By Spiro Zavos
June 19th 2008 @ 3:43am
Related coverage
In a list of the 10 greatest athletes, Bradman reigns
Tiger Wood’s heroic and brilliant win on one leg (rather like Ben Hogan’s victories after his horrific car crash) have set sports writers away on naming their 10 best athletes of all time.
Here’s the Wellington Dompost’s Fred Woodcock’s list:
1. Muhammed Ali: ‘widely regarded as the sportsman of the 20th century’
2. Carl Lewis:’the best track and field athlete’
3. Pele: ‘widely regarded as the best footballer of all time’
4. Michael Jordan: ‘highest scoring average in the NBL’
5. Tiger Woods: ‘will undoubtedly eclipse any major records he currently doesn’t have’
6. Mark Spitz: ‘remains the only Olympian to win both a gold medal in every individual event he entered in a given year, and to set a world record in each event’
7. Haile Gebrsellaise: ‘two Olympic gold medals, eight world championships, and 25 word records’
8. Eddie Merckx: ‘the most successful and best all-round cyclist’
9. Don Bradman: ‘regarded as the best batsman to grace the game’
10. Rod Laver: ‘won 11 grand slams, including all four tournaments in the same calendar year twice.’
This seems like a good list to me, although I would dispute some of the placings.
The SMH also published an interesting article by Greg Baum on his 10 best:
Muhammed Ali; Pele; Lance Armstrong; Don Bradman; Jack Nicklaus; Roger Federer; Jesse Owens; Michael Schumacker; Mark Spitz; Michael Jordan.
The lists have five of the same athletes: Ali, Pele, Bradman, Spitz and Michael Jordan.
Baum prefers Federer as his tennis player over Laver. I’d support Laver on this one.
His two grand slams indicate that he was better on all surfaces than Federer, though both players won 80 per cent of all their matches.
Nicklaus over Woods?
I think we should wait until Woods’ career is finished until he is elevated above Nicklaus. This will happen.
Woods wins 28 per cent of the gold tournaments he enters, a phenomenal Bradman-like ratio given the fact that a golfer has to defeat everyone in the tournament, unlike, say, a tennis player who defeats only eight or so opponents to win a tournament.
Nicklaus won 12 per cent of his tournaments.
And to put these statistics into a context, Baum points out that Greg Norman won six per cent of his tournaments.
Jesse Owens over Carl Lewis?
Both were sprinters and long jump champions. Lewis won ten Olympic gold medals between 1984 and 1996. Jesse Owens won four gold medals at the only Olympics he ran at.
My inclination is for Jesse Owens for reasons purely of nostalgia for the Olympics before intensive coaching and drug-taking.
Eddie Merchx or Lance Armstrong?
The issue here seems to be specialisation (seven successive Tour de France’s for Armstrong) against all-round riding (in 1974 Merchx won cycling’s Triple Crown)
Greg Baum also throws up the names of squash’s Jahangir Khan (555 unbeaten matches in a row) and Heather Mackay (unbeaten in a 19-year career).
And Walter Lindrum, also unbeaten in 21 years and one of the few athletes whose extreme skill forced significant changes in the rules of his sport.
And finally, Baum reckons that Bradman is the greatest of the greats.
I would think that it is difficult to go past this assessment. Bradman’s average in Tests of 99.94 is more than 30 runs more than the next best, which includes Michael Hussey whose average is coming down from the 70s to the lower 60s as he plays more Tests.
It would be interesting to hear what readers of The Roar think about these best athletes lists.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(68)
swifty said | June 19th 2008 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Ali relied heavily on hype. I’m not saying he wasn’t good, its just that he told us so often how good he was that I think it blurred the reality a bit. Maybe its just that sharing the same nationality as Bradman makes me appreciate his less direct assessments of his personal ability. Bradman probably is statistically the best but I would imagine most people would pick Pele for his achievements in soccer.
He’s probably not in the same class as these guys but Mick Doohan was a great rider who had a very down to earth demeanour. His accomplishments are magnified by the injuries he sustained. Remember – its not what you achieve, its what you overcome. I guess Rossi has probably well and truly passed him for achievements now but, heaven forbid, I wonder how he’d go with a wooden leg and locked thumbs.
A bit of an off the wall entry but what about Sir Ed Hillary? Can we call mountain climbing a sport? If so he and Norgay should get a mention. Like I said, a bit off the wall.
Monty String said | June 19th 2008 @ 8:24am | Report comment
I’m amazed that Jim Thorpe didn’t make the list. All the people mentioned were wonderful at their chosen discipline, but Thorpe was wonderful at several sports. In the 1912 Olympics, he easily won the pentathlon (javelin, discus, long jump, 200 meters, 1,500 meters) then later on the same day, that’s right, the same day, walked away with the decathlon.
At college, he was his university’s entire track and field team. He played pro basketball, and pro baseball for the Giants and the White Sox. His football career was sensational. In one game, he had a 94-yard touchdown nullified. On the very next play, he ran it in from 97 yards. He was a football star up to the age of 41.
So when people list the greatest athlete, what’s the definition of athlete? They’ve started to refer to race horses as athletes. That can’t be right.
Babe Ruth didn’t make the list and yet he was a star pitcher before he became an unbelievable hitter. He was the Bradman of baseball, but then the Don could only bowl some soft spinners. So if it’s versatility that makes an athlete truly great, you’ve got to give the nod to Jim.
PS – Some of the people on the list have feet of Clay, you should pardon the pun. Henry Cooper knocked out Ali but Ali was saved by his cheating manager. And the defeat of Liston was a mob job.
Oh, and by the way – Jim Thorpe was also a national ballroom dancing champ.
True Tah said | June 19th 2008 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Agree Monty String,
Jim Thorpe was in fact referred to as the greatest athlete of the first half of the 20th Century – I understand a lot of Australians don’t really understand US sports, but the bloke not only play professional football and baseball and won Olympic gold medals.
I generally agree with the list, but Thorpe should have been on there, and Im not sure about Michael Schumacher, sure he is perhaps the best driver which takes intense concentration, but does that meet the definition of athlete?
Mart said | June 19th 2008 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Difficult – impossible ! – for me to disagree with any of these names really, I think we’re just debating the order ? On a related tangent…would any rugby player (league or union) come close to making these lists ? John Eales maybe ? Doubt any would given the stature and ‘worldwide instant recognition’ of the names on these lists, not sure a rugger player is up there with them ?
Spiro Zavos said | June 19th 2008 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Monty Spring has made a terrific case for Jim Thorpe. He would defintely be on my list of the greatest athletes.
Ali certainly would not. There are a number of heavyweight champions, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano, particularly who would have defeated him, if they had fought when in their prime.
The same applies to Michael Schumacher.
The case of Ed Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing is an interesting one. What is a sport? Should it entail some form of competition and points scoring? Was the race to the North Pole a sport?
Kurtos said | September 10th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Definitely Owens over Lewis and Al Oerter over Lewis too. Why? There’s not the slightest suspicion of drug abuse by the O men. NY Times writers working on a book about the rightfully disqualified Ben Jonson uncovered some damning information about Lewis’s “nutritional regimen”. They argue that since he was the big crowd attractor at the time he wasn’t under the same degree of scrutiny. Isn’t it odd that with all the discoveries of drug abuse in track and field, accompanied by comments by the sports leading lights, we haven’t heard a word from Carl. Strange silence, I reckon.
paulmc said | June 19th 2008 @ 9:06am | Report comment
There was an interesting letter to the editor in today’s (Thursday) SMH pointing out that this list refers only to males and then asks about players like Margaret Court (Smith) – tennis & Heather Mackay – Squash
Towser said | June 19th 2008 @ 9:28am | Report comment
I guess its all subjective this best sportsman/athlete thing.
A bit like naming the 10 best ever painters,singers,composers etc.
If your like me I’d totally ignore Picasso & other “modern art” painters and go for the classic landscape or potrait painters.
Why because in my mind I admire anybody who can create a photo like replica on canvas of a mountainous landscape or a mother & child. Show me an eyeball centred in the middle of a cube & you,ve lost me
If I chose Pele you would accuse me of being bias because I’m a football fan.
If you were a cricket fan & chose Bradman the same bias allegations could be applied.
I’ve seen many of these greatest athlete things over the years. The problem with them is their always open to subjectivity.
Are we looking for the best all round athlete as per Jim Thorpe?
What is an athlete?
Can Tiger woods or anybody else for that matter be considered an athletes bootlace compared with the stamina & mental strength of men who power up mountains on a push bike.
Or could Pele absorb the physical punishment handed out to Ali during the rumble in the jungle or go one round with a man described as hitting you with fists like an iron anvil, Sonny Liston or face the man who may decide that your ear is lunch for the day Iron Mike Tyson.
If consistency is the go then Tiger Woods Pele Bradman Jordan Laver fit the bill. Or Federer or Maradona before he starting sniffing the white markings on the field.
Controlling a ball to make it do your bidding. Different methods of execution, but cant go past Pele Maradona Federer Bradman etc.
Perhaps whoever conjures up these lists needs to clearly define the criteria on which they based their list.
Then of course the arguments will start over what is the best criteria for determining the 10 greatest athletes.
El Capitan said | June 19th 2008 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Didn’t Jordan play in the NBA, not the NBL?
sheek said | June 19th 2008 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Firstly, a throwaway gibe – God (being an American) has decreed that the best in any sport played by Americans, must be an American!!! Now that I’ve got that out of the way!
Re Jim Thorpe, agree 100%. He was actually voted in 1950 by the US Sports Writers Association, or whatever they call themselves, as the greatest athlete of the first half of the 20th century (sorry Monty String & True Tah, only just re-read your posts).
Thorpe succeeded in professional baseball, Michael Jordan did not. Thorpe is truly sensational, his feats only matched by the opposite woeful way in which he was treated by the establishment.
Re Ali, love the guy, but agree there were better boxers. But herein lies a conundrum – what makes a great boxer? Ali didn’t have the punching power of other great boxers, but his ringcraft was unmatched. And aren’t we continually told boxing is a science?
In the early 80s I think it was, a computer generated world heavyweight boxing championship over 15 rounds (quite advanced for the time) was conducted between Ali & Rocky Marciano. Marciano definitely was declared the winner, but I can’t recall if it was on points, or a late knockout.
At the time, being a huge Ali fan, I couldn’t believe the result. But I’m older & wiser these days (I hope).
One interesting thing about Bradman. Throughout his career, apart from the 1932-33 Bodyline series, Bradman didn’t have to face too many fast bowlers of quality. In the 1930 & 40s, the bat was clearly in the ascendancy over the ball. Even against a very good spinner, patience will see you win out more often than not. Warne never mastered Tendulkar or Lara for example.
Had Bradman played against the outstanding express pacemen of the 80s, he might have still averaged around 70-75. Who Knows? But the point is, he would have been brought back to the field. Of course, Bradman made every post a winner from the era he played in, & you can’t knock that.
Back in 1999, lists were compiled of the greatest athletes of the 20th century in various sports. Women were accommodated in those sports in which women competed. Dawn Fraser, for example, was acknowledged as the greatest female swimmer in history.
I did the list as a trivia question when I was running trivia shows. I’ll see if I can dig out the list & share it with you.
Dean Pantio said | August 22nd 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
I agree with you Sheek. There is no doubt Bradman was prodigiously talented, but he played in an era where it was still a gentlemen’s game and the bowlers had to provide an opportunity for the batsmen to score. During the bodyline series his series average was just 57% of his career mean.
Towser said | June 19th 2008 @ 10:10am | Report comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l64UYR9rJbY
Sheek
The point you raise about Bradman ie that Bradman would not have been as succesful today is a good one.
As a football fan I’ll do the same comparisons with Pele.
Pele retired in 1977 ,31 years ago.
You can argue that the advances made in sport in this period of time to enhance performance are greater than all previous sporting history.
So to what I know football.
Les Murray waxes lyrical on occassions about the classic Real Madrid v Eintracht 1960 European cup final.
I saw that match live as a teenager in England. I marvelled at the time at the skill on display from Di stefano ,Puskas etc.
Have watched it since many times (the last being the clip above, have a quick look to see what I’m talking about if you like) I still marvel at Di stefano & Puskas’s skills, but theres no way giving the advances by players in tactical awareness, their improved fitness in both speed stamina flexibility etc due to modern sports science that these players would have had the acres of space they had then to execute their skills.
This also applies to Peles era.
Watching Euro 2008 at the moment,well its like I’m fast forwarding on the remote.
David Sygall said | June 19th 2008 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Walter Lindrum is often compared to Don Bradman as Australia’s greatest sportsperson. So if Bradman is to appear in the list, so should Lindrum.
I also think Michael Phelps will be regarded as the greatest ever swimmer once he cleans up in Beijing.
sheek said | June 19th 2008 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Towser,
I understand what you’re saying. When I watch old clips of Wallaby test matches, it’s like watching 12 year olds running around (by comparison to today).
It goes without saying, todays players are fitter, faster, stronger, with better basic skills (presumedly). Better nutrition, better scientific training, better equipment, better playing conditions. better opportunities & media exposure. But let’s never confuse quantity with quality.
But here’s the thing, a player can only be judged by how he dominated his sport in his own time, his era. That’s the only comparable tool we have. Most of us, when we select our best in any sport, select players depending on the manner in which they dominated their sport in the time when they played.
The other thing to keep in mind is this. bring Pele, Puskas, Di Stefano, etc into the modern era. Assume they would be as strong, fast & fit as todays players with the same upbringing & opportunities. The same nutrition, training, equipment, etc.
Would they still be great champions? We can never know for sure, but logic says “Yes”! As Bradman suggested, a champion in his own era will be a champion in any era.
El Capitan said | June 19th 2008 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Sure one can excel in their pefered sport but only true atheltes excel in multipul sports. These players are freaks, and can compete at the highest level. Jordan tried to excel with the White Sox but couldn’t get into the majors. John Elway was one that was similar to Jordan, playing pro football, but only making the minors for the Yankees.
But I’d have to agree Jim Thorpe would be the ideal athelte. IMHO, an athlete is one that can over come all challanges, and play to the highest level. In today era, this is almost impossible as a professional athlete will concentrate on one particular sport all the way. The only current player that buckles this trend would be Brad Thorn. The fact that he played the highest level of RL for the Broncos, Qld and Australia, then make the transfer to RU for the Crusaders and All Blacks, then back to RL and back to RU at the highest level would put him up there. However since both codes are similar there is no extreme learning and switching (for example say Thorn left RU to play Cricket, like Stu Wilson)
TembaVJ said | June 19th 2008 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Where is Shane Warn?
sheek said | June 19th 2008 @ 11:59am | Report comment
El Capitan,
Purely from a practical time-management point of view, it is almost impossible for an athlete to be the best at more than one sport, even if he has the ability to do so.
Thorpe lived in a time when it was easier to do so, although this in no way diminishes his achievement. After all, few did what he did.
Decathletes like Daley Thompson are greatly admired, but the reality is, they are “jack of all trades, master of none”. Thompson was never the world champion in any of the 10 disciplines he competed in. He might have been, had he concentrated on one singular sport.
But as a decathlete, the trick is to be reasonably good at all disciplines, without being the master of a single one.
David Sygall said | June 19th 2008 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
A couple more that were mentioned in the SMH letters to the editor today: Heather McKay, Margaret Court, Kelly Slater.. Hard to argue with any of them..
El Capitan said | June 19th 2008 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Sheek,
True in the same vein as the IM in swimming. Each swimmer has to be strong in all events and not just one.
But how can you put a value on the greatest athlete, when each particular sport has its own strengths and weaknesses?
Perhaps its part of a bygone era. There are no athletes like Thorpe anymore and just sportspersons in each field, and occasionally you’ll have one particular player who rises above the norm to be considered a star of thier chosen field?
Al said | June 19th 2008 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
El Capitan, wasnt that Jeff Wilson?
Who was the guy in the 80’s who played both American football and baseball professionally from season to season?
El Capitan said | June 19th 2008 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Al,
My bad, yes it was Jeff Wilson.
Jerry said | June 19th 2008 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Al – yeah, it was Jeff WIlson who played for the Black Cap & All Blacks but not concurrently. He played a few games for the Black Caps while still a teenager and thereafter concentrated on his rugby career.
As far as “double All Blacks” go, Eric Tindill is probably the gold standard as the other players who’ve represented NZ in both cricket and rugby only played for NZ at one day cricket rather than in a test (as Tindill did). He then went on to referee a test match at rugby and umpire a test at cricket.
Bo Jackson was the US athlete who played major league baseball and in the NFL in the 1980’s, and Deion Sanders also did it in the 1990’s.
stuff happens said | June 19th 2008 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
I agree that these comparisons are pointless.It’s hard enough to choose the ‘greatest’ players in any one sport let alone all sports.
Savvas Tzionis said | June 19th 2008 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Not going to argue with anyone here but will focus on the No 1 sport in the world, albeit a team sport, Football (Soccer).
I believe Maradona the greatest, although I am probably biased due to him playing during my lifetime.
He singlehandedly won a World Cup for Argentina in 1986. No one else has ever done that. And he led Napoli, a team that had NEVER won the championship beforehand, to 2 Italian Championships.
Pele, by contrast, was surrounded by great players with Brazil (not as great, as him, but nevertheless….). They were so good they won a World Cup without him (1962).
Jamie said | June 19th 2008 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Get ready to remove Mark Spitz and replace him with Michael Phelps after Beijing. He has already equalled the most medals won at a single Olympics and this year will equal or beat the most golds at an Olympics = 7 gold medals by Spitz.
And he is only 22 y.o.
Dean Pantio said | August 22nd 2009 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
About as soon as Bolt gets to have medals for running backwards, sideways and skipping.
Chris Beck said | June 19th 2008 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
I can think of two names right off the top.
How about speed skater Eric Heiden? He won the gold medal in all five races at the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, and in dong so set four Olympic records and one world record. This in a sport that is today dominated by specialists – guys that only do the 500 meters, for example. After retiring from speed skating, he became a professional cyclist.
Next, ice hockey’s Wayne Gretzky. Defined a totally new way to play the game. Owns the majority of the NHL record book, and some of the records will never be broken. Gretzky has to be on the list, doesn’t he?
Phil Coorey said | June 19th 2008 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
“Who was the guy in the 80’s who played both American football and baseball professionally from season to season?”
Bo Jackson – the guy was a freak
…and Babe Ruth belongs on the list – he hit his home runs during the ‘dead ball ‘ era which is even more astonishing. I never get anything out of these stupid lists anymore because people can’t even decide any more what a sport is for some reason.
Phil Coorey said | June 19th 2008 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
“Next, ice hockey’s Wayne Gretzky. Defined a totally new way to play the game. Owns the majority of the NHL record book, and some of the records will never be broken. Gretzky has to be on the list, doesn’t he?”
For sure – what an amazing player – has the titles to prove it as well.
Savvas Tzionis said | June 19th 2008 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
‘I never get anything out of these stupid lists anymore because people can’t even decide any more what a sport is for some reason.’
Maybe we should just list who was great, and I mean at the very very top.
For instance in Football (Soccer), I would include Pele, Maradona, but exclude the following…Cruyff, he ultimately failed in 1974 World Cup. Puskas ditto at 1954 WC. Di Stefano, never did anything at International level. Beckenbauer…a defender…no. George Best….did it for only 4 years and never at International level.
Midfielder said | June 19th 2008 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Do you judge purely on sporting achievement or do you include general behaviour as well.
Ali, standing up and not going to national service, added to this is his sharp wit and tounge, is this added to his boxing powers.
Also can outside football, boxing & atheltes, were all nations can comment on a somewhat equal basic, do other sports compare. Tennis, golf etc, and so on are essentially rich western sports, Union, Cricket & Basketball, are also international but played by far fewer countries and very few at a meaningful level.
Sheeks obversation about US slant is more about media, swimming also outside a handful of nations is not a big sport.
For me ice hockey has more international interest than swimming but given ice hockey is not an Australian sport it does not get a mentioned.
For me it is better to agree on the top ten sports and then find the best in each sport. BTW golf is not in my top ten.
The Link said | June 19th 2008 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Phil Coorey and Al,
Deion Sanders also did MLB and NFL at the same time in the 90’s, amazing athlete
paulmc said | June 19th 2008 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
Back to Australia – Did not Ray Lindwall represent Australia in both Cricket & Rugby League?
Probably both require more endurance than Baseball and American Football
stuff happens said | June 19th 2008 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
When I was in college ( a long time ago in Wales ) we used to play a game to choose the best rugby team using any athlete from any sport. Much fun and argument usually over a few pints of course.
I’m afraid it’s all a bit cloudy now, but the one constant from outside rugby was Muhammed Ali who we put in the back row. He was in every team. Pele was often in the centre along with Eusebio, a phenomenal Portuguese striker who played in the ‘66 World Cup and for the Benfica team which lost to Man U in the European Cup.We thought boxers would be good in the front row but could never agree who and there was a great US sprinter whose name I’ve forgotten who was of course on the wing.
From the rugby world Colin Meads was always one lock usually with Willie John McBride.JPR was impossible to dislodge at full back and Gareth at scrum half ( even the English agreed!). Waka Nathan was regarded as the flanker.
Cricketers were always regarded as athletic jokes and not considered. I think they were allowed to operate the scoreboard.
Matt said | June 19th 2008 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
I agree with the comments some users have made about Pele. While he is definitely one of the greats, if you have 2 different columnists agreeing on him, there must be room for discussion of Maradona. I think the elevation of Pele as “widely regarded as the best footballer of all time” is a romantic notion by Fifa above anything else. Didn’t Fifa have a poll for footballer of the century which Maradona won in a landslide. To save face, Fifa issued it jointly to Maradona and Pele.
As others have said, Pele was also surrounded by great players whereas Maradona for the most part did it alone and from midfield, usually controlling the game rather than finishing off others’ great work.
Definitely Armstrong above Mercx, Armstrong completely dominated the ultimate test for a cyclist there is.
Ahead of Lewis and Owens though, could you instead have Michael Johnson? I think the 400m is as much if not more of a test of athleticism, testing not only pace but endurance. And for many years he was quite simply unstoppable.
Pajovic said | January 17th 2010 @ 3:26am | Report comment
Matt, You obviously do not follow cycling if you went for Armstrong over Mercx. The 3 great tours had more of an equal standing in Eddie’s day and it is only more recently that the TourDF has become the main endurance focus. He won the Tour de France five times, won all the classics except Paris-Tours, won the Giro d’Italia five times and the Vuelta a España, won the world championship as an amateur and a professional, and broke the world hour record.
Armstrong never got a punch to the Kidney mid Tour either!
Photon said | June 19th 2008 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
Gentleman, (And this is just my opinion) sport is about entertainment, I put it to you that Muhanmmed Ali is indeed the Sportsman of the 20 Century, in him you hav a sportsman who has combined charisma with a ability to deliver, in a age of greatness. As a 19 year old ( I speak under correction), he came out and talked the talk and preceeded to walk the walk in a time of heaveyweight boxing greats!! He became a legend in a time of legends (Louis,Frazier, Foreman) “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, rumble big man rumble)!! The man wasn’t just a media giant, but he had the personality and ability to match it. To me he is as complete sporting package as you get!!
Photon said | June 19th 2008 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
Sorry meant Sonny Liston, Ali was a little to late for the Brown Bomber
Photon said | June 19th 2008 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
Sheek as for thaty simulation of Marciano versus Ali!! There’s a reason African American boxers needed to become knockout specialists. At that time, what sane American company was going to paint a Negro champion as being a superior to a white champion like Rocky Marciano!! If you would kindly excuse any perceived chip on my shoulder
Photon said | June 19th 2008 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
One more correction-Ali was 22 not 19 when he fought Liston
Millster said | June 19th 2008 @ 7:10pm | Report comment
With enormous respect to Bradman as undoubtedly the greatest cricketer ever, should a cricketer ever be in a list of greatest athletes?
I’m not meaning to be insulting but many a world-class cricketer has, for some or all of their career, been of a physical standard that would not even match that of a dedicated amateur in most other sports.
Incidentally I agree with Spiro and Matt about Pele. Maradona, Beckenbauer, Cruijff and Zidane are all players that I’d rank as his peers. Maybe even Paolo Maldini. Each incomparable so I won’t rank them, but it is going too far to single out Pele ahead of the rest.
Hugh Dillon said | June 19th 2008 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
The New York Times has a similar type debate going on at the moment about whether Tiger Woods is the greatest or not. My comment on the site was No. 603 and I think that I was the only person to mention Bradman. I suggested that his batting average was comparable to that of a baseballer hitting about .700 over a 20 year career. Ted Williams, the great Red Sox hitter and one of the greatest of all time was hitting about .400 over a lifetime. Are the Americans parochial or what?
Photon said | June 19th 2008 @ 9:57pm | Report comment
SPIRO PLEASE DON’T BAN ME FROM THE ROAR FOR THIS COMMENT!!
Dillion
I can’t stand Amreicans, but seriously, When Bradman played there was England, the West Indies and maybe South Africa. No one else mattered. iN baseball there are far more than 3 compettive sides. Bradman was good the best of his time, but his time was not a very compettitve time, cricket just didn’t have a wide enough apppeal for him to be classified in the same breath as footballers like Pele,Maradona, Beckenbauer, Cruijff and Zidane. No cricketers belong on that list, much like no rugby players do. The Greatest Aussie sportsman to me is Rod Laver, the dude won two grand slams, Roger Federer who is fast becoming the most accomplished tennis player in history, in terms of Grand Slam titles won, still hasn’t been able to win at Rolland Garros
Monty String said | June 20th 2008 @ 6:20am | Report comment
I think Greatest Athlete is a misnomer. It should be Greatest Sportsperson which opens up a can of worms: what is a sport versus a skill?
I used to play snooker at the same rat-infested establishment Lindrum played at in Pitt Street. At the time, many of my fellow shooters were rail-thin consumptives, but they could bounce the object ball over a color and sink a far off red with no trouble. Were these athletes? No. Just very skillful folk, as Lindrum was. Was Jack the Bear a great athlete with all those Masters titles? No, Just very skillful with a golf club. Perhaps the criterium should be whether or not you can apply the adjective to a person. e.g. would you call the Don athletic? No. He was just okay in the field, not particularly fast between the wickets, and was only used as a change slow bowler. Was Babe Ruth athletic when he was setting his HR record? You kidding? He did it on beer and hot dogs. He was a fat man who played first base and had a hard time reaching for anything thrown high. But that doesn’t mean you can’t be endomorphic and be athletic – two of the great rugby wingers, Cau Cau and Ron Jarden were/are decidedly plump but could/can run like the wind. Gareth Rees was a tub and still played quality rugby as a 5/8. But these are exceptions.
My longwinded point is this: having great eye/hand combination doesn’t make you a great athlete in my book. Although it might make you a great sportsperson. Also, tearing up one Olympic Games, as Spitz did, means only that you were terrific in a relatively short period of time. IMHO you have to have a career to qualify for the pantheon.
Sundo said | June 20th 2008 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Where is Horrie Hastings?
spiro zavos said | June 20th 2008 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
I’ve just being reading about C.B.Fry, who played cricket and soccer/football for England. Would have played rugby for England except that he broke his leg. He also held the world long jump record for a time. He was offered the crown as King of Greece but rejected it. He was a noteworthy sports journalist, too.
Dublin Dave said | June 21st 2008 @ 1:06am | Report comment
As somebody who can remember watching the 1970 World Cup, won by Brazil, I am very much in the Pele camp as best soccer player. He was the best. I fully agree that Argentina would not have won the 1986 World Cup without Maradonna whereas Brazil might well have won the 1970 World Cup without Pele. In fact they did win the 1962 World Cup to all intents and purposes without him because he got injured very early on.
But Pele was just a magical combination of grace, speed and breathtaking imagination and daring. Although he won two (three?) World Cups and scored over 1,000 first class goals some of his most memorable moments were misses. Like attempting to lob the Czech keeper from his own half, or the most amazing outrageous dummy in the semi final of 1970 when he went around the Uruguayan keeper one way and let the ball go past the other side. And then he missed an open goal!!! No matter, the last thing he needed was an extra notch on his goal tally.
About boxing, I care little; cricket I know little; American sports I know nothing; tennis is for hot places; swimming is like sex–a participatory rather than a spectator sport; golf is for ould fellas and I’m only 47.
But I am going to nominate one of my all time heroes for the best athlete of all time. Emil Zatopek of Czechoslovakia as was. There was nobody to touch him as a distance runner. He broke numerous world records and won four gold medals at Olympic games, including a uniqe treble in 1952 of 5k, 10k and marathon.
Two things stand out about him for me.
1) his sense of humour. He had an ungainly loping style and his face was often contorted in a grimace as he ran along. When asked why, he once said. “I just wasn’t talented enough to run and smile at the same time.”
2) the fact that he was almost certainly clean. He was from Communist Czechoslovakia. If they had found something to put in his coffee, they would have given it to everybody. The way the East German women did later on. And the Chinese runners more recently. If a star got injured they would just whistle up another medal winner from the gym. It happened several times.
But distance running was the one discipline that the Eastern Europeans never excelled in to the same extent as their steroid enhanced power and weight men or their “women”. Name another good Czech distance runner if you can.
Zatopek was also something of a rebel. He got into trouble for his outspokenness with the authorities and they assigned this supposed national treasure to corpse-washing duty in the city morque as his way to earn a crust.
Guy was a legend.
ohtani's jacket said | June 21st 2008 @ 1:52am | Report comment
I really hate the Federer Roland Garros argument. Federer could’ve won the French Open three, possibly four, times if not for Nadal. It’s conceivable that he could’ve had a Calendar Slam three straight years. Laver benefitted from Ken Rosewall’s decline to take his only French title in the Open era.
Earl Sorensen said | June 24th 2008 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
I remember reading over Jahangir Khan’s great records in squash, and thinking of this being an incredible feat, bettered in squash by only Margaret Court as has been previously mentioned, however one other that I really believe should be in the list, as someone who completely dominated his sport is Edwin Moses – Between 1977 and 1987, Moses won 107 consecutive finals (122 consecutive races) and set the world record in his event four times(from Wikipedia). Perhaps another worthy of mention is Yiannis Kouros, the greek/aussie ultra-marathoner who holds every men’s world record from 100 to 1,000 miles, from 200 to 1,600 km, and from 24 hours to 10 days(from wikipedia).
Just my 2 bobs worth…
Dublin Dave said | June 24th 2008 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
Earl
Ed Moses would certainly be a contender. For all the reasons you gave and for the fact that he was poetry in motion to look at. He would very likely have won a third Olympic Gold (although you can never say for certain) if the USA hadn’t boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980.
Don’t know about the ultra marathoner, though. It’s all very impressive but just a bit too extreme and nichey to be mainstream. IMHO.
Earl Sorensen said | June 25th 2008 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
Yeah impressive record Dublin Dave, 9yrs, 9mths and 9days before he was beaten again, amazing! Another interesting tidbit, is that in 1990 he also received a bronze medal in a World Cup 2 man bobsleigh event – Cool Running!!!
david said | June 25th 2008 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
Ali is way over rated. There are a heap of better boxers out there. Shows you how much the media can influence the media.
Another is Pele. HE could never even pull off a Maradonna 7! And thats a fact.
Dublin Dave said | June 25th 2008 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
A Maradonna what?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your banter, old man.
PommyAussie said | July 7th 2008 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
One name that is regulalry missed out on that i think should be in here is Sir Stephen Redgrave. A British rower who won gold medals at five consecutive Olympic Games from 1984 to 2000. He also won a bronze medal in 1988.
As the only Briton ever to achieve this feat, Redgrave is considered by some to be Britain’s greatest Olympian. Only four other Olympians achieved the same: Pál Kovács, Aladár Gerevich (the only one to surpass it with 6 consecutive golds), Reiner Klimke, and Birgit Fischer, and only one of those in an “endurance” event. Redgrave has also won nine Rowing World Championship gold medals.
Olympic Games
2000 – Gold, Coxless Four (with Matthew Pinsent, Tim Foster, James Cracknell)
1996 – Gold, Coxless Pair (with Matthew Pinsent)
1992 – Gold, Coxless Pair (with Matthew Pinsent)
1988 – Gold, Coxless Pair (with Andy Holmes)
1988 – Bronze, Coxed Pair (with Andy Holmes and Patrick Sweeney)
1984 – Gold, Coxed Four (with Martin Cross, Adrian Ellison, Andy Holmes, Richard Budgett).
[edit] World Rowing Championships
1999 – Gold, Coxless Four (with James Cracknell, Ed Coode, Matthew Pinsent)
1998 – Gold, Coxless Four (with James Cracknell, Tim Foster, Matthew Pinsent)
1997 – Gold, Coxless Four (with James Cracknell, Tim Foster, Matthew Pinsent)
1995 – Gold, Coxless Pair (with Matthew Pinsent)
1994 – Gold, Coxless Pair (with Matthew Pinsent)
1993 – Gold, Coxless Pair (with Matthew Pinsent)
1991 – Gold, Coxless Pair (with Matthew Pinsent)
1990 – Bronze, Coxless Pair (with Matthew Pinsent)
1989 – Silver, Coxless Pairs (with Simon Berrisford)
1987 – Gold, Coxless Pairs (with Andy Holmes)
1987 – Silver, Coxed Pairs (with Andy Holmes and Patrick Sweeney)
1986 – Gold, Coxed Pairs (with Andy Holmes and Patrick Sweeney)
1985 – 12th, Single Sculls
1983 – Single Sculls
1982 – 6th, Quadruple Scull
1981 – 8th, Quadruple Scull
What a legend!
Wayne Tc said | July 26th 2008 @ 7:47am | Report comment
For all round athletic ability – you cannot go past Jim Thorpe and all his accomplishments that he performed in so many different sports [at their highest levels] over a long period of time. Jordan; Ali; Armstrong; Bradman and Gretzky are all the best of their selected sports, however, for all round athletic ability – Thorpe – is the greatest. Also, as a native American – there was so much more he had to do – in those days – to be successful.
matty p said | July 29th 2008 @ 2:00am | Report comment
No mention of Sir Hubert Opperman?
Bruce Walkley said | August 5th 2008 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
Wayne Tc is right on the button. And when someone else wins two grand slams I’ll believe they’re in the same class as Laver, not before. They’ll have to learn to serve-volley as well as play interminable ground strokes.
Alan Nicolea said | August 25th 2008 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Diego Maradona did not get a mention despite being a player for his people. He represents the lowerclass of football and sport in this world and to this day remains a leader of all south Americans kids.
Pele is a politician of the game, You would be interested to find Spiro that many of today’s football superstars would rather have Maradona as their captain and leader than Pele. Even some Brazilian players rate Maradona higher than Pele.
Pele scored a lot of goals and won world cups. But in terms of being the better player, Maradona takes that honour. the reason he is despised in some way or form is because he does not suck up to FIFA. Maradona is the CHE GUEVARA of the 21st century.
Like it or not.
Alan said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
I don’t want to seem biased but if you are going to analyse each legend in their respective sport, you will have to reduce the comparison to statistics. Although i agree that Maradona was a superior player to Pele, the statistics show that Pele achieved more in his era (3 world cups medals, 1200 goals, etc).
Comparing the other athletes to each other one must also include the popularity of the sport. The more people playing the sport, the lower the probability for the legend to make his/her mark on the sport. Harry Kewell is the greatest Australian soccer player, however in comparison with other countries and eras, he isn’t the greatest soccer player in the world (comparing him to the millions that have played the sport). Similarly,i am the best person in the world playing ‘Nurfball’ but i am the only person in the world that plays Nurfball. Therefore, this instantly cuts out many athletes from the comparison including Bradman, Spitz, Jordan, Ruth and the like.
Long story short, evaluating Pele’s statistics, impact on the game and adding that soccer is easily the biggest participation game of all time – Pele should be the greatest athlete.
Boof said | June 6th 2009 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
Walter Lindrum & as for Carl Lewis?????? nominate his chemist mabye.
JohnB said | June 15th 2009 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
Heather Mackay?
westy said | June 15th 2009 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
I think we are a little sexist. I think at least a few of the greatest athletes should be women. I for one would nominate Dawn Fraser . If not for officialdom she would have won 4 gold medals in a row in a blue ribbon event. There are others.
Rich_daddy said | June 15th 2009 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
Westy,
You might be right but most of the bloggers I am guessing are male, and they mostly watch sports involving males so it’s hardly a suprise. Please not Dawn Fraser, she is dull and boring. What about Nadia Cominici the gymnast who scored a perfect 10 ?
I think the list may also discriminate against sports not played worldwide. For example Wayne Gretsky the hockey player might have a case to join the list.
Also I think Roger Federer is worthy of a spot and if Mark Spitz is there, perhaps Micheal Phelps should be as well. Also isn’t their rumours Carl Lewis was on drugs during his time as an Olympian? Very hard though, everyone is going to have a different opinion.
Wayne Tc said | June 18th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Hey Guys, If you wished to include a woman on this list – its hard to go past Margaret Court. She won 64 grand slams in total. 24 single; 19 doubles and 19 mixed. How many has Roger Federer won – 14. Also, I do not see a smimmer as and athlete. The world greatest athlete – needs to do athletics – that is running; jumping etc. Do a seperate list for swimmers. I stick by my blog in July 2008 – when I suggested that Jim Thorpe who played major league baseball; was a premier running back in the original American Football league and won a few Olympic Gold metals as well should be at the top of the list. He could also do a reverse slam dunk. Not bad for a guy straight off the reservation.
Dave said | August 27th 2009 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
Mike Rann rates Bradman
After all these years we’re yet to find another Bradman
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-toast-to-don-bradman/
sittingbison said | October 4th 2009 @ 11:45pm | Report comment
without necessarily defending Bradman, his average dropped during Bodyline by bowling at his head with all 9 fieldsmen on the legside. So much for genteel. I would suggest that any of the other sportsmen on this list would suffer a comparative decline when face with a similar impediment.
And I cannot agree that the bowling of the time was low grade, the other batsmen of the era had similar stats to all others of any era, Bradmans just happens to be roughly twice as good as everyone else. Doesn’t make him a nice chap though or admirable in any other way.
Didn’t Zatopek give one of his gold medals to Jim Clarke in admiration for his gesture of helping Landy to his feet? Now THAT is admirable.
Francis said | December 3rd 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Don’t forget Denis Compton – played professionally for England in both cricket and football (and knocked Bradman’s touring Aussies for a few centuries in the 1930s). Maybe not the greatest in either sport, but I can’t think of anyone else who has reached such a pinnacle in two very different games. He was also an Arsenal man, which always helps in these ratings…
sledgeandhammer said | December 4th 2009 @ 9:46pm | Report comment
Couple of points in defence of Bradman:
1) Bradman did not have access to modern day equipment. Have you ever seen a picture of Bradman wearing a helmet or thigh pads? How effective were his gloves?
2) Cricket conditions if anything were tougher – uncovered wickets, timeless tests, no restrictions on field placings. How many matches are played on what used to be called a ’sticky wicket’ these days? When did the boundary rope first get introduced?
3) From expert commentators and footage it would appear that the fast bowlers of his era were pretty fearsome beasts – to me they stack up pretty well against the modern player. Here’s a link to Larwood bowling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwL1VOBG6Vo (larwood)