T1B

Listening to ESPN radio this morning and they are discussing this topic. One dude's number 1 is MJ, the other's is Gretzky. The argument for MJ was his 3 three, go play baseball for two years and come back for 3 more. Can anyone argue that it likely would have been 8 straight? The argument for Gretzy is a stats argument. He absolutely crushes everyone in points total.

Other mentions are Michael Phelps (22 golds in 27 events) Jim Brown, Eldrick and the Babe.

I am torn between the Cablanasian, Phelps and MJ. The first two have the advantage of being in individual sports where being dominant is easier to make an argument for. Technically, I suppose you can say that Phelps winning percentage puts him in the number one spot, but it is hard to compare golf to a timed race. In a timed race, it is pretty much cut and dry. The best wins, end of story. If you are a half second better in the 200 fly, you will be a half second better prety much every day. Golf is a bit more complicated. And when you look at margins of victory, it is hard to give it to anyone other than Tiger. His margins of victory are just fukking comical in majors over about a decade stretch. It is like Phelps lapping the field in the 200 IM.

If I had to do it by sport, well, we already know number one in hockey, basketball and swimming.

Football- Jim Brown Dude was a fukking monster that walked away in his prime. He could have likely came back 5 years later and still dominated.
Baseball- Best overall is Mays. Most dominant, the Babe or maybe Ted Williams. Look at his numbers and then factor in that he spent 5 seasons of prime time shooting down various Asians in fighter planes. His only problem is that he played for the blowsox.
Tennis-Borg, Serena for the women.
Other sports-WGARA

Man, you're just ripping off hot take after hot take lately, like you're operating an assembly line. Make sure to store all these hot takes cork down.

smackaholic wrote:If you are a half second better in the 200 fly, you will be a half second better prety much every day.

100 fly says what?
And a half second slower in the 200 fly can let people go by if you're not at your best (Phelps would have been 3st).

The other sports allow for a major championship every year. Swimmers only have one once ever four years (nobody GARA about swimming world championships or Pan American Games). That's a lot of pressure to perform.

Phelps is certainly the most dominant athlete in DUIing.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

smackaholic wrote:If you are a half second better in the 200 fly, you will be a half second better prety much every day.

100 fly says what?
And a half second slower in the 200 fly can let people go by if you're not at your best (Phelps would have been 3st).

The other sports allow for a major championship every year. Swimmers only have one once ever four years (nobody GARA about swimming world championships or Pan American Games). That's a lot of pressure to perform.

Times will vary a bit. Part of it is different pools, mostly it is different competition. You swim as fast as you have to to win. They are not always trying to set a WR every time they swim. And for about 15 years, Phelps has absolutely dominated as no one before him for a very long time. 31 is goobs old in Olympic swimmer years.

You can't hold the frequency of events anyone pays attention to against him. If the Olympics was an annual event, he likely would have a similar record.

smackaholic wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

smackaholic wrote:If you are a half second better in the 200 fly, you will be a half second better prety much every day.

100 fly says what?
And a half second slower in the 200 fly can let people go by if you're not at your best (Phelps would have been 3st).

The other sports allow for a major championship every year. Swimmers only have one once ever four years (nobody GARA about swimming world championships or Pan American Games). That's a lot of pressure to perform.

Times will vary a bit. Part of it is different pools, mostly it is different competition. You swim as fast as you have to to win. They are not always trying to set a WR every time they swim. And for about 15 years, Phelps has absolutely dominated as no one before him for a very long time. 31 is goobs old in Olympic swimmer years.

You can't hold the frequency of events anyone pays attention to against him. If the Olympics was an annual event, he likely would have a similar record.

Swimmers rarely if ever set WR's during the season because their bodies are too tired from training. Tapering off the yardage the last two weeks before a championships is what allows them to swim their best in the big meets.

Would Phelps win a lot if the Olympics were held every year? Yeah, or at least when he's not on suspension for driving drunk or hitting the bong). My point was simply that most of those athletes are competing w/o a reasonable belief that they'll ever have another shot (age & the fact that a lot can happen in 4 years).

Screw_Michigan wrote:Phelps is certainly the most dominant athlete in DUIing.

Donte Stallworth says what?

In baseball I'd say Mays was the best overall player ever. But most dominant?

I'll go with Bob Gibson. At least for a single season ('68) and also for about a 10 year stretch in the middle of his career.

Motherfuckers are forgetting Edwin Moses. :brad:

Moses definitely belongs in the conversation and Gibson was as dominant as anyone. Yeah, it was part dominance, part terrorism, but fukk it, that was part of the game back then before they fagged it all up.

While one could make an argument against due to playing in the Nog-Free Era, anyone who disputes that The Babe was the most dominant baseball player needs to... do something... crack a book, hit up Elias, or retake some math classes.

When compared to others of the same era (things always change, ie rules and pitcher's mounds), it's not even a close contest, regardless which metric one uses.

smackaholic wrote:31 is goobs old in Olympic swimmer years.

Oh really?

Sincerely,

35 years old
50 Free gold medalist

OK, that dude is wolfman old then. Rack him.

Wow, my name mentioned in a thread about great athletes. My athletic prowess reached its peak when I made the U on Maine football team. I wasn't very good, but can at least put that in my sport's resume.

Gretzky, not just for stats, he changed the way the league was enforced. A travelling goon squad protecting a star is nothing new, but he inspired the league to take extreme steps to get fighting out of the game. One dimensional player rather than complete, he inspired to tear the old game down.

#1 - hands down, Lou Thesz

936 straight victories

Most dominant right now is Ledecky.

How do you gauge Olympics? One minute it's pro, then it's all amateurs, then half the athletes are banned or out on protest. Shoddy for documenting anything.

Dr_Phibes wrote:How do you gauge Olympics? One minute it's pro, then it's all amateurs, then half the athletes are banned or out on protest. Shoddy for documenting anything.

Are you capable of walking while chewing gum?

smackaholic wrote:The argument for MJ was his 3 three, go play baseball for two years and come back for 3 more. Can anyone argue that it likely would have been 8 straight?

I think it's very questionable.

1. Jordan (for whatever reason) was fried after the 1992-93 season. He wanted a break.

2. The Rockets had the Bulls' number. In the Bulls's 3rd straight championship season of '92-93, Houston swept the Bulls in the regular season. Hakeem and the Rockets were coming into their own. Their back-to-back titles were no fluke. They might have gotten over even if Jordan was there.

It is pissible. No way to know know. A team with a dominant big man like Hakeem could be trouble. In their second run, the bulls had all they could handle with Shaq and the magic. If they didn't have Rodman to climb inside Shaq's jersey and his dome, they would have gone down. He is the best defensive player i have ever seen. But, I never saw Russell play.

If the topic in question were simply - "Best athlete of all time" - then the answer would be simple as well.

Bo Jackson - EOD.

Bo and Deon are the two that succeeded at football/baseball. This does not necessarily give them claim to best athlete. I suspect that there are plenty of people in pro sports who could have had success in other sports but chose not too. If either was truely "the best" athlete, they would have been the best at their sport. Neither was. Jim Brown, in addition to being arguably the best RB of all time, was the best Lacrosse player of his day. He wasn't simply very good, he was in fact the best, in both sports.

smackaholic wrote:If either was truely "the best" athlete, they would have been the best at their sport.

Try to separate "athlete" from "their sport" as the terms can be mutually exclusive. The thread topic doesn't specify which sport or sports, though that may have
your intent. An "athlete" doesn't necessarily have to play any sport, though that obviously helps display their prowess.

My assertion is that in measuring the physical gifts of speed and power, the measure of an athlete, none surpassed Bo Jackson.

Bo would've been good at any sport that required those attributes.

Papa Willie wrote:We're not going to see an athlete like that in our lifetimes again...

One dickhead to another, I believe you're correct.

"I'm surrounded by dickheads!"

Dinsdale wrote:While one could make an argument against due to playing in the Nog-Free Era, anyone who disputes that The Babe was the most dominant baseball player needs to... do something... crack a book, hit up Elias, or retake some math classes.

When compared to others of the same era (things always change, ie rules and pitcher's mounds), it's not even a close contest, regardless which metric one uses.

^^^ This

If we're talking about dominance, then George Herman Ruth belongs at the top.

You can make arguments for Gretzky and Pele, but Ruth's numbers compared to others during that era is just mind-blowing.



Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

OK, I realize this type of topic can have no consensus. Too many variables. That being said, I still make my case for Jim Brown. The main reason is that I put "staying healthy" as a major consideration. Brown carried the ball 75% of the time for the Browns and he still racked up the numbers. I do not recall him ever getting an injury. He also was a top level all around athlete and could have played most any sport that required strength, speed, and coordination. He even said that if he could have made as much money playing pro lacrosse, he would have played that. I saw him play basketball. He was a great shooter and rebounder. The Syracuse Nats actually drafted him. Local boxing promoter wanted to get him into the ring, but he declined.
Just my 2¢ on this.

Taking Scott's standard -- the best I have seen...

These are the most dominant I have seen, even though time span of dominance may have been relatively short for some of them.


Football: O.J. Simpson, Dick Butkus. Simpson's '73 season was crazy sick. 2,000 yds rushing in a 14 game season. 6.0 per carry. Butkus was a man among boys. The most devastating defensive player I have ever seen.

Basketball: Jordan, Shaq. For a couple of years, Shaq was a brute force which just simply COULD NOT be stopped. Could not be guarded.

Baseball: Randy Johnson. Un-hittable and frightening.

Hockey: Wayne's World

Golf: El Tigre

Tennis: Martin Navratilova, John McEnroe (1984 - lost just one match all year)

KC Scott wrote:Baseball - Bo Jackson had the strongest arm I've ever seen, He also hit the ball farther than any player I've ever seen
Football - Bo ran a 4.13 / 40 at the combine, He ran away from every player on the field. He could also run over any play on the field
Simply the most physically gifted athlete I've ever seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqiYJoblzC8

That said - the athletes who dominated a particular sport that I've seen

Football: Brady at QB / Barry Sanders RB / Randy Moss WR / Derrick Thomas Pass Rusher
Baseball: Hitter Roided Barry Bonds / Probably Clean Ken Griffey Jr - Pitcher Randy Johnson
Basketball: MJ
Hockey; Gretzky
Swimming Phelps
Track Bolt


Honorable Mention in sport you've probably never watched: Cael Sanderson 159-0 NCAA record

Brady is certainly a great QB, but, I wouldn't use the term dominant. He was simply very good at running a low risk west coast offense. Doing so does not require superhuman physical ability. It just requires being a pretty good thrower and field general and not beating yourself. IMO Peyton was a better pure QB and had he been playing for the hoodie these last few decades, he might have 5 or 6 rings.

Bolt undoubtedly gets in the discussion as well. To dominate the 100 for as long as he has is amazing.

Dinsdale wrote:While one could make an argument against due to playing in the Nog-Free Era, anyone who disputes that The Babe was the most dominant baseball player needs to... do something... crack a book, hit up Elias, or retake some math classes.

When compared to others of the same era (things always change, ie rules and pitcher's mounds), it's not even a close contest, regardless which metric one uses.

One more thing to add. The Babe displayed this utter dominance often half in the bag. He was a drunk and ate everything in site. Imagine him with Walter Peyton's work ethic.

BTW, if the question is baddest motherfukker to ever step onto a sports field, he is my pick. 200 lbs and ran over linebackers like he weighed 260. I still can't comprehend how such an indestructible dude could succumb to disease at such an early age. You would have figured he'd just stiff arm Liver disease or whatever it was that took him out.

We seem to have people posting re: most dominant, but both of all time & at a particular time. As to the latter....

KC Scott wrote:Swimming Phelps

No.
I don't think Phelps has placed in the top 3 at the national championships in either the backstroke or breaststroke events (he definitely couldn't in the breaststroke).

Between 1978-80 Tracy Caulkins not only won events in every stroke, but set world records in them as well. I don't think anyone has done that in the last 60 years, if ever. She could have brought home a buttload of gold medals from the Olympics if we hadn't boycotted the games in Moscow.

KC Scott wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
Brady is certainly a great QB, but, I wouldn't use the term dominant. He was simply very good at running a low risk west coast offense. Doing so does not require superhuman physical ability. It just requires being a pretty good thrower and field general and not beating yourself.

The Pats don't currently, nor have they ever, run a West Coast Offense in the Brady era

They run play action based and vertical spread schemes

The WCO is primarily 4 - 7 yd routes utilizing RBs out of a traditional 2 back formation.
It also relies on a mobile QB since the backs are usually out in the pattern

I think it has varied over the years, depending on the receiver corp. I heard it described as such when he had his greatest success which was early in his career. But he has never been the kind of QB who relied on a cannon arm and was looking to hit a WR 40 yards down field as was his predecessor Bledsloe. And I suspect that is why the hoodie never went back to Drew. He was a little tired of watching him try to thread the needle and hit someone going across the middle 30 yards down field....and having it picked off. This is where Brady has always been a master. He never beats himself. A 7 yard completion is always better than a 37 yard INT.....unless it's 4th and 8.

Jim Thorpe is worthy of inclusion in the discussion. Surprised no one has considered him yet. Played pro football and baseball, blew away the field in the pentathlon and decathlon in the 1912 Olympics...pretty impressive credentials. The AP (not that one!) named him "the greatest American football player" and the "greatest overall male athlete" in 1950. He's at least worth a mention.

smackaholic wrote: A 7 yard completion is always better than a 37 yard INT.....unless it's 4th and 8.

I get what you're trying to say here, but you might want to reconsider that statement.

KC Scott wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:We seem to have people posting re: most dominant, but both of all time & at a particular time. As to the latter....

KC Scott wrote:Swimming Phelps

No.
I don't think Phelps has placed in the top 3 at the national championships in either the backstroke or breaststroke events (he definitely couldn't in the breaststroke).

Between 1978-80 Tracy Caulkins not only won events in every stroke, but set world records in them as well. I don't think anyone has done that in the last 60 years, if ever. She could have brought home a buttload of gold medals from the Olympics if we hadn't boycotted the games in Moscow.

Phelps: 28 Olympic medals / 23 Gold over 3 Olympics - Current World record holder in 3 different events

Caulkins: Could have won "buttload of medals" in Moscow

Brilliant take

So you're saying that Jim Thorpe isn't even in the discussion because he has no hardware?

We're talking about dominance over the competition, not hardware.

My bad...Forgot that the IOC restored his medal.

But you're seriously discounting an athlete simply because they weren't allowed to compete by a political leader?

If we're gonna include women, can't exclude Babe Didrikson. Excelled in track & field, basketball, and golf. Definitely macho. Outside of athletics, she could also play harmonica, sing, and was a top notch seamstress. Arguably the best all-around female athlete of the 20th century.

While not a top contender in the male division, Mike Schmidt was a stud. To the extent that Vin Scully's opinion carries any weight (he called football & golf as well as baseball), I never heard him gush about the all-around athletic prowess of anyone except maybe Bo Jackson as he did about Schmidt. Heard him say often that he could've done anything he wanted athletically and been among the best at it. Supposedly could drive a golf ball as far as anyone and could probably shoot low, too. He just happened to choose to be a third baseman. Did pretty well at that, no?

Aleksandr Karelin
887-2