Baseball: Cal Ripken Jr.
Greatest Athletes?
- Thread starter Norrin Radd
- Start date
Don't you mean Steve Yzerman?
While Yzerman was great, and almost certainly one of hockey's top 10, no one was as good as Orr, IMO.
Bill Russell didn't prevent Wilt from winning championships, the Boston Celtics did. They had among the most talented teams ever (honestly, it's almost impossible to grasp the amount of greatness on those Celtic championship teams). Russell was a great part of that, but the team as a whole was the key.
Plus, he didn't really stop him defensively. Wilt could score on Russell just like anyone else. The only times he was stopped was when teams played a box and 1 on him where there were literally four players guarding Wilt and one guy guarding everyone else.
Amen to this.
Then I suppose it depends on your definition of "greatest athlete." It would seem to me that in team sports, the one who helped his team to the most championships would have to be considered in the same breath with those who piled up statistics, but usually couldn't get it done when it was on the line.
And note that I never said, "was better than," just "might argue."
Do the Celtics win those championships and consistently thwart Chamberlain with a center other than Bill Russell in place?
I don't think they would have done it without Russell, but I also don't think they would have done it without Bob Cousy, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Johnny Havlechek, Dave Cowens, etc.
There is a reason why the 1967 76ers was voted the best team of all time. It's when they had talent which could match the Celtics teams (Chamberlain, Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Chet Walker, etc). When he was with the Lakers, he had Jerry West (and I think Elgin Baylor), plus the Dynasty was gone.
Seriously, the amount of talent on the Celtics dynasty is impossible to overrate. You needed a whole team to beat them, not just one great player. No other era had a team as good as them.
There is a reason why the 1967 76ers was voted the best team of all time. It's when they had talent which could match the Celtics teams (Chamberlain, Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Chet Walker, etc). When he was with the Lakers, he had Jerry West (and I think Elgin Baylor), plus the Dynasty was gone.
Seriously, the amount of talent on the Celtics dynasty is impossible to overrate. You needed a whole team to beat them, not just one great player. No other era had a team as good as them.
The subject of the thread is 'Greatest Athlete' in particular sports, at least according to the thread starters initial post. The subject isn't "Greatest Athlete' on the best teams of any particular sport.
As Alidar Jarok pointed out, the Celts' very talented team's won those championships. Chamberlain without nearly the same amount of talent around him, accomplished feats unheard of up to that point, and are still unduplicatred to this day.
Looking at what both men did during their time in the league, I'de say that the only thing that makes Russell worth mentioning in a discussion of the all time best NBA player, is his championships. Otherwise, Russ is just another very good NBA player who doesn't come close to matching what Wilt did.
I think in certain sports certain positions are so fundamentally different that you can't name a best single player. In Hockey there should be a separate category for goalies. In baseball a separate category for pitchers. In football things are so specialized I don't think you can compare offense to defense, lineman to backfield, rushers/receivers to quarterbacks.
I have always had a problem with declaring Bill Russell the greatest because of his 11 championships in 13 years. By this argument Sam Jones should be the second best player because he won 10 championships in 12 years. The head to head statistical comparison between Russell and Chamberlain is no contest. Russell is supposedly the greatest because of his rebounding and defense yet Chamberlain consistently out-rebounded him almost every year they were in the league together. How can you be the greatest all time if your not the greatest in your main strength?
My vote for greatest athlete of all time. Somebody no one ever even puts in the discussion. Arnold Schwarzenegger. I know your laughing, but I don't think there is any physical activity that requires more single minded dedication and intensity of training then becoming Mr. Olympia.
I agree with the assessment that Wilt Chamberlain is the best basketball player in history.
I realize this isn't an MMA forum... but cmon, Chuck Liddell???
First off, you spelled both of their names wrong.
Secondly, Chuck is not even in the discussion for GOAT.
I cover MMA for a couple websites, and I've followed it religiously for over 10 years. So don't argue, just research some more. You'll be happy you did.
I would arguably put all of these fighters above Chuck. This is off the top of my head real quick, so it's very possible I'm leaving some guys off.
Fedor Emelianenko
Kazushi Sakuraba
Royce Gracie
Matt Hughes
Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira
Ken Shamrock
Bas Rutten
While I have Chuck 3rd on my GOAT list I was willing to follow you until I got to the next to last on your list. Ken Shamrock the GOAT!? You must be joking. Seriously the most overated MMA fighter of all time. His Pancrase puts him up the list a little, but in MMA his record is mediocre at best. Never won a UFC tournament. 2-2-1 in superfights. Dan Severn his only significant victory. A complete joke in his comeback. I wouldn't put Shamrock in my top 30.
My list is taking into account things like influencing the evolution of MMA. This isn't nearly as simple as you're making it.
If we're just going on records, I assume you have Randy Couture (16-9, not even 2 to 1!) nowhere near your list.
I wouldn't dare call Ken the GOAT, I just have him in my list of top 10, arguably. Fedor is the GOAT, period. After that it gets very debatable, but I don't have Chuck in my top 5.... I don't think.
Actually I do have Randy a little further down on my list than most would because he has had so many losses over his career. I have him 8th.
I am curious if you are going by influence why you still wouldn't have Chuck
ranked highly? He was arguably the first MMA star since the Gracies to break into mainstream consciousness. He had a lengthy title run and a great run of victories over good competition. He was also one of the first mainly stand-up fighters to really dominate in the octagon.
I have Randy pretty low too, so I'm glad that we agree on that one.
You make a good point about Chuck's influence, but I think as far as breaking the mainstream consciousness goes Tito had far more impact than Chuck. I can't stand Tito, never could, but his popularity far exceeded that of Chuck. And popularity isn't exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned "influence", I was speaking more towards affecting the evolution of the sport itself.
Chuck did have a lengthy title run, but his victories primarily came over fighters whose style was tailor-made for him. Tito (2x), Babalu (2X), Randy (2x), Randleman, Vernon, Horn.... all wrestlers with poor stand-up skills. He beat Overeem when Overeem predictably gassed after dominating him, and lost to the only good standup fighter he faced in Rampage (2x).
Also, I think Pedro Rizzo has to be considered the first stand-up fighter to dominate in the octagon. Bas Rutten also did quite well, albeit at the end of his career.
Overall though, you're right that I'm probably not giving Chuck quite enough credit. I've had a few drinks, just finished finals, but I'll come up with a serious list in a little while and post it.
