Greatest athlete of all time

Originally posted by @john-osmar
If "domination of their chosen sport" is the criteria, I would nominate Bill Russell. He played 2 years in college and won the NCAA Championship both years, including a 58-game win streak. He then led the US to an undefeated Olympic Gold Medal. He then played 13 years for the Celtics and won 11 NBA Titles. (In one of the years he didn't win it, he broke his leg in the Final Series.) That's 14 major championships in 15 years.

One of his championships was as a player-coach. 1969 I believe. It may be debatable if he was the greatest athlete but IMHO he was the greatest basketball player ever. I grew up in Boston during that time.

agreed with shallow blue

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
agreed with shallow blue

Not arguing Bradman is clearly the greatest cricketer of all time, KA.

Just wonder if cricket is a fair sport to produce the greatest of all time, with only a handful of countries playing it (and in the Don's time, just 6!)

Great result for England v your 'proper rugby' team today. A 4-0 tries hammering. That's 5 on the bounce for England now!

May be an omen for the Ashes (I hope!)

Originally posted by @blood-on-the-tracks
Not arguing Bradman is clearly the greatest cricketer of all time, KA.

Just wonder if cricket is a fair sport to produce the greatest of all time, with only a handful of countries playing it (and in the Don's time, just 6!)

Great result for England v your 'proper rugby' team today. A 4-0 tries hammering. That's 5 on the bounce for England now!

May be an omen for the Ashes (I hope!)

Is there anyone else in any international sport where their career stats are double that of a great player?

Should be England and Australia in final. NZ got done by Fiji. Tonga looked shaky against Lebanon.



Wayne Bennet is coaching England so an upset is on the cards.

Ashes? Well lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. If the Aussie quicks fire like they have been for NSW then your batsmen are in for a torrid time. Nearly time to start that ashes thread 🙂

Hi Karoly

Well, ALMOST double. Our Herbert Sutcliffe averaged 60 in Tests, think Graeme Pollock was a bit higher than that.

I love cricket, just wonder if it is a little too polarized , the USA citizens must be asking 'Don who?'

As, I think, Roma asked, we have to decide from which 'universal' sports we are choosing.

RL? I would put my house on Oz. You play at a different level. They had Oz at 1-4 to win it last weekend, and I considered a £100 bet to win £25. Odds gone even shorter now

You guys seem to have gone all odd on selection of Ashes team. Recall for Payne? Dropping young Rennie? Yet another chance for S Marsh? No Kawaja? We like that. We also hope one of your iffy pace bowlers tweaks a little something with just 4 bowlers in team. Yep. Game on

PS see you avoided comment on the larruping you took in proper rugby!

Originally posted by @blood-on-the-tracks
Hi Karoly

Well, ALMOST double. Our Herbert Sutcliffe averaged 60 in Tests, think Graeme Pollock was a bit higher than that.

I love cricket, just wonder if it is a little too polarized , the USA citizens must be asking 'Don who?'

As, I think, Roma asked, we have to decide from which 'universal' sports we are choosing.

RL? I would pu ...[text shortened]... e of your iffy pace bowlers tweaks a little something with just 4 bowlers in team. Yep. Game on

Mmmm. Time to start that ashes thread methinks ..


A batsman who averages 50 runs for a few seasons is usually considered great. a 60 average would be considered exceptional. And no matter how many times (well not many) people say that this next guy may challenge the Don's record they always fall away. Mike Hussey had an average of 80 for the first part of his career. He finished with 50 odd.
As for the Aussie line up either wicket keeper (Payne, Wade or ..err.. the othe one ) would be good. I think they went for the best gloveman in the end. I'm not a fan of S Marsh. 8th recall? Surely he would not have been recalled if his name were not Marsh. Having said that he certainly has the potential to deliver.
Should've kept Renshaw, his technique is pretty good and I reckon he was unlucky not to make a few more runs.


As far as the U.S. and sports is concerned they are most certainly very insular. All countries have their own traditional sports. I like how Aussie Rules is only played in Australia .
But when it comes tio the U.S. they think they own things like basketball and baseball and want to hail all their sports, no matter how trivial,as the universal chamionships or whatever.I think Eladar has thrown up some viewr stats fromthe U.S. which would back this up a bit.
The rugby league has gone pear shaped with Tonga only winning by 2 against Lebanon and Fiji beating NZ by 4-2 !! England may be a sniff against Australia and I'll be watching Smith and Cronk this week. They're done. Big season. Swept all before them. Why change thier style? Because Wayne Bennet is coaching England and knows how to beat the Storm pairing.

But I digress- It has been the coldest Novembert I can remember in Brisbane. No humidity. And the first ball 38 hours away I am almost tempted to chack the forecast.
If Enlgand win the toss and make a mountain then all these odds floating around are going to reverse . mMMM

Originally posted by @eladar
So if you dominate a second rate field you are the greatest athlete?

Jim Thorpe is often touted as the greatest athlete ever.

Second rate? Tell that to the 80,000 people attending majors these days and the 4 million dollar paycheck for the winner and 2 million for second place. Martina is one hell of an athlete for sure and well as John McEnro, still playing senior tournies nearly 60 years old.
Just beaten by Andy Roddick, 23 years his junior.

Also Jimmy Conners, who won the US open at age 39. Still the top winner in terms of match wins, more by far than Roger Federer who is now #2 on that list.

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
Mmmm. Time to start that ashes thread methinks ..


A batsman who averages 50 runs for a few seasons is usually considered great. a 60 average would be considered exceptional. And no matter how many times (well not many) people say that this next guy may challenge the Don's record they always fall away. Mike Hussey had an average of 80 for the first ...[text shortened]... win the toss and make a mountain then all these odds floating around are going to reverse . mMMM

So when there is a great batsman in your side the opposition sweats on how to get him out. We saw that with Smith in the first innings of adelaide test. The Don was never challenged although they tried.No where is this more evident than his last innings and the way England got him ouout. wicketkeepr was it? Anyhoo it tells how the best batsman in the side gets most attention and why it is so difficult to keep getting tons.

Bradmans stats are just so OP compared with all other batsman including Richards Tendulkar Lara,etc. If he needed 40 in his last innings to get that 100 average he would've done it. Becasue it was only 4 to get , he surely had it in the back of his mind,

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
So when there is a great batsman in your side the opposition sweats on how to get him out. We saw that with Smith in the first innings of adelaide test. The Don was never challenged although they tried.No where is this more evident than his last innings and the way England got him ouout. wicketkeepr was it? Anyhoo it tells how the best batsman in the s ...[text shortened]... ge he would've done it. Becasue it was only 4 to get , he surely had it in the back of his mind,

All sport has changed so much with the digital age.
In Bradman's day there was no technology to analyse his weaknesses and strengths.
These day's there would be lot's of backroom staff working on the best way to get him out and restrict his runs so any comparison to modern day players is flawed.
How often now does a new player on the scene do well for a while until the technical guys suss him out?
As in many other fields , I think technology has ruined sport including chess.

How about Max Woosnam?

Now, you may ask "Who the hell is Max Woosnam?"

He was not a master of one sport, but he was bloody good at multiple.
His achievements include:

Olympic Gold medal (tennis)
Batting a century (cricket)
Scoring a 147 break (snooker)
Captain of the England National football team (football/soccer, duh)

...and the funniest one, beating Charlie Chaplin at a game of table tennis using only a butter knife!

wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Woosnam


I bet he'd have gained a GM norm in chess if he wanted to.

Jesse Owens

https://www.olympic.org/jesse-owens

Bruce Lee

~ thread closed~

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Bruce Lee

~ thread closed~

Except we have a few million or a few billion years left for anyone to be called the best of all time of ANYTHING.

Who knows what athelete will come up in 50 years, besides the fact that training regimens and nutrition regimens have improved so those atheletes of the future, say 100 years hence, will be a lot better than ones of today, and that includes the Jim Thorpes, Bruce Lee, Martina, Venus, and Federer and the rest. Like they thoght it an incredible acheivement to go the 4 minute mile and now we are maybe getting to the 3 minute mile but there wasn't some magic mutation of people, instead, new training, nutrition standards and such makes the difference.

So some future super athelete, how could you even compare such a (from our POV) superman to a past Bruce Lee or Martina or Thorpe? It would be unfair to have say Usain Bolt race compared to John Taylor, who won gold in track and field in 1908.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Except we have a few million or a few billion years left for anyone to be called the best of all time of ANYTHING.

Who knows what athelete will come up in 50 years, besides the fact that training regimens and nutrition regimens have improved so those atheletes of the future, say 100 years hence, will be a lot better than ones of today, and that include ...[text shortened]... ir to have say Usain Bolt race compared to John Taylor, who won gold in track and field in 1908.

Well, we can't see the future, so that would just ruin the discussion.