The best of all time in each sport

FFS. Should have read the thread. Danny's said the same thing.

So did I you qunt. Kind of.

taipan wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:Boxing is Marciano/Ali/Tyson

Has to be Marciano. He was undefeated.

Taips for me its between Marciano and Ali.

Please allow me to qualify what I write next by being too young to remember Marcianos' career, but old enough to see the majority of Ali's fights.

IMO, Tyson (in his early days at least) was by far the best of a fairly sorry bunch of heavyweights - none of whom were able to test his jaw. The first time someone did so, he was on his arse. Its my belief that any of Ali, Frazier, Norton, Foreman or Cooper in their prime would have out-punched him every time, as all of them were able to take the punches too. He was susequently beaten half a dozen times as the division improved.

There's a somewhat weaker argument that Marciano was in the same position as Tyson, but as you rightly said, his unbeaten record stands testimony to his ability - especially as I believe many of his opponents were better than many of Tyson's early mis-matches.

Like all sports, its difficult to compare different eras with one another, but I think few would argue that the Ali/Frazier era had more heavyweights of closely matched ability than any other.

So for me, it's Ali on a split points decision, so to speak.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Most boxing scribes would say Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest boxer of all time.

Ponts - Tyson? Get a grip. Perhaps the greatest misogynistic rapist of all time. Greatest boxer? Not even top 10.

Yeah. Read any article written on Sugar and he'll come out as lookin the best. He had every attribute a boxer could wish for and he had something those top boxers dream of - class opposition to test his skills on. It's all relative I suppose, Ali would knock Ray out - for instance. Pacquaio is rocketing up the list, though, what a fighter.

As for Tyson, he wasn't pound for pound one of the biggest hitters but I'd probably say pound for pound he was the fastest I've ever seen. And he was devastating. Absolutely devastating. Shame he was such a rapist and psychologically disturbed, because he robbed himself of the best years of his career. We may have been on about him being one of the best, but as it is I don't even think he scrapes in my top 10 heavyweights let alone P4P.

Growler wrote:

Taips for me its between Marciano and Ali.

Please allow me to qualify what I write next by being too young to remember Marcianos' career, but old enough to see the majority of Ali's fights.

IMO, Tyson (in his early days at least) was by far the best of a fairly sorry bunch of heavyweights - none of whom were able to test his jaw. The first time someone did so, he was on his arse. Its my belief that any of Ali, Frazier, Norton, Foreman or Cooper in their prime would have out-punched him every time, as all of them were able to take the punches too. He was susequently beaten half a dozen times as the division improved.

There's a somewhat weaker argument that Marciano was in the same position as Tyson, but as you rightly said, his unbeaten record stands testimony to his ability - especially as I believe many of his opponents were better than many of Tyson's early mis-matches.

Like all sports, its difficult to compare different eras with one another, but I think few would argue that the Ali/Frazier era had more heavyweights of closely matched ability than any other.

So for me, it's Ali on a split points decision, so to speak.

Ali was the best in a golden era for heavyweights. We can discount one or three of his losses too. He was an amazingly skilful boxer as well. Great man, obviously, as well. But it's not enough. However abundant the heavyweight era was at that time, the middle and welters in Sugar's was even more so. Look up who he beat. Watch the videos, there's plenty. It's reasonably distinct, his lead as P4P greatest.

Messi will end up being considered in the same class as Pele and Maradona. For me, he is the best I've seen. May well be the best ever.

Yeah, but as I said before, he completely went missing in the last World Cup. Needs to guide Argentina to a World Cup win ala Maradona to be considered the best of all time, imo. For Barcelona though, he's simply awesome.

Isn't this an entirely subjective subject? There are no "rules" to define the best of all time at any sport other than the current world record holders in sports where records can be set.

It's a man thing isn't it?

Sorry... I'll go away.

Henry wrote:Yeah, but as I said before, he completely went missing in the last World Cup. Needs to guide Argentina to a World Cup win ala Maradona to be considered the best of all time, imo. For Barcelona though, he's simply awesome.

Yeah, can he do it without the likes of Xavi and Iniesta to give him the possession and the platform to display his skills? Maradona took an otherwise average Argentinian side to win the World Cup and an otherwise average Napoli side to be Serie A champions. I've heard it said that Messi plans to spend his whole career with Barcelona, so it might be that he has to win a World Cup almost single-handedly to be generally viewed as in the top two or three of all time.

Danny I've seen most of them, and can't really argue the toss with what you say about Sugar Ray, but .......

my champions must generally come from the "blue riband" category of the sport - in this case the heavyweight division - in the same way most people consider the 100m the premier event at an athletics meet, and most tennis players / jockeys / golfers wouls swap a dozen ranking event wins for a single Grand Slam event / Classic race / Major tournament.

eowyn wrote:Isn't this an entirely subjective subject? There are no "rules" to define the best of all time at any sport other than the current world record holders in sports where records can be set.

It's a man thing isn't it?

Sorry... I'll go away.

Of course it's purely subjective Ange. Purely a matter of opinions ......

and as such, yours is as valid as any of ours regardless of you being female

Growler wrote:my champions must generally come from the "blue riband" category of the sport - in this case the heavyweight division - in the same way most people consider the 100m the premier event at an athletics meet

Not sure the heavyweight category is the "blue riband" these days, most of them are just uninspiring, lumbering wrestlers, David Haye's probably the best out there and he's not even a natural heavyweight.

In terms of athletics it's very much a case of comparing apples with pears, if you're trying to say whether Bolt is "greater" than say a distance runner, field event athlete etc... I know cricket is similar but I think Bradman's record is so much better than any other batsman that he has to be the greatest cricketer, until a bowler comes along who averages something like 14 over a Test career - that would be the equivalent.

Thanks, Growler.

My all greats are the people I would watch over and over again, because they entertained and enthralled me when they played. As such I'd watch McEnroe play tennis day after day, watch Botham slog and bowl, (watch Billy Bremner kick the legs from under someone :-) ) I loved watching Micheal Johnson whenever he ran.

I guess I'm saying I want to get a "buzz" from watching my sports heroes and that makes them great in my eyes and not in anyone elses.

beamer I take your point both regarding todays boxing heavyweights and in comparing athletes.

I must say I wasn't implying that my greatest athlete must be a 100m runner, just that some events such as 100m seem to have more kudos than 200m, and the 1500 is often seen as more significant somehow than the 800.

I don't know why it should be so, but I can't think of any other reason for the most expensive London 2012 tickets are for seats close to the sprint track finish line (which I understand is the case)

beamer wrote:

Growler wrote:my champions must generally come from the "blue riband" category of the sport - in this case the heavyweight division - in the same way most people consider the 100m the premier event at an athletics meet

Not sure the heavyweight category is the "blue riband" these days, most of them are just uninspiring, lumbering wrestlers, David Haye's probably the best out there and he's not even a natural heavyweight.

In terms of athletics it's very much a case of comparing apples with pears, if you're trying to say whether Bolt is "greater" than say a distance runner, field event athlete etc... I know cricket is similar but I think Bradman's record is so much better than any other batsman that he has to be the greatest cricketer, until a bowler comes along who averages something like 14 over a Test career - that would be the equivalent.

What about Manny Pacquiao? He's won 10 World Titles in eight weight divisions. Must be up there.

Growler wrote:

I must say I wasn't implying that my greatest athlete must be a 100m runner, just that some events such as 100m seem to have more kudos than 200m, and the 1500 is often seen as more significant somehow than the 800.

Surely decathletes are the greatest athletes. Therefore Daley Thompson.

Or are they just jack of all trades, master of none? All depends on your own opinion I guess...

Decathletes- the Luke Wrights of world athletics.

Henry wrote:Decathletes- the Luke Wrights of world athletics.

Or the Gary Sobers?

Well my opinion is always right so of course it depends on my own opinion. As far as I'm concerned, Road Runner is the greatest athlete of all time. It's not just the consistency of performance, it's the longevity with this guy. Still going and going and going. There have always been haters, folk trying to run the guy down. But still going and going and going.

Growler wrote:

Danny I've seen most of them, and can't really argue the toss with what you say about Sugar Ray, but .......

my champions must generally come from the "blue riband" category of the sport - in this case the heavyweight division

The heavyweights draw the biggest crowd by way of being the biggest, therefore the peak of human levels of power. There wouldn't be the phrase 'Pound For Pound' if it wasn't for them. Personally, I don't think that there have been many eras wherein the heavyweight division has shown boxing at the peak of it's art - they aren't the most adept at executing boxing's full wealth of skills. Therefore had Sugar Ray been blown up to 6 foot plus, 16 stone odd then I reckon he'd have beaten Ali. Who knows, though, eh? I'm sure this debate's been done ever since the mid 70's.

beamer wrote:

Henry wrote:Yeah, but as I said before, he completely went missing in the last World Cup. Needs to guide Argentina to a World Cup win ala Maradona to be considered the best of all time, imo. For Barcelona though, he's simply awesome.

Yeah, can he do it without the likes of Xavi and Iniesta to give him the possession and the platform to display his skills? Maradona took an otherwise average Argentinian side to win the World Cup and an otherwise average Napoli side to be Serie A champions. I've heard it said that Messi plans to spend his whole career with Barcelona, so it might be that he has to win a World Cup almost single-handedly to be generally viewed as in the top two or three of all time.

Huh. It's like both of you didn't even watch the World Cup.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Most boxing scribes would say Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest boxer of all time.

Ponts - Tyson? Get a grip. Perhaps the greatest misogynistic rapist of all time. Greatest boxer? Not even top 10.

Yeah. Read any article written on Sugar and he'll come out as lookin the best. He had every attribute a boxer could wish for and he had something those top boxers dream of - class opposition to test his skills on. It's all relative I suppose, Ali would knock Ray out - for instance. Pacquaio is rocketing up the list, though, what a fighter.

As for Tyson, he wasn't pound for pound one of the biggest hitters but I'd probably say pound for pound he was the fastest I've ever seen. And he was devastating. Absolutely devastating. Shame he was such a rapist and psychologically disturbed, because he robbed himself of the best years of his career. We may have been on about him being one of the best, but as it is I don't even think he scrapes in my top 10 heavyweights let alone P4P.

What's your view on the dark doping rumours surrounding Pacquiao, Dan? Jealousy or something to it? What he has achieved at different weights is so astounding that some think it's got to be.

Tyson -Faster than Jones Jnr or Ali? Really? Probs not for me.

Paul Keating wrote:

Henry wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:Golf is Tiger
F1 is the Aryian
Basketball is Kobe
AFL is Peter Matera
League is Tim Brasher
Football is Maradona
Tennis is Borg
Swimming is Phelps

No way. Jordan has him covered. Kobe's career field goal percentage is around 44%. He scores a lot of points but he takes a lot of shots. Jordan's fg percentage was around 50%. Wilt Chamberlain was better than Kobe as well.

Every team these days basically has five Jordans in their team. Kobe is a god amongst men and still stands out.

Wow. Kobe doesn't even make the top 5. Also the standard in the NBA isn't really that good today. Beyond the top 10 teams(and even 10 is being generous there are like 5-6 good teams) the standards go downhill pretty fast in the NBA.

Growler wrote:

eowyn wrote:Isn't this an entirely subjective subject? There are no "rules" to define the best of all time at any sport other than the current world record holders in sports where records can be set.

It's a man thing isn't it?

Sorry... I'll go away.

Of course it's purely subjective Ange. Purely a matter of opinions ......

and as such, yours is as valid as any of ours regardless of you being female

Steady on...