not athletes.[/quote]

I’ll bite on this fed, cause (1) you know you want me to and (2) the response at the top of this page was retarded.

MMA fighters are athletes, so fuck you.

The soccerfags are just that.

I hope that clears everything up.

[/quote]

your response was a little more articulate than mine

37

I like golf but I will say that I dont think golf takes a lot of athleticism. It does take some athleticism and it sure as hell takes a shit load of time, dedication, practice, nerves and skill… Just not a whole lot of athleticism. Thats what I think about this whole golf debate

38

Also, it’s Sidney Crosby; I meant to correct that one earlier.

Bobby Crosby is a mediocre baseball player.

39

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Yes, and I’m terrible. I also had to carry my own clubs or at least leave them on the cart. Nothing about the game requires athleticism. You hit a ball that’s sitting on a tiny tee while everyone around you is as silent as can be and the only thing that can stop you from reaching your target is the elements or personal lack of skill. It is hard, and does require skill but there is no athleticism required. NONE.[/quote]

Define “athleticism”.[/quote]

Speed, leaping ability, strength, power, agility, dexterity, body control, reaction, hand/eye and foot/eye coordination,etc… all go into athleticism. Golf has hand eye coordination and one could maybe argue body control, but NOTHING else. If you can drink whiskey sours while playing your “sport” and excel, then it ain’t a sport.[/quote]

Golf requires strength for success (the strongest players hit the ball the farthest), it requires speed (clubhead speed, not leg speed), agility (try hitting from under a tree, on a steep slope, etc), dexterity, body control, eye/hand coordination and it also requires some degree of stamina in order to walk 18 holes for four straight days, many times in very adverse weather conditions. The precision and margin for error (or lack thereof) required to successfully execute a golf swing, especially with different clubs and at different distances, requires an extremely high level of body control.

You’ve basically proven yourself wrong. You have clearly shown that, while golf does not require as much athleticism as other sports, it does in fact require a degree of athleticism. Why are you so fervently berating golf as a sport anyways? Had a few bad rounds and it didn’t sit well with you?

Also, point out one player who has excelled while drinking whiskey sours throughout his match (John Daly doesn’t count; he’s barely been able to stay on the tour and does not drink during play anyways)[/quote]

Proven myself wrong? What the fuck are you talking about? All that shit you mentioned has nothing and I mean NOTHING to do with golf. Did you really say it requires stamina to walk for 4 days in adverse weather conditions. Dude, you’ve gotta be kidding me. Once again, it is a game that requires a lot of skill but fat shit drunks can dominate the game without any athleticism. You’ve proven me right by making shit up to sound like you know what you’re talking about.What’s wrong, do you love a game so much that you can’t handle when it’s proven to be nothing more than billiards on an oversized grassy knoll?

40

[quote]red04 wrote:
Also, it’s Sidney Crosby; I meant to correct that one earlier.

Bobby Crosby is a mediocre baseball player.[/quote]

Did I write Bobby Crosby instead of Sid the Kid? Holy fucking shit I’m slipping badly. Bobby Crosby was/is mediocre on his best day.

WhiteFlash: Tiger bitches and moans yes. But if golf were different and the crowd was expected to make noise for or against him it would be a different story. People yelling at random during his backswing would be like the crowd purposely going completely silent as the home team in a football game was trying to make a defensive stand late in the game.

Can we at least agree that golf requires a certain degree of athleticism that is lesser, but mostly just very different, than traditional athletic sports?