I think it’s a lot easier to put Belichick on the coach/manager Rushmore than it is to put Brady on the athlete one.
I love how you start off with a long list of athletes that has 23 North Americans, 2 South Americans, 2 Europeans and no Asians, Africans or Australians. If you want to ignore the rest of the world fine, but at least then limit the scope of the question to the pantheon of North American Athletes.Anyway, when you expand it beyond their own sport to all sports, it's SO hard to really think about who the top 4 athletes of all time would be. Here are some nominations I can put on the short list:
Muhammad Ali
Michael Jordan
Bill Russell
LeBron James
Eric Heiden
Bobby Orr
Wayne Gretzky
Usain Bolt
Jackie Joyner Kersee
Jim Thorpe
Jim Brown
Edwin Moses
Carl Lewis
Jerry Rice
Babe Ruth
Barry Bonds
Roger Federer
Serena Williams
Jack Nicklaus
Tiger Woods
Michael Phelps
Pele
Lionel Messi
Cristiano Ronaldo
Jesse Owens
Tom Brady
Lawrence Taylor
I'm sure there are all kinds of other athletes that you guys would nominate. Just coming up with a short list is almost impossible, never mind actually nailing down a Mount Rushmore.
That's well and good criticism but did you think that maybe I've never heard of like 99% of those international people and have literally zero way of assessing them?I love how you start off with a long list of athletes that has 23 North Americans, 2 South Americans, 2 Europeans and no Asians, Africans or Australians. If you want to ignore the rest of the world fine, but at least then limit the scope of the question to the pantheon of North American Athletes.
To go global let me suggest the following additions:
The point is that hundreds of millions of people watch and play cricket, rugby, field hockey, cycling and skiing. There are incredible feats performed in endurance sports in swimming and the top 20 runners from Ethiopia and Kenya probably make up the top 25 in the world. Most of these sports fall outside of America's sports consciousness (just like people here are only vaguely conscious of North American sports and make the same stupid joke about the "World Series" over and over again), but if you are going to create a thread about the best without qualification then don't just throw in a token Federer, Messi, Pele and Ronaldo and figure you've got the whole world covered.
- Eddy Merckx (greatest untainted road cyclist ever)
- Ingemar Stenmark and Alberto Tomba (alpine skiing)
- Bjorn Daehlie (cross country skiing)
- Sochin Tendulkar and Sunil Gavaskar (cricket)
- Gareth Edwards and Dan Carter (rugby)
- Roger Bannister and Haile Gebrselassie (distance running)
- Diana Nyad (1st to swim Cuba - Florida), Alison Streeter (Queen of the Channel: 39 crossings including 3 2-way solo crossings and 1 3-way solo crossing in 34 hours and 40 min) and Julie Bradshaw (faster butterfly crossing of the Channel!)
- Jahangir Khan (greatest squash player)
- WG Grace (the Babe Ruth of cricket)
- Dhyan Chand (field hockey)
- Ronnie O'Sullivan (snooker)
Why would you do that?I'd put Orr up there before Gretzky.
I agree - that's why I said you should limit the category to North America. Makes it more honestThat's well and good criticism but did you think that maybe I've never heard of like 99% of those international people and have literally zero way of assessing them?
Oh no, I got it alright. I just went in another direction...you know, wide left.I think you missed it.
I'd say reflexes need to be up there, and I don't see how you'd be left with a bunch of basketball and hockey players by those criteria. There are at least a dozen sports that test those attributes more.Who would top the list by giving equal weight to the following categories:
However I think this would leave us with a bunch of basketball and hockey players because the other sports are too specialized. And ironically Wayne Gretzky himself wouldn’t make the list because he wasn’t particularly fast or strong. But I think that does underscore the need for flexible standards. You can’t just have an athletic archetype and compare everyone to that.
- Strength
- Speed/quickness
- Endurance
- Hand-eye coordination
- The Wayne Gretzky “I skate to where puck is going to be” vision/information processing sense
I’m not sure that makes sense except as an overly simplistic take. Yes, everything starts with holding a club and striking a ball with it but at a minimum long game, short game, and putting are all wildly different skills. They can be broken down quite a bit beyond that too. Hitting a driver isn’t much like hitting a 7-iron, hiring half wedges isn’t much like sand shots or chipping, etc. Doing any number of different things on the course can require different skills/abilities.Golfing is more akin to the kicker's role on a football team. There's a whole host of difficulty involved, but it's essentially a single skill used repeatedly.
You could say that about baseball. Sure, hitting, fielding, base running, but Jim Thome just made the hall of fame by his skill in just one of them, in fact just part of one of them: home run hitting. In golf, there are 14 different clubs; OK, the swing isn’t different across all of them, but big difference between a sand wedge swing and a drive. There are finesse, touch shots (always my downfall) and power shots. The ball can be above or below your feet; you may need to draw or fade the ball. Finally, there’s putting, from whence comes the term “yips”.Golfing is more akin to the kicker's role on a football team. There's a whole host of difficulty involved, but it's essentially a single skill used repeatedly.
He’s the face of boxing for most people, no? Maybe very different for people who know and follow the sport. I just mean general public he’s probably the biggest icon.Are people who are nominating Ali doing it for overall social and political impact as well as fighting prowess, or just on the basis of his skill as a boxer?
A lot of people say this, and it's true to an extent. However, keep in mind he came back at 29, which is still very young for a heavyweight. Also, keep in mind the quality of his competition totally changed after his return. His big fights before being banned were Liston - who was powerful but slow - Cooper, who you acknowledge got his mitts on him a bit, Patterson who was old and small, and Terrell who had a ton of power but also wasn't very quick.The latter, I think. Others can speak for themselves, but I don’t regard myself sufficiently informed on boxing to put together any kind of GOAT boxing list. Not even close.
I mentioned Ali yesterday because I am fascinated and haunted a bit by lost promise. Bo Jackson, Tony Conigliaro and less dramatically, Ted Williams.
There seems little doubt that Ali’s lost 3.5 years came at the heart of his career. Now maybe he winds up in the same place at an earlier age had those years not been taken, because you have only so many fights in you. I don’t know.
Impressionistically, to me, Ali came back as a different fighter. Older for sure, heavier no doubt. Henry Cooper notwithstanding, pre-layoff Ali was often untouchable. What if THAT guy had been allowed to run his natural course?
Ted Williams WOULD have hit like he always hit, so it’s a matter of math. This, I am not sure.
It's interesting, because Ali's corner was seriously considering doing the same. That 15th round would've been incredible, if they'd both come out, but life threatening.Point taken.
For young’ins, I don’t think there was a more searing chapter in American sports in the 20th century than the Ali-Frazier trilogy. Or a greater display of heart. They brought out the best in each other, and damn near killed each other. If Joe’s corner had not thrown the towel in Manila ...?
Yup. And he dropped the at the height of his powers and walked away. Awesome.Jim Brown was an all-time great football player, an all-time great lacrosse player, and was also a phenomenal track athlete. An incredible blend of power, explosiveness, quickness, speed, endurance, and various eye-hand skills (catching a football, using a lacrosse stick). Elite in three completely different sports.
Because I think Orr was a better player than Gretzky. But they're both Canadian, so I guess they don't count?Why would you do that?
Is this true, though? I though he ended up falling fairly short of Nicklaus' records.There's a lot of debate about golf in here, which is insane, because golf requires a tremendous amount of athleticism. Any Mount Rushmore of Sports must have Tiger Woods on it.
Bo Jackson shouldn't be within a mile of the Mount. He was incredible, but his body didn't hold up. Part of being on the Mount is playing for an extended period of time. And I know Tiger blew up with injuries after 2013, but he still spent 15 years at the top of his sport. What he did might never be done again. He completely changed the game of professional golf for an entire generation of players.
Tiger is the Babe Ruth of golf.
He has the 2nd most tournament wins on the PGA tour,(79) behind Sam Snead,(82) who was playing against nobody. Jack was also playing against nobody and he was 73. Tiger took on the tour in the 90s, when it was pretty good, and blew away the field for 15 years. He created all of the stud golfers you see whaling the ball today.Is this true, though? I though he ended up falling fairly short of Nicklaus' records.
Again, honest question - what's the criteria for determining his competition is "better." Is it that golf is a more international game now? Are there more participants? I can look back at the heavyweight division in the 60s and 70s and say Ali's competition was better and it was because Americans over 6' and 200 pounds were just as likely to box as play football. Why is golf more competitive now?He has the 2nd most tournament wins on the PGA tour,(79) behind Sam Snead,(82) who was playing against nobody. Jack was also playing against nobody and he was 73. Tiger took on the tour in the 90s, when it was pretty good, and blew away the field for 15 years. He created all of the stud golfers you see whaling the ball today.
He also singlehandedly raised the incomes of every golfer who plays today by a significant percentage. And Tiger still has an outside shot to catch Snead, although he probably won't win 4 majors to tie Jack.(18 to 14)
Still, he was playing against better competition, altered the sport, and dominated it for almost two decades. He is a legend. What he did won't happen again, in my opinion.
The bolded is HIGHLY debatable. I certainly think you could use the deeper field of Tiger's era as an argument on that side, but then look at the fact that Nicklaus competed against all-time greats like Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Faldo, Norman, Ballesteros, Casper, Floyd, Miller, Littler, Boros, Crenshaw, Irwin, Kite (all hall-of-famers), etc., as an argument for the other side.He has the 2nd most tournament wins on the PGA tour,(79) behind Sam Snead,(82) who was playing against nobody. Jack was also playing against nobody and he was 73. Tiger took on the tour in the 90s, when it was pretty good, and blew away the field for 15 years. He created all of the stud golfers you see whaling the ball today.
He also singlehandedly raised the incomes of every golfer who plays today by a significant percentage. And Tiger still has an outside shot to catch Snead, although he probably won't win 4 majors to tie Jack.(18 to 14)
Still, he was playing against better competition, altered the sport, and dominated it for almost two decades. He is a legend. What he did won't happen again, in my opinion.
It's way more international, there are way more courses, and access to the game has increased for everyone.(this has more of an effect today) But in Tiger's case, it's definitely the international dudes he was going against. It's much more broad today, of course.Again, honest question - what's the criteria for determining his competition is "better." Is it that golf is a more international game now? Are there more participants? I can look back at the heavyweight division in the 60s and 70s and say Ali's competition was better and it was because Americans over 6' and 200 pounds were just as likely to box as play football. Why is golf more competitive now?
Gary Player and his 9 Major wins gave Jack plenty to worry about.It's way more international, there are way more courses, and access to the game has increased for everyone.(this has more of an effect today) But in Tiger's case, it's definitely the international dudes he was going against. It's much more broad today, of course.
Jack and Snead never had to worry about dudes from overseas coming in and dominating.
Reply 1:He has the 2nd most tournament wins on the PGA tour,(79) behind Sam Snead,(82) who was playing against nobody. Jack was also playing against nobody and he was 73. Tiger took on the tour in the 90s, when it was pretty good, and blew away the field for 15 years. He created all of the stud golfers you see whaling the ball today.
He also singlehandedly raised the incomes of every golfer who plays today by a significant percentage. And Tiger still has an outside shot to catch Snead, although he probably won't win 4 majors to tie Jack.(18 to 14)
Still, he was playing against better competition, altered the sport, and dominated it for almost two decades. He is a legend. What he did won't happen again, in my opinion.
Reply 2:He has the 2nd most tournament wins on the PGA tour,(79) behind Sam Snead,(82) who was playing against nobody. Jack was also playing against nobody and he was 73. Tiger took on the tour in the 90s, when it was pretty good, and blew away the field for 15 years. He created all of the stud golfers you see whaling the ball today.
He also singlehandedly raised the incomes of every golfer who plays today by a significant percentage. And Tiger still has an outside shot to catch Snead, although he probably won't win 4 majors to tie Jack.(18 to 14)
Still, he was playing against better competition, altered the sport, and dominated it for almost two decades. He is a legend. What he did won't happen again, in my opinion.
Part of it is definitely being more international. There used to be a random handful of internationals that were legit competitors - Ballesteros, Els, Faldo, Player and Price mostly, with bouts of competition from guys like Woosnam, Olazabal, Montgomerie and Lyle, spanning a long term. Now you have a host of internationals - Rose, Day, McIlroy, Garcia, Scott, Stenson, Kaymer, Oostie, Kim, Matsuyama, etc. that are legit contenders every week and in every major, with young guys like Rahm coming on fast and guys that are fading but we’re legit like Westwood and McDowell. US you have a much thicker slate than Nicklaus did as well.Again, honest question - what's the criteria for determining his competition is "better." Is it that golf is a more international game now? Are there more participants? I can look back at the heavyweight division in the 60s and 70s and say Ali's competition was better and it was because Americans over 6' and 200 pounds were just as likely to box as play football. Why is golf more competitive now?
Thanks. Makes sense. But, didn't most of the internationals you listed come on after Tiger's decline? And, didn't a lot of the conditioning stuff start after Tiger had made others need to turn to it to catch up? I guess what I'm asking is for how long did Tiger actually win against those top internationals in top shape?Part of it is definitely being more international. There used to be a random handful of internationals that were legit competitors - Ballesteros, Els, Faldo, Player and Price mostly, with bouts of competition from guys like Woosnam, Olazabal, Montgomerie and Lyle, spanning a long term. Now you have a host of internationals - Rose, Day, McIlroy, Garcia, Scott, Stenson, Kaymer, Oostie, Kim, Matsuyama, etc. that are legit contenders every week and in every major, with young guys like Rahm coming on fast and guys that are fading but we’re legit like Westwood and McDowell. US you have a much thicker slate than Nicklaus did as well.
Another part is equipment and - as I spoke to earlier - fitness. Golfers are legit athletes these days; most are sculpted and the average tour pro no longer looks like a Stadler or even a Kite or Watson. About the most out of shape golfer you could cite is Mickelson and he’s dropped weight or maybe Westwood who i’d label just as thick, not chubby or fat. I guess Reed is a bit chubby. Equipment wise, I think it speaks a bit more to Nicklaus over Tiger because back then the sweet spot on a persimmon driver was about the size of a dime and everyone played blades, so it’s probably more impressive what he did before modern tech, but as far as winning goes, he had a huge advantage with his brute strength and distance. If you look at average driving distance then and now, it’s much more clustered than it used to be. Nicklaus had all the parts of the game, but having that big of an advantage in distance was huge and was also a part of Tiger’s early dominance, before tech really evolved and courses started getting stretched. The literally called it ‘Tiger-proofing’ a course and even Augusta did it. Think about that for a second, courses actually started redesigning because he was so much longer than the rest of the field. The most prestigious course in the country went through multiple renovations essentially because of one player.
As others have stated, he is the sole reason golf got to the heights it did, that purses got so high, that tv coverage became so universal, that the game became so international and that more minorities started playing. And the current stars will tell you all that themselves and often do.
Good point! I think I was putting in an implicit criteria - "depth of talent pool". It's one reason why I wouldn't put 4 decathletes on the Mount Rushmore. Track loses many of its best athletes to football, and decathlon loses many of its best athletes to sprinting.I'd say reflexes need to be up there, and I don't see how you'd be left with a bunch of basketball and hockey players by those criteria. There are at least a dozen sports that test those attributes more.
Yes and no. Golf isn’t as linear as to who wins majors. The top level of competition got a lot stronger and the secondary level - ones that could turn it on and win any given week but usually weren’t consistently in the conversation - got a lot healthier. I’d argue not only did the top 20 get stronger but also the following 21-50. He won Tour player of the year just four years ago, well after the car accident and beginning of his decline. He spent almost six years consecutively as top ranked golfer in the world and has over twice as many weeks in that spot as number two on that list (683 v. 331, Greg Norman).Thanks. Makes sense. But, didn't most of the internationals you listed come on after Tiger's decline? And, didn't a lot of the conditioning stuff start after Tiger had made others need to turn to it to catch up? I guess what I'm asking is for how long did Tiger actually win against those top internationals in top shape?
What about someone like Heiden? It's just speed skating, right? But what he did was win at EVERY SINGLE distance. It would be like a guy winning both the 100m and the 10,000m - a feat that's virtually impossible, but Heiden did the speed skating equivalent.Michael Phelps should be nowhere near this conversation. Your sport awarding a gazillion gold medals for doing minor variations of the same thing should not elevate your status as an athlete. The strongest guy or the best fighter or wrestler or whatever wins one gold medal and Michael Phelps gets 9? It's dumb. If weightlifting were like swimming they would award a medal for every possible exercise you can do in the gym. Then we could hear how someone is the greatest Olympian ever because he won the squat, the curl, the bench, the incline bench, the dumbbell press, the deadlift, the overhead press and 2 different individual medleys incorporating various lifts that measure the same strengths as things he already won other medals in.
Also, weight classes are dumb.
He was also a good cyclist who competed in the Tour de France and completed the Giro d'ItaliaWhat about someone like Heiden? It's just speed skating, right?
I think we can all acknowledge that running/skating distances is a much different challenge than switching up a stroke.What about someone like Heiden? It's just speed skating, right? But what he did was win at EVERY SINGLE distance. It would be like a guy winning both the 100m and the 10,000m - a feat that's virtually impossible, but Heiden did the speed skating equivalent.
Different? Yes. More challenging? No.I think we can all acknowledge that running/skating distances is a much different challenge than switching up a stroke.