Greatest Athlete of the 21st century?

[Va-Va-Voom]

So what about Tiger Woods, should he not be considered one of the greatest athletes ever because golf is one of the most elite sports in terms of socioeconomic status?

I'm not going to consider a tennis player's achievements lesser than other athletes and hold it against them just because of the sociological aspects.

Also just how far do you go with that viewpoint?

For example do you hold a good boxer, football or basketball player in higher regard than all time great tennis players just because they have bigger talent pools?

[UFGN]

Tiger Woods shouldn't be considered because golf is not a real sport. Its a game.

The greatest athletes have always been track-and-field all rounders and long distance swimmers. To argue anything else is extreme nonsense

[Va-Va-Voom]

Yeah so random long distance runner > Muhammad Ali

[UFGN]

Yeah so random long distance runner > Muhammad Ali

Yep

[Va-Va-Voom]

Damn well in that case

Myself > Ronadlo, Bolt, Michael Jordan, Messi, Mayweather and everyone in between

[StLGooner]

For me it would have to be a person from a sport that requires a lot of athleticism. Football, basketball, hockey. You can get away with being not so athletic as a boxer, runner, or a golfer. Not that these people aren't athletes at all though.

I'd have to see some of these guys play another sport to see how they fair. Too difficult to say when it's across different sports. Sometimes you see a certain athlete try another sport for fun or charity and they don't seem to have a spec of athleticism at all. But then sometimes you see them do pretty well and you can tell they are one of those people that can probably play anything.

[UFGN]

Damn well in that case

Myself > Ronadlo, Bolt, Michael Jordan, Messi, Mayweather and everyone in between

No, stop crying

Bolt is up there because he holds the 100, 150, 200 and 100 (running start) world records and also holds the 100M second and third fastest times

The greatest heptathletes, pentathletes and long distance swimmers are the greatest athletes of all time

[Va-Va-Voom]

That's your opinion, one that wouldn't be shared with many but fair enough.

Btw Blake and Gay have the 2nd fastest 100m times

[UFGN]

That's your opinion, one that wouldn't be shared with many but fair enough.

Btw Blake and Gay have the 2nd fastest 100m times

He also ran 9.63 (2012), 9.69 (2008), 9.72 (2008), 9.76 (2008, 2011, 2012)

(Wikipedia)

Bolt holds both. The third fastest time is 9.69, shared with Gay and Blake

[Va-Va-Voom]

My bad

[Zenith]

Tennis is an expensive sport to practice; historically it's almost exclusively limited to children from an upper to upper middle class background.

More than 95% of the planet doesn't even have the financial means to even play competitive tennis, making the competitive pool much smaller than is the case with athletics, boxing, basketball, swimming, football, etc.

For this reason no tennis player should ever get even close to being considered the greatest athlete of all time.

Whilst tennis does require a wider skill set than your average sport, it's insulting to athletes who face, or have faced, 1000 times more competition than every tennis player throughout history ever has.

So what about Tiger Woods, should he not be considered one of the greatest athletes ever because golf is one of the most elite sports in terms of socioeconomic status?

I'm not going to consider a tennis player's achievements lesser than other athletes and hold it against them just because of the sociological aspects.

Also just how far do you go with that viewpoint?

For example do you hold a good boxer, football or basketball player in higher regard than all time great tennis players just because they have bigger talent pools?

It doesn't hold water to talk about individual dominance whilst simultaneously disregarding the most pertinent aspect of all that is competition. Fierceness of competition is strongly influenced by the size of the pool of active competitors; it'd be a mistake to ignore its relevance.

To answer your other question, I would never even entertain the idea of comparing the achievements of an individual competitor to that of a team competitor.

Individual input where the total input is largely down to one person ≠ individual input influenced by outer factors (teammates, other living creatures, funding/budget, technology, etc.)

Given the heavily differing sets of variables it's impossible to make a fair, objective and remotely rational comparison.

[Va-Va-Voom]

So then you just ignore the feats of tennis players or what?

How do you rate them?

[UFGN]

So then you just ignore the feats of tennis players or what?

How do you rate them?

This is the reason I prefer the extreme athleticism and endurance of mixed discipline athletes. It takes the "which sport is more worthy" question out of the equation.

[Zenith]

So then you just ignore the feats of tennis players or what?

How do you rate them?

How am I ignoring the feat of tennis players?

In my first post I specifically mentioned that tennis requires a much wider skill set than most other sports.

[Va-Va-Voom]

So then you just ignore the feats of tennis players or what?

How do you rate them?

How am I ignoring the feat of tennis players?

In my first post I specifically mentioned that tennis requires a much wider skill set than most other sports.

I'm asking how you quantify the greatness of tennis players in comparison to other individual athletes?

Since you don't put as much weight into their accomplishments due to the size of the talent pool.

What scale or system do you use to judge them?