See, fair enough with the names, but if you have Ruth, Jordan and Ali in your top five, what have you provided in terms of room for all the non-American sports?
You have to. You have to take into account the impact they had on society because that is a product of their sportsmanship. Look at it this way....Michael Jordan is believed by many to be the greatest Basketball player ever, but that doesn't mean he is the single best person ever to walk this earth at playing basketball. There are many athletes that have lived but we know nothing about that could have potentially been a better player. Drug problems, social barriers, etc etc keep these GREAT athletes from ever reaching super-stardom and keep them off this list. So if you are gonna base your list strictly off athletic ability you aren't considering everybody, you can't be, because you don't know everyone. So you have to factor in other things, like accomplishments and such. Example, Kareem Abdul Jabbar said Earl "The Goat" Manigault was the greatest player he ever saw play. But not one person if asked, would even consider mentioning him.
Look everyone makes their list based off the athletes they know. No offense to the non-americans, I just don't know much about them. :good
he is up there, and would be the first man to come into my head when thinking about it he was a fantastic athlete
My point is that level of competition in a sport must be considered. And in general, the more athletes that play a sport, the higher the level of competition. The larger the pool to choose from, the greater chance you have of finding good athletes. This is not always true, but it is more often than not. This is why larger schools (or schools with great financial influence) don't play smaller schools often in college and high school athletics. Athletes may have been tougher before, but not necessarily more skilled. Does the toughness of the sport influence the actual competition? Depends on the rules. Usually I would say yes....but how much? Most sports used to be more physical. But most sports also have better athletes now (measurables). We have debated before on the comparison across eras. I don't agree that it is possible to accurately argue it. Most of the arguments are based on subjective criteria. Objective criteria is hard to come by because of the vast differences in the sports and how they've grown.
A case like Manigult (Don Cheadle is a terrific actor by the way) or that one drug addict from West Oakland that the East Bay NBA players talk about, are different cases, because they never reached the top level of their profession. I'm saying if I see a player in the NBA whom I believe is a better player on the court than Jordan, but say he has no charisma and doesn't get many endorsements, and doesn't have the impact of a Jordan, I'll still say he's a greater player/athlete than Jordan if I think he's better on the court. Or comparing a Pernell Whitaker and Oscar De La Hoya. Whitaker didn't have the impact on the sport like De La Hoya, but I rank him higher all-time as a fighter and an athlete because I feel he's greater inside the ring than DLH. Same with a Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson.
I'd imagine its hard to hear anything with your head wedged up Calzaghe's ass so this does not surprise me
Yeah, establishing criteria is definitely important. I mean I know exactly what people mean when they start listing off Ali as one of the greatest athletes of all time, but he's not even the greatest boxer. Never easy.
Fame has everything to do with greatness, these American sportmen unknown outside of that country can hardly be considered that famous. The only reason Ali is more famous than Calzaghe and Joan Guzman is fame, they are both superior athletes to him.
I'm gonna ignore the ignorance of you calling Calzaghe a superior athlete to Ali and wait for you to explain how FAME is responsible for Ali's FAME????? :nut :nut :nut
Ali made Fraizer look good by losing to him, then beating him to gain credit. Calzaghe never did this. He is therefore less famous.