Who Is The Greatest Sportsman Of All Time?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Sandy KoufaxFor a five year span Sandy Koufax had the lowest E.R.A in baseball for all those five years also he won the pitching triple-crown(E.R.A,strikeouts, and wins) 3 times.he had the single season strikeout record before nolan ryan broke it with one and in four straight years he had a no-hitter and one was a perfect game.

Koufax was great, but I'd take Pedro at his peak over Koufax. If you'd like to hear more of that argument, I recommend the baseball forum, where there's an thread about that issue about every 2 weeks. Koufax was great, but he also pitched in the best era for pitchers of all time. Pedro dominated like no player ever has in 1999-2000 during the greatest hitting era of all time. Is you want someone to pitch a complete game shut out, then on two days rest pitch another complete game shutout, I'd take Koufax. But pedro was the most dominating pitcher at his peak, inning for inning.

[AmScray 355]

Gretzky Number one serge? really? LOL.

I agree with Gretzky, even though I hate the Polish.It's hard to compare "greatness" when you're comparing individual sports to team sports, but Gretzky at his peak was in a different universe. Jordan, Tiger etc either played with or played after athletes who- while not as dominant- were still 'close'. When Gretzky was in his prime, it was like he came from a different planet. Lemieux was great, but he wasn't close. Howe at his best wasn't close. No one was close. Ali was great, but he wasn't greater than his quality opponents to the same freakish degree of disproportion that Gretzky was.I'd say the closest would be Tiger or Ruth- Tiger may even take the title away from Gretzky- but so far, its got to go to Wayneo.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Koufax was great, but he also pitched in the best era for pitchers of all time.

QFT

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I agree with Gretzky, even though I hate the Polish.It's hard to compare "greatness" when you're comparing individual sports to team sports, but Gretzky at his peak was in a different universe. Jordan, Tiger etc either played with or played after athletes who- while not as dominant- were still 'close'. When Gretzky was in his prime, it was like he came from a different planet. Lemieux was great, but he wasn't close. Howe at his best wasn't close. No one was close. Ali was great, but he wasn't greater than his quality opponents to the same freakish degree of disproportion that Gretzky was.I'd say the closest would be Tiger or Ruth- Tiger may even take the title away from Gretzky- but so far, its got to go to Wayneo.

I know quite a few people that would argue in favor of Lemieux ( and also, Bobby Orr) Gretzky also put up his freakish numbers on one of the very greatest teams of all time. The amount of talent surrounding Gretzky at Ed. verses say, Lemieux at Pitts. isn't comparable. You say Mario wasn't close to Gretzky, but Mario had a 199 point season, on an inferior team. That's close. I won't go any further, because I would be talking straight out of my ass, as I know fck all about hockey. I do think you are exaggerating the gap between him and say Mario. Nothing comes close to Babe Ruth, in terms of gap between what had been previously done in the sport, and the way the sport was before and after the player.

[Dirtydutch 8]

WG clearly had a more impressive career than ML, but if you take health and circumstance out of the equation, and I know that's nto really what we're doing, but if you do -- Lemieux > Gretzky, in my opinion.

[runthemover 39]

I wrote a bunch of stuff then lost it. in short....1. gretkzy made people around him great2. lemux had Jagr and Francis3. one guy played with lemux scored 50 but didnt ever break 30 before or after (or something like that)4. gretz more assists than anyone else has points5. can't simply take health + circumstance out and say someone is better. no idea what would happen. cant just say oh he had 1.7 ppg in 800 games and multiply 1.7 by 1200 games to get such and such points.6. scram probably saw orr play and gretz's prime but I didn't so I can't really say too much but I'd put G number one but have L and O close behind.ok that was relatively long after typing it out

[Dirtydutch 8]

...can't simply take health + circumstance out and say someone is better.

Yeah, but I find WG annoying and effeminine, and ML always seemed more impressive when I saw him play, so I made a thin, shallow case.

[DinkDonk 1]

Gretzky Number one serge? really? LOL.

I'd personally like to commend serge for not saying Mats Sundin.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

6. scram probably saw orr play and gretz's prime but I didn't so I can't really say too much but I'd put G number one but have L and O close behind.

I don't think scram's old enough to have seen orr.I'd put my money on G number one too, All i'm saying is that the gap is closer than Scram is making it out to be, is all.

[fleung22 1]

I know quite a few people that would argue in favor of Lemieux ( and also, Bobby Orr) Gretzky also put up his freakish numbers on one of the very greatest teams of all time. The amount of talent surrounding Gretzky at Ed. verses say, Lemieux at Pitts. isn't comparable. You say Mario wasn't close to Gretzky, but Mario had a 199 point season, on an inferior team. That's close. I won't go any further, because I would be talking straight out of my ass, as I know fck all about hockey. I do think you are exaggerating the gap between him and say Mario. Nothing comes close to Babe Ruth, in terms of gap between what had been previously done in the sport, and the way the sport was before and after the player.

not responding to you specifically bigD except for the Gretzky-Lemieux part. I'm gonna give you a 101 on 99.the debate on greatest sportsman is already tough enough without bringing in the what-if-their-health-was-better questions. Lou Gehrig might've been the greatest baseball player ever if he didn't die. maybe if Lemieux didn't smoke and showed up to training camp in shape he would've put up bigger numbers. Gretzky did SO much for hockey and his dominance on the sport from a child to pro wasn't even close...NOT EVEN A LITTLE. Gretzky is essentially the finished product of what everyone expects from Tiger's ongoing career. Listen, Lemieux's best point total was 199 pts. Gretzky is the ONLY player to ever have broken the 200-pt barrier and he did that 4 times in five years (196 pts in his "off" year). when comparing to someone like jordan then how about 9 MVPs, 10 scoring championships and 4 stanley cups. better teammates reasoning is garbage. the first year Gretz got traded to the crappy LA Kings, the Kings made the playoffs and beat the Oilers who where the defending champions. hockey is still nothing in the US but nobody helped the NHL expand more. gretzky was the reason LA knows how to spell hockey and led to the considerable NHL expansion from 21 to 30 teams. Associated Press named Wayne Gretzky Male Athlete of the Decade for 1990s. When no. 99 retired he held forty regular-season records, fifteen playoff records, and six All-Star records. I haven't even mentioned international play!! if we're considering off game time then there is really no equal. it's not that there is nothing bad you could say about gretzky...more like the countless good things to say. he is a legend as a player and he's STILL an ambassador of the game today. but if we're talking about who will win this debate then it'll be a combination of popularity of the sport (which isn't hockey) and the Nike swoosh. people, do you know how our entire perception of legends of the past might have changed if Nike came out later or earlier?!? did Nike get lucky with Jordan? HELL YA. but it was also the same for Jordan. now...nike can't do shiit if you don't produce but no company on this earth can market a winner like nike...NOBODY. do something bad, that never makes the light of day (mostly). do something good, that will be great. but do something great and you will be a god.which brings me to Tiger. Nike's golden child. and trust me, as long as Woods stays healthy enough to break the record for PGA championships and there's no crazy off the course stuff happening he will be known as the greatest sportsman ever. ever since Tiger signed with Nike on day 1 the plan was already set in motion. however, I think it's measuring EV to include Federer and Woods. they could be undeniable winners or become the next wow, I can't believe how fast they sucked ass. if this were the late 80s everyone would be saying Mike Tyson but we all know how that ended.btw, I can't vote for the Babe in this category if off the field stuff applies. the man had serious issues.so my vote, considering the guidelines of OP, is Wayne Gretzky which is funny because I didn't even know I thought that until I started the rant.

[pele_br 0]

Pelé's first international match was a 2–1 defeat against Argentina on July 7, 1957. In that match, he scored his first goal for Brazil, three months before his 17th birthday. He scored his first World Cup goal against Wales in quarterfinals, the only goal of the match, to help Brazil advance to semifinals, while becoming the youngest ever World Cup goalscorer at 17 years and 239 days. Against France in the semifinal, Brazil was leading 2–1 at halftime, and then Pelé scored a hat-trick, becoming the youngest in World Cup history to do so.On 19 June 1958 Pelé became the youngest player to play in a World Cup final match at 17 years and 249 days. He scored two goals in the final as Brazil beat Sweden 5–2. His first goal, a lob over a defender followed by a precise volley shot, was selected as one of the best goals in the history of the World Cup. When the match ended, he passed out on the field, and had to be attended by the medical staff.With Pelé on the field, the Brazilian team's record was 67 wins, 14 draws, and 11 losses, and went on to win three World Cups. Brazil never lost a match with both Pelé and Garrincha on the field.[25]Athlete of the Century by the International Olympic Committee: 1999

[dEv~ 19]

It may have been said on past pages but I think you could make a case for Michael Phelps. I know most of the reason I'm thinking it is because it's fresh in my mind but he at 23 already has more goal medals then anyone in the history of the olympics. He'll only add to the record in 2012 (London).As for 66 vs. 99, Gretzky has all the records. It's hard to debate that he isn't the greatest hockey player of all time. Having said all the I'm sure if you could ask anyone in the NHL who'd they take at their best a decent majority would take Lemieux.

[SlapStick 0]

I'd love to know how many metres Phelps has covered to get his gold medals that all the water cooler are argueing he could be the best olmypian of all time.

[fleung22 1]

I'd love to know how many metres Phelps has covered to get his gold medals that all the water cooler are argueing he could be the best olmypian of all time.

what phelps has done is amazing and historical. but I gotta make a "but"it kind've bothers me that there's even 8 medals to be given at swimming in a fairly similar category. it's not like track. if you won gold in the 100, 100 relay, 200, 400, etc. meters you'd be the super stud. I'm no swimming expert but it seems to me that if you were very good at the 400 m it would be fair to say you'd do well in all the events phelps did. obviously not perfect 8 for 8 good...that's impressive but what other sport could you get 8 medals in?? nobody else really gets the opportunity to pile up the medals. if you win 8 times in olympic boxing (where there's a much higher degree of injury) you only get 1 gold medal.

[outsider13 0]

what phelps has done is amazing and historical. but I gotta make a "but"it kind've bothers me that there's even 8 medals to be given at swimming in a fairly similar category. it's not like track. if you won gold in the 100, 100 relay, 200, 400, etc. meters you'd be the super stud. I'm no swimming expert but it seems to me that if you were very good at the 400 m it would be fair to say you'd do well in all the events phelps did. obviously not perfect 8 for 8 good...that's impressive but what other sport could you get 8 medals in?? nobody else really gets the opportunity to pile up the medals. if you win 8 times in olympic boxing (where there's a much higher degree of injury) you only get 1 gold medal.

Well, it's pretty hard to compare track and swimming because of the different styles of swimming. Historically, people are pretty good at one or 2 styles. He's pretty damn good at all of them. The amount of races he swam, with heats and finals in such a short period of time, it's amazing he kept up the pace. He is just a freak and his body is made for swimming (long, strong, and flexible). What really would have made the achievement impressive though is if he could win a distance event. Nonetheless, a ridiculous feat that will be hard for anybody to match.