Christofaux
Full Member
Senna only died in 94, so he qualifies.
I was going to mention senna but he didnt win as much as the other two... for obvious reasons. It might not seem fair but unfortunately sometimes thats just the cookie.
Senna only died in 94, so he qualifies.
I would argue for Rossi over Shumacher.
He's definately the best cyclist ever. Far greater than Armstrong in my opinion. Merckx won everything, Armstrong just won the Tour 7 times.
Anyway, nobody seemed to have picked Eddy Merckx.
Fantastic rider, won the Tour De France 5 times and the Giro D'Italia 5 times.
Also a 3 time world road race champion and I believe still holds the record for most stage wins on la Tour at 34.
In 1969, he won the overall Tour de France, King of the mountains and points classification in the one event.
An amazing athlete and in my eyes the equal to Lance.
He's not even the best boxer in history, never mind the best athlete.
Mayweather and Pacquiao are both probably better at the sport of boxing.
He's definately the best cyclist ever. Far greater than Armstrong in my opinion. Merckx won everything, Armstrong just won the Tour 7 times.
You also have to take into account that the Tour back then was far less interesting compared to now. There were years where Merckx didn't participate because his sponsor didn't deem it important enough.
But in the end, Merckx had over 500 professional victories in his career, including 28 of the so called 'classics'. Nobody even comes close to that.
Even Lance himself admitted that what Merckx (and some others) achieved greatly exceeds his career
And then we haven't talked about the way he won some races. Sometimes he just went off on his own with more than 100km to go and won. Crazy athlete.
But how that relates to other sports is very difficult to say.
I agree cyclists are near the top indeed, especially above most team sports athletes I can think of. But there are many other sports that in my opinion are up there as well. Like triathlon for example. I'd rate it even higher than cycling, just because they have to be more complete.In my opinion cyclists are at the very top in terms athleticism. Endurance, power, speed, strength, stamina plus all the mental stuff that goes along with it is amazing.
Awesome fact, sprinters leg press over 400kg per leg . They generate nearly 800 watts in a sprint which is the equivalent of 1 hp. I know that doesn't sound allot, but for a human thats massive!
I agree cyclists are near the top indeed, especially above most team sports athletes I can think of. But there are many other sports that in my opinion are up there as well. Like triathlon for example. I'd rate it even higher than cycling, just because they have to be more complete.
I've also always heard that Formula 1 athletes score highly on all sorts of tests. Endurance, stamina, power, strength, mental attributes, concentration, etc. There are some drivers who participate in triathlons just for training. And the G-forces they have to endure are quite impressive.
Throughout the whole of this thread only one mention of Wayne Gretzky!
Taking athelete's out of there best sporting environment and pitting them against others in other sports is so difficult as this thread has proven. Can we decide who is the greatest individual in some of the sports mentioned? So who is the greatest boxer of all time? Greatest motor racing driver/bike rider, cyclist? Then pit them all individually against each other and it still won't come up with a definative answer.
As this is an athele thread, people have discarded the likes of darts, cricket and some what baseball as none atheltic events. Well till the title is defined clearly, a clear answer can't be found, because essentially we are discussing in many ways who's the greatest sportsman of all time, but athlete is a different thing all together.
To be fair, fast bowlers are athletes - so a case can clearly be made for the best ones.
Botham an athlete !
Hehe I s'pose these days they are nearer to athletes than they once were but you're stretching it a bit there
Might be an English thing as I'd say the days of the top West Indian boys Holding Garner Marshall etc were very athletic
That Malcolm Marshall - fkme he could hit the wicket with a bit of oomph - fantastic
Mayweather is the better boxer out of the two, in my opinion, and that's hardly a ridiculous claim. The thing that puts Ali head in the eyes of most of the world is his story.
I would also say Sugar Ray Robinson was a better boxer.
Sehwag extremely talented but he's not that much of an athlete.
That's not my question, though. How is that any different from Fernando Alonso sitting in his car for 60 odd laps?
That's not my question, though. How is that any different from Fernando Alonso sitting in his car for 60 odd laps?
He's not even the best boxer in history, never mind the best athlete.
Mayweather and Pacquiao are both probably better at the sport of boxing.
Mayweather is the better boxer out of the two, in my opinion, and that's hardly a ridiculous claim. The thing that puts Ali head in the eyes of most of the world is his story.
I would also say Sugar Ray Robinson was a better boxer.
Oh my gosh so his ability had nothing to do with it?
They say Pacquiao has speed? Enjoy
To be fair, he's probably not watched much boxing.
That makes it even worse, uninformed opinions are the worst kind.
Not at all so you spent 7 years in a gym I have been watching boxing since I was about 7 when I mistook a Hagler Hearns tape for wrestling (I mistook Hearns Hitman nick name for Bret Heart).
Regardless if I had my first amateur bout 4 months ago I have watched boxing all my life and that was one of the most laughable boxing related opinions
Look, if you were to ask boxing analysts, a good amount, if not most, would agree with me that Ali was not the greatest boxer of all time. There have been a good few who were technically better fighters, including one or two that are still fighting today. Don't get me wrong, I think he was a great fighter, but he came along at the pefect time in order to be propelled into superstadom. As a package (the whole story he brought with him, civil rights issues etc), Ali makes a great icon for the sport in the eyes of non-boxing fans, but in pure boxing terms, he was not the greatest.
Well most boxing people I've spoken too think Ali's abilities, specifically considering his weight to movement ratio, are a miracle of human fitness. How a man weighing that could move like a light middle is incredible
There may be better technical fighters in respect of small details but the whole package makes him for me the greatest - a physical phenomenon in my book
Of course heavyweights would beat boxers from lower weights, but it does not make them better. Fighting sports are different from other sports in that way. Put it this way, if Manny Pacquiao, one of the all-time greats, was to go in the ring with the 78th best heavyweight in Birmingham (purely random), the heavyweight would win. Feck, even an amateur heavyweight that's only been boxing a few months would probably win. It doesn't mean that they would be better boxers. The whole point of the weight classes is to allow lighter boxers to compete.
The same applies with martial arts.