said_aouita;1340976 wrote:Can't believe nobody has mentioned one of the most obvious GOAT athlete nominations- Aston Eaton
WR holder Decathlon.



Reminds me of a funny Bruce Jenner meets Tiger Woods story. Tiger asked Bruce, "hows your golf game?" Jenner replied, "better than your pole vault"

Check out post #11.. Mind Blown!!!!

captvern;1340888 wrote:ashton eaton

Enforcer;1340995 wrote:Check out post #11.. Mind Blown!!!!

oops. Once again my impatience to read every post carefully bites me in the ass.

justin wouldn't let me rep.




alexander karelin

Wayne Gretzky. No one will break his records for Goals, Assists, and Points in a season or lifetime.

This discussion begins and ends with Jesse Owens.

Next topic...!

do pr0n stars count as athletes? Pretty sure the one who banged almost 1000 dudes in a day should be nominated.

Heck of a golfer too. OK, not really but his daughter kicks butt at golf.

Laley23;1340905 wrote:First 3 that come to mind:

Jim Thorpe
Bo Jackson
Deion Sanders

Under the radar guy is Antwaan Randle El. Not many know he played basketball for Bobby Knight at Indiana and was drafted into the MLB by the Cubs. What he did at Indiana as a dual threat QB was pretty rare at the time and then converted to WR in the NFL.

And in an ironic way ARE was injured playing basketball, broken wrist maybe? They tried to make him a WR in college, was it is SR year, because that would be his spot in the NFL and the team faltered and I think he went back to QB at that point. He was electrifying, and I thnk if he was at a better program he had a chance at the heisman.

Dave winfield from wiki "He earned a full baseball scholarship to the University of Minnesota in 1969, where he starred in baseball and basketball for the Golden Gophers. His college baseball coach was former MLB player Dick Siebert, and his basketball coach was Bill Musselman (who went on to serve as a head coach in the American Basketball Association and National Basketball Association) who would later refer to Winfield as the best rebounder he ever coached. Winfield's 1972 Minnesota team won a Big Ten basketball championship, the school's first in 53 years. During the 1972 season, he also was involved in a brawl when Minnesota played Ohio State.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Winfield also played for the Alaska Goldpanners for two seasons (1971–72) and was the MVP in 1972. In 1973, he was named All-American and voted MVP of the College World Series—as a pitcher. Following college, Winfield was drafted by four teams in three different sports. The San Diego Padres selected him as a pitcher with the fourth overall pick in the MLB draft and both the Atlanta Hawks (NBA) and the Utah Stars (ABA) drafted him.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] And even though he never played college football, the Minnesota Vikings selected Winfield in the 17th round of the NFL draft. He is one of three players ever to be drafted by three professional sports (the others being Mickey McCarty, and Dave Logan), and the only athlete drafted by four leagues.[SUP][6]



He was def tremendous[/SUP]

What's so great about being a great athlete as opposed to a "Greatest player"?

I would rather be the greatest player than greatest athlete. To me the difference is someone was able to apply their skills to a particular task and reached a level no one else has.

Just being a great athlete is kind of worthless if it doesn't translate to being the "Greatest player/participant" in their chosen sport.

It's like being a really smart person but not doing anything with it.

Fly4Fun;1341094 wrote:What's so great about being a great athlete as opposed to a "Greatest player"?

I would rather be the greatest player than greatest athlete. To me the difference is someone was able to apply their skills to a particular task and reached a level no one else has.

Just being a great athlete is kind of worthless if it doesn't translate to being the "Greatest player/participant" in their chosen sport.

It's like being a really smart person but not doing anything with it.

So would I...the best player over the best athlete.

Look at the decathletes...and they promote them as teh best athletes. WEll....yeah...they are a jack of all trades but master of none! They do alot of stuff really good,b etter than most, but dont do anything better than everyone else

thavoice;1341096 wrote:So would I...the best player over the best athlete.

Look at the decathletes...and they promote them as teh best athletes. WEll....yeah...they are a jack of all trades but master of none! They do alot of stuff really good,b etter than most, but dont do anything better than everyone else

Eh, I disagree about decathletes since it is actually an event. So they get props for achieving the highest level in their chosen "sport."

But this distinction I make is why Michael Phelps is so freaking ridiculous. He took a sport and absolutely dominated it in a way that has never been done. He didn't do it jut over one Olympics but multiple Olympics. He didn't just do 1 discipline, stroke or distance but h did so in multiple events, strokes and distances.

Will he fit under people's definition of athlete in this thread? Nope.

But he took his skills, and applied them in a way that dwarfs anything any other human has done in swimming. Being good in one stroke does not mean you will be good in another. Swimming is typically a specialization sport (pick one stroke and one distance, maybe two if you're lucky) and do well in it (i.e. Piersol in backstroke... one of the best swimmers in 2004 and 2008, but he only did 1 stroke, or Thorpe with Freestyle).

Essentially he was a jack of all trades and a master of quite a few.

I have never been a swimmer, but I am thinking it would be easier to 'master' multiple events swimming then mastering multi SPORTS

about the decathletes...what I mean is that other athletes that everyone is nominating have been extremely good in at least one of the sports and still good enough to be a professional in another, whereas as the numbers that the decathletes put up wouldnt put them in the top echelon of any of the events as a whole.


Swimmers and runners do have a bit "easier" ability to dominate on a wide scale as you state as their events are alot more similiar to a point.
A great football player going to a different sport is much harder to dominate as the genre is completely different....unless they go to something like track where it is flat out running speed

Citius, Altius, Fortius...Faster, Higher, Stronger - the Olympic Motto

Nobody has done all three better than Jesse Owens...once again I declare this thread be closed due to nobody else compares.

thavoice;1341093 wrote:During the 1972 season, he also was involved in a brawl when Minnesota played Ohio State.

Fuck Dave Winfield.



[video=youtube;lxnCY0CZ1pE][/video]

thavoice;1341107 wrote:I have never been a swimmer, but I am thinking it would be easier to 'master' multiple events swimming then mastering multi SPORTS

about the decathletes...what I mean is that other athletes that everyone is nominating have been extremely good in at least one of the sports and still good enough to be a professional in another, whereas as the numbers that the decathletes put up wouldnt put them in the top echelon of any of the events as a whole.


Swimmers and runners do have a bit "easier" ability to dominate on a wide scale as you state as their events are alot more similiar to a point.
A great football player going to a different sport is much harder to dominate as the genre is completely different....unless they go to something like track where it is flat out running speed

I agree that different swimming events is not the same as different sports necessarily. But when compared to track the difference between butterfly and freestyle is like doing a sprint and long jump. Not entirely different, but generally it takes someone special to be the best at both at the same time... then Phelps threw in a few more like IM and different distances.

My point I was trying to (But I think I failed to convey) make with Phelps is that he falls in the category of one of the greatest athletes of all time because of the way he just dominated his sport. When it comes to guys like him, Michael Jordan, Gretzky, there is no way to really compare between what they did. But they dominated their sport and that's what matters.

And I see what you're saying about decathletes.

And ya, no one from Minnesota on that team deserves any positive acclaim. That was a truly terrible event.

Tim Tebow

FatHobbit;1341128 wrote:**** Dave Winfield.



[video=youtube;lxnCY0CZ1pE][/video]

It blows my how Minnesota receive no real penalties from this.

Charlie Ward

Won the Heisman, drafted by the Brewers and Yankees, and played 10 years in the NBA.

gport_tennis;1341148 wrote:It blows my how Minnesota receive no real penalties from this.

You, me and the late Fred Taylor

Anyone born before the 1980's should be excluded from this list. Athletes today are bigger, stronger, faster we just don't realize it because other athletes are bigger stronger and faster.

Fly4Fun;1341102 wrote:Eh, I disagree about decathletes since it is actually an event. So they get props for achieving the highest level in their chosen "sport."

What do you know? F4F disagrees. I'm shocked! /sarcasm

sleeper;1341159 wrote:Anyone born before the 1980's should be excluded from this list. Athletes today are bigger, stronger, faster we just don't realize it because other athletes are bigger stronger and faster.

So? You can only work with what you have. It would be as if saying Isaac Newton isn't a great thinker because today people know more...
You should be compared against your peers in your own time as that's the level playing field. Just because someone comes along later with more advantages because of advancements in civilization/technology doesn't necessarily make that person better. And if you're the best in your own time, so be it.

Commander of Awesome;1341163 wrote:What do you know? F4F disagrees. I'm shocked! /sarcasm

So I'm not supposed to have an opinion? This is one of your more pathetic attempts at trolling.

Fly4Fun;1341173 wrote:So? You can only work with what you have. It would be as if saying Isaac Newton isn't a great thinker because today people know more...
You should be compared against your peers in your own time as that's the level playing field. Just because someone comes along later with more advantages because of advancements in civilization/technology doesn't necessarily make that person better. And if you're the best in your own time, so be it.

He was for his time. Newton now can be found getting his phD at any top school in the country.

No way to settle this debate. In my opinion, Tiger Woods at his peek (1999-2001) was right there.