meaning what exactly
...and
No
No
___
Srry mate but if you're coming up with stuff like this you need to qualify it
The Greatest Athlete Ever.
- Thread starter Rooney24
- Start date
No
No
___
Srry mate but if you're coming up with stuff like this you need to qualify it
A lot of this deserves the face palm but these parts especially
Well at least he's given up on football and is finding another sport to advertise his ignorance.
Sweet feck. I tend to stay out of these as its completely subjective as to whether you admire endurance athletes over power atheltes for example, but how on earth can you class formula one drivers as superior athletes to boxers? In terms of strength, power, endurance, mobility or any other athletic quality I can think of its preposterous.
Seeing as strength athletes haven't got much of a mention, this guy is one of the greatest athletes the world has ever seen:
Some would argue that Savickas, Kazmaier and a few others are even greater.
Some would argue that Savickas, Kazmaier and a few others are even greater.
Lance Armstrong !
Trouble is this thread comes down to what one defines as 'athletic' or an 'athlete'
for me athletes are not
1/ sitting in a car
2/ and almost entirely stationary as participants of their chosen sport
This effectively eliminates for me
Darts
Snooker
F1 / Driving
Golf
shooting
'athletic' prowess is evident in
athletics
boxing
football
rugby
racket sports - tennis / squash / badminton
cycling
rowing
skating
anything that involves sustained fast bodily movement over long periods of time is athletic in my book
Before the Tards start that does not dimish the concerntration and incredible mental strengths and abilities / talents that are required to achieve success in the sports from the first list and in being nearly effectively stationary means that concertration powers are possibly even more demanding for those activities.
For instance qualities of judgement in F1 are paramount as its ones life on the line here so absolute huge concerntration is required just to stay safe let alone trying to actually put the damn machine in first place! Still, I cant hand on heart call a F1 driver an athlete in the true sense
Also apologies for missing any sports from either list
for me athletes are not
1/ sitting in a car
2/ and almost entirely stationary as participants of their chosen sport
This effectively eliminates for me
Darts
Snooker
F1 / Driving
Golf
shooting
'athletic' prowess is evident in
athletics
boxing
football
rugby
racket sports - tennis / squash / badminton
cycling
rowing
skating
anything that involves sustained fast bodily movement over long periods of time is athletic in my book
Before the Tards start that does not dimish the concerntration and incredible mental strengths and abilities / talents that are required to achieve success in the sports from the first list and in being nearly effectively stationary means that concertration powers are possibly even more demanding for those activities.
For instance qualities of judgement in F1 are paramount as its ones life on the line here so absolute huge concerntration is required just to stay safe let alone trying to actually put the damn machine in first place! Still, I cant hand on heart call a F1 driver an athlete in the true sense
Also apologies for missing any sports from either list
Sweet feck. I tend to stay out of these as its completely subjective as to whether you admire endurance athletes over power atheltes for example, but how on earth can you class formula one drivers as superior athletes to boxers? In terms of strength, power, endurance, mobility or any other athletic quality I can think of its preposterous.
I'm sorry. I should rephrase that as Michael Schumacher not f1 drivers.
Give me some time and i'll find some article on his training. The man is a machine.
This is a guy that for 10 years, had blood tests everyday to find the optimum diet. He trained for four hours a day in his latter years, just so he could destroy the young guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo
That is a driver probably using only 50% of any of the cars he drove all day.
But to counter act your claims.
Stamina. F1 drivers race for an hour and half over 1 race alone. Add winter testing and race practice, quali etc.
When most corners in f1 generate 2+ G 'some up to 5 which is only beaten by fighter pilots' over that period of time then Stamina and strength become just as important as any athlete and to a point even more.
Remembering that breaking and acceleration also add to the G affects of the body.
Boxers fight from 30 - 45 minutes. In their defense however, thats constantly moving, evading, ducking, weaving, taking and dishing out hits.
They are both incredible athletes, but for mine, the f1 pips the boxer simply for the length in time over an entire season that they perform. A boxer trains hard, but for most of the 'big' fights, they have a solid 12+ week training program to prep, and although they spar, I don't assume they put themselves through the full contact like in the actual fight however.
It was actually the Navy.
Racing is vastly underrated by many people. Some make it sound like they're just sitting there turning the steering wheel for two hours.
During a race, they're under enormous stress, massive G-forces (more than what astronauts go through during a launch), their heart rate is through the roof for the entire race and they're under constant mental pressure. Let your concentration slip for a second and you can be dead.
In many other sports, you switch moments of high intensity with moments of relaxation (even in boxing you have breaks between each round). In Formula 1, there are no such breaks.
Their fitness tests (and as I mentioned their results in various triatlons, marathons, etc) just prove they are up there with the best. And not only when it comes to stamina, but also strength, reaction speed, endurance, etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6980337.stm
http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/0-9/4realvolvo/features/june/health_racingcar.html
http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00081.html
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/04/21/how-fit-is-an-f1-driver/
During a race, they're under enormous stress, massive G-forces (more than what astronauts go through during a launch), their heart rate is through the roof for the entire race and they're under constant mental pressure. Let your concentration slip for a second and you can be dead.
In many other sports, you switch moments of high intensity with moments of relaxation (even in boxing you have breaks between each round). In Formula 1, there are no such breaks.
Their fitness tests (and as I mentioned their results in various triatlons, marathons, etc) just prove they are up there with the best. And not only when it comes to stamina, but also strength, reaction speed, endurance, etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6980337.stm
http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/0-9/4realvolvo/features/june/health_racingcar.html
http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00081.html
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/04/21/how-fit-is-an-f1-driver/
Surely he's not as clueless as this in the other forums???
Another one slipped through the newbies it would seem.
Fedor Emelianenko.
I know Mixed martial arts are really in their infancy, but consider that this guy very likely could beat any man that has ever walked the planet.
He at the very least deserves to be mentioned.
Fedor?
Michael Johnson would be near the top of my list, and Michael Jordan as well as the obvious ones like Ali, and you'd have to say Michael Phelps is up there too.
I think Usain Bolt is definitely going to be making that list soon. Conceivably he could hold records at 100m, 200m and 400m in the coming years, and probably at times that no one is likely to beat in years.
I think Usain Bolt is definitely going to be making that list soon. Conceivably he could hold records at 100m, 200m and 400m in the coming years, and probably at times that no one is likely to beat in years.
To be fair I did read an article earlier that described how they maintained a heart rate of around 175 beats per minute for the duration of the race. They're obviously in very good cardiovascular condition and their ability to cope with stress and maintain their reactions is exceptional. I do admire them. But having read some of the links King Eric posted I've yet to see anything to convince me that their strength and general athleticism is remotely comparable to a boxer though. I know they're training for the specific demands of their sport so they have no reason to train like a powerlifter for instance - but leg presses with 90kg per leg? Grip work with 3kg weights? Statically holding a 5kg weight in a front raise position? I imagine decent athletes in most sports could easily cope with and surpass those training stresses. I'm not convinced a Formula One driver could similarly make it through the conditioning workouts of an average Olymlic lifter or a boxer/mma fighter for example. But anyway, I said in my first post that its a very subjective topic so I shouldn't have jumped on you for stating your opinion.
You're arguing semantics. Great boxers technique wise, vs great fighters.
Manny, and other smaller fighters are great no doubt, but they would never beat an Ali or a Foreman etc.
The greatest fighters are ALL heavyweight. Athletics in general depend largely on athletic ability, this means things like stamina, coordination, strength, and size. Size is important in virtually all sports. Size does not reflect on your other abilities, but it does reflect on your ability to compete with larger athletes.
How is size any different than speed? It isn't. You are born with fast hands or feet, you are born to be large or not.
Boxing and other combat sports are unique in that they segregate athletes based on weight. It makes it "fair" for smaller fighters to compete, but at the end of the day it is like golf handicapping.
Smaller divisions may make for more exciting fights, but the big guys will always reign at the top of the mountain.
I always take severe issue with p4p rankings. They are ridiculous arguments. If Manny was 6'4 and 250 pounds he would not be the same fighter that he is now. Oft over looked in these sort of whatif scenarios which argue the case of p4p is that the smaller guys would get slower and less active if they were bigger, and the bigger guys would get faster and more active if they were smaller. It is a circular argument that proves feck and all.
All we can say is, Wlad Klitschko would destroy PBF or Manny. That means he is a better fighter. You can roll your eyes or whatever you want to do, all you want, but that IS a fact. At the end of the day, who would win is all that matters.
You laugh at Fedor, why? He has the hand speed of a middle weight. He has one of the slickest stand up defenses you will ever see and he is freakishly strong and explosive.
There isn't a fighter of any discipline right now that you could reliably expect to beat him in a fight.
You're obviously in love with Ali. Ali was a disgusting sports personality, whose only saving grace in my opinion was his stand against Vietnam. Ali is the big bang for all current commercialization and me-first athletes in athletics and that is an unfortunate truth of his legacy to sports. Ali will be remembered as a great champion, a great showman, but whether or not it was intention, he will also be remembered for changing the face of sports for the worse.
Lennox Lewis also marked a shift in the heavy weight era. It is the start of the super heavy weight era, an era where unless you are 6'5 and 250 pounds you cannot really expect to compete reliably against the monster athletes that dominate it now.
I've followed boxing for a very long time, people can argue that the heavy weights of today are not exciting, that may be true, but anyone who argues that the best in the division today wouldn't clobber anyone previous "glory" era's in heavy weight boxing are deluding themselves.
Foreman in his prime would have been picked apart by a prime Lewis who hit just as hard, but with faster hands and much better boxing technique. Sure if they fought enough Foreman would catch him and win the odd fight, but when you are looking at men that large, something has got to give, and it's usually the chin before the fist.
Likewise with Ali. Ali is too small, he would be mauled by guys like Wlad or a prime Lewis.
Sports and athletes constantly evolve. People hung up on past champions are being nostalgic. Nothing more, nothing less and you seem like an intelligent enough person to recognize that nostalgia tends to leave things a shade of rose.
Remembering them as great champions is something they deserve. Comparing them to current champions that in all likelihood are highly influenced by the technique of those past champions, only superior in every possible way physically is stupid.
Alot of that makes sense, but you lost the plot with this bit. There's a point of diminishing returns with size, where it doesn't necessarily equal more strength and power. Just look at MMA, where the behemoths like Sylvia and Sapp have routinely been mauled by the likes of Fedor. Tyson routinely battered considerably bigger men, and was more powerful than them despite his comparative lack of height and weight. Ali would batter Wlad around the ring - Wlad only has a 1 inch reach advantage for Christ's sake, and even though Wlad's the harder puncher Ali could take Wlad's punches decidedly better than Wlad could take Ali's. Wlad was knocked out by Sanders and Brewster for crying out loud, who were only marginally bigger than Ali.
So, let me get this straight.
Ali would lose to Wlad? A guy who was KO'd in 2 rounds by a fat, semi retired golfer? A fat semi retired golfer that stands a whole inch taller than Ali? Then we have the other ring artists like Purrity and Brewster, who both stopped the mighty Wlad.
Wlad isn't even the best fighter in his fecking house when his brother visits.
Ali would lose to Wlad? A guy who was KO'd in 2 rounds by a fat, semi retired golfer? A fat semi retired golfer that stands a whole inch taller than Ali? Then we have the other ring artists like Purrity and Brewster, who both stopped the mighty Wlad.
Wlad isn't even the best fighter in his fecking house when his brother visits.
In order.
It means that your ability to be successful as a boxer is soley dependent on natural ability.
Natural ability is the foundation of all great athletes. First you have a natural ability, then depending on your work ethic you can reach the highest levels of your chosen sport.
For every Micheal Jordan, there is probably 20 guys out there that HAD his natural ability, but not his work ethic, still the pre-requisite is that natural ability.
Size is part of natural ability. If you take two equally athletic individuals, and one is 6'4 and the other is 5'4, unless we are talking gymnastics the 6'4 is going to be better in nearly all conceivable athletic endeavors. We can therefor say these two individuals are not equally athletic.
The greatest boxers ARE all heavyweights. I am not referring to technique, or success in their individual divisions. I am talking on a macro level, I am focusing solely on the comparative abilities between weight classes. They WILL beat everyone else. That means heavyweight boxing is the highest level of boxing.
Society in general has difficulty with what is "fair" and what is not when it comes to physical traits, and is completely ruthless with intellect. In the intellectual arena all is fair and the best rise to the top, occupy the best jobs and in general are the most successful. In physical activity, we define things by height and weight which are ultimately cop outs and massively hypocritical. It isn't fair when a 6'3 240 pound man could fight a 5'6 180 pound man. It is fair when a man with an IQ (for arguments sake) of 160 beats a man with an IQ of 130 for a job.
Let's just leave it at this. There are many ways to define greatness. Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and many other smaller boxers were great, because they were dominant in their respective weight classes, put on exciting fights and brought excitement and joy to boxing fans world wide. However, they wouldn't ever beat a heavyweight champion and that is why the heavyweight champions ARE the greatest boxers. It is mathematical. Heavyweight beats welterweight. Heavyweight>WW.
Nucks, Have you ever heard of the phrase pound for pound?
i suggest you go and look it up!
i suggest you go and look it up!
I would counter that Sylvia is barely athletic by a smaller mans standard and has succeeded simply because of his size. However, being able to fight at all at Sylvias size is impressive and takes quite a bit athleticism many people will never give credit for. I won't begrudge Sylvia for being as large as he is or his ability to throw hard punches and hard kicks. However, Tim Sylvia is not much larger than Lennox Lewis or Wlad or Vitali and he doesn't have the other gifts those men have, coordination, speed, balance, strength. MMA is in its infancy, and for as dominant Fedor is now, everyone needs to remember that. In 20 years Fedor will be remembered as an all time great, but it is very likely that in 20 years there will be 20 guys that could feasibly mop the floor with him.
Wlad is also a much better fighter than when Brewster and Sanders KTFO'd him. He has an outrageously hard jab and has addressed his issues with south paws feeding him up the pipe. Wlad is far more dynamic than Vitali ever was. Six years ago yes, I would say Vitali was better, but Vitali retired and Wlad continued to improve.
As for Tyson, I may be one of the very few that feel like Tyson was a PR creation more than he was an all-time great. All through the 90's I felt Lewis would have crushed him had they fought.
Tyson was intimidating and ferocious. He had dynamic power and explosive speed, but he was one dimensional and he fought bums during his hay day.
The disassociation I think we are having here is that just big doesn't mean talented, but big AND talented will almost always beat just big, or just talented. Lewis was really the first big AND talented HW champion.
The kind of athleticism Lewis combined with the size he has is very rare.
I address p4p in the first reply to spoony.
"I always take severe issue with p4p rankings. They are ridiculous arguments. If Manny was 6'4 and 250 pounds he would not be the same fighter that he is now. Oft over looked in these sort of whatif scenarios which argue the case of p4p is that the smaller guys would get slower and less active if they were bigger, and the bigger guys would get faster and more active if they were smaller. It is a circular argument that proves feck and all."
So really, what ARE you arguing when you talk about pound for pound? Would you like to see Manny scaled up to fight Wlad? Or Wlad scaled down to fight Manny?
Either way you go, it is impossible to know how these guys would fight. They would be completely different fighters.
What P4P means is who has the most aesthetically pleasing style and is successful while doing it.
Generally speaking, more punches and more activity is more pleasing, so the smaller divisions will generally dominate any such ranking.
Vitali is without question a better fighter than Wlad. They face each other ten times, Vitali wins ten times out of ten.
Wlad's "skills" consist of - jab jab jab jab jab jab jab jab jab jab jab right hand jab jab jab jab jab jab jab right hand jab jab jab jab, ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Ali would embarrass him, and knock him out.
I highly doubt with his reach and height advantages nullified, he would last four rounds with his brother.
Wlad's "skills" consist of - jab jab jab jab jab jab jab jab jab jab jab right hand jab jab jab jab jab jab jab right hand jab jab jab jab, ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Ali would embarrass him, and knock him out.
I highly doubt with his reach and height advantages nullified, he would last four rounds with his brother.
This poster is seriously retarded.
You mean the George Foreman that went 12 rounds with Evander Holyfield in the 90s when he was 42 years old?
The chin before the fist.
Rahman: 6'2", 230. KO5 Lewis
McCall: 6'2", 230. KO2 Lewis
But Ali (6'3" 215) would be "mauled" by Wlad and Lewis.
Spoony is correct, this guy is a retard.
Rahman: 6'2", 230. KO5 Lewis
McCall: 6'2", 230. KO2 Lewis
But Ali (6'3" 215) would be "mauled" by Wlad and Lewis.
Spoony is correct, this guy is a retard.
I guess the greatest 'athlete' ever would be some sort of gymnast - couldn't give you a name though.
In tyerms of popular names.......
Carl Lewis - 100, 200 long jump
Daley Thompson - High level at different events
Jesse Owen - leather shoes, cinder track, records and times amazing even compared to today.
Lance Armstrong - Amazing stamina and has overcome a lot
Its very hard to say
Hillwalking / mountaineering at altitude - requires a natural gift that some folk will just never have regardless of how fit they are.
In tyerms of popular names.......
Carl Lewis - 100, 200 long jump
Daley Thompson - High level at different events
Jesse Owen - leather shoes, cinder track, records and times amazing even compared to today.
Lance Armstrong - Amazing stamina and has overcome a lot
Its very hard to say
Hillwalking / mountaineering at altitude - requires a natural gift that some folk will just never have regardless of how fit they are.
Exactly, which invalidates much of the rest of your argument. Beyond a certain limit, increased height and weight doesn't seem to correlate with greater strength anyway, and huge size certainly doesn't seem to lend itself to great reflexes/coordination/talent, which you acknowledge yourself. Lewis certainly had size and he had talent, just not as much Ali and a select few others.
Regarding Wlad specifically, he hasn't dramatically improved - he just fights much more cautiously, and hasn't exactly faced a murderer's row of aggressive punchers. His chin is poor - even the short, lumbering Sam Peter proved that. He's got a good jab and a heavy right hand which he's hesitant to load up on anyway. Ali had a far better range of punches, a better jab, was much faster, had a better defence, much better chin, more tactical and technical ability, and far more balls. And he wasn't even significantly smaller than Wlad anyway.
The standard of athlete in alot of sports has risen - boxing isn't one of them. Certainly not at heavyweight level, in part because more and more of the best big athletes gravitate to other sports anyway.
Sugar Ray Robinson
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran
Marvelous Marvin Hagler
Marcel Cerdan
Jose Naples
Julio Cesar Chavez
Homicide Armstrong
Willie Pep
Pernel Whittaker (Probably the greatest Defensive fighter you will ever see along with Pep)
Barrera
Morales
Marquez
I can go on and on and on and on and on and ( Please don't make me me hands are already hurting
)Sugar Ray Robinson
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran
Marvelous Marvin Hagler
Marcel Cerdan
Jose Naples
Julio Cesar Chavez
Homicide Armstrong
Willie Pep
Pernel Whittaker (Probably the greatest Defensive fighter you will ever see along with Pep)
Barrera
Morales
Marquez
I can go on and on and on and on and on and ( Please don't make me me hands are already hurting
Kinell
If only I was 10 ft tall, weighed 30 stone had three fingers the size of melons, had no ears, had one eye ( that did'nt work) I could be on that illustrious list
Naa, clearly I'd be the best in the history of the sport
To be honest the heavyweight division was the premier division for so long but there was much going on beyond the hevyweight division that was more exciting but didnt get the attention it deserved.
Look at the Peret Griffin feud for instance! Who knew it would end like that?
Look at the Peret Griffin feud for instance! Who knew it would end like that?
I don't want to sound cynical, but I think Rocky glorified boxing. The same can be said for Topgun and the airforce.
This may be the best sentence ever written.
This may be the best sentence ever written.
makes it seem like boxing was in door bowls before that film for goodness sake. Boxing has always had a glorious past the 60s and the advent of cctv and its use to broadcast boxing made boxing glorious and more accesible
are people in this thread actually putting forward the notion that lennox lewis would beat Ali? Is that what I'm reading? cos thats just wank
I think boxing peaked in the early-mid 70's. The heavyweight division was at its best - since then it's slowly descended into a farce. In the late 70's and early 80's, the middle weight division took over - but even that's a shadow of it's former self.
I'd say the late 80s
if you say early mid 70s your completely missing the fantastic four of Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran and their bouts around welter, junior middle and middle weight
if you say early mid 70s your completely missing the fantastic four of Hagler, Hearns, Leonard and Duran and their bouts around welter, junior middle and middle weight
Seeing as strength athletes haven't got much of a mention, this guy is one of the greatest athletes the world has ever seen:
Some would argue that Savickas, Kazmaier and a few others are even greater.
pfft i reckon i could knock him out.
Sorry, I mean the heavyweight division peaked in the 70s.