Greatest Sportsman Ever?

[Bobby Connor]

Jimmy C discovered Raymond Barnavelt.

[russellh]

maybe controversial but i put forward Micheal Schumacher as another possible contender

[fatshaft]

maybe controversial but i put forward Micheal Schumacher as another possible contender

Not even close to greatest F1 driver, so not a contendor at all in my eyes. Add on that Button/Brawn GP are showing that Schumi's record may have had far more to do with Ross Brawn than Schumacher than anyone suspected - and everyone already knew Brawn was the best on the pit wall - and you have a questionable top ten candidate in all time F1.

 

If we're doing motor racing, then Senna, Clark, Fangio, Stewart, McRae or Loeb would be well ahead of the cheating devious German c**t.

[Dynamo]

Tiger Woods for me.

[E-P-K]

Not even close to greatest F1 driver, so not a contendor at all in my eyes. Add on that Button/Brawn GP are showing that Schumi's record may have had far more to do with Ross Brawn than Schumacher than anyone suspected - and everyone already knew Brawn was the best on the pit wall - and you have a questionable top ten candidate in all time F1.

 

If we're doing motor racing, then Senna, Clark, Fangio, Stewart, McRae or Loeb would be well ahead of the cheating devious German c**t.

 

 

 

Get a grip.

[tutankamun]

Alan Wells for me.

[fatshaft]

Get a grip.

You don't rate Clark as the best ever? That's weird.

 

And Loeb, absolutely untouchable on tarmac, and now just about the same on any surface, and of course six consecutive WRCs, without doubt the best rally driver ever.

[E-P-K]

You don't rate Clark as the best ever? That's weird.

 

And Loeb, absolutely untouchable on tarmac, and now just about the same on any surface, and of course six consecutive WRCs, without doubt the best rally driver ever.

 

How is it weird that i think MS is a better driver than Jim Clark

 

He has won 91 race in 248 races which is a win every 2.7 races and a podium finish every 1.61 races

 

Clark won 25 out of 73 races with a win every 2.92 races and a podium finish every 2.28 races.

 

As for Loeb, I know fack all about him so i will just take your word that he is a quality driver.

[fatshaft]

How is it weird that i think MS is a better driver than Jim Clark

 

He has won 91 race in 248 races which is a win every 2.7 races and a podium finish every 1.61 races

 

Clark won 25 out of 73 races with a win every 2.92 races and a podium finish every 2.28 races.

Clark drove everything, and won everything, and I don't mean through the ranks, but at the same time. Als in an era where the driver was much more important than the car, which is why I pointed to Schumacher's, sorry Brawn's dominance over the last ten years or so. Without Ross Brawn and the non-compete contract of the #2 driver at Ferrari, how well would Schumacher have done?

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/for...icle5986660.ece

 

1. Jim Clark

 

4.3.1936 to 7.4.1968

 

Great Britain

 

Grands prix: 72

 

Wins: 25

 

World Championships: 2 (1963, 65)

 

 

There was always the feeling that Jim Clark could drive a milk float and make it fly around a grand-prix track. Adept in saloon cars and sports cars, he was the yardstick by which every driver wanted to measure themselves in Formula One. There was nothing he could not do at the wheel of a Formula One car and his marriage with Lotus was made in grand-prix heaven.

 

The shy son of a Scottish border farmer had little to say for himself and would have been out of place in today

[RAZOR]

Brian Lara

[fatshaft]

No. Armstrong essentially tackled the tour and that was all. A bit like Tiger plans his season around the four majors, Armstrong geared his build up to winning the Tour and nothing else. If he'd given the Giro (in particular) and others 100% it's highly unlikely he'd have won as many Tours as johnstrac says.

Actually for Cycling I'm now thinking Indurain, five Tours in a row, and back to back Giros in the same year as he was winning his second and third Tours.

[E-P-K]

Actually for Cycling I'm now thinking Indurain, five Tours in a row, and back to back Giros in the same year as he was winning his second and third Tours.

 

 

When i was young and watched Le Tour it was Indurain who was the king of cycling and i remember watching him fail while climbing the Alpe d'huez , big news in the day.

 

 

Eddy Merckx is regarded as the best every cyclist , He competed (and won) all the cycling classics races unlike Armstrong who always trained for the Le Tour.

[fatshaft]

When i was young and watched Le Tour it was Indurain who was the king of cycling and i remember watching him fail while climbing the Alpe d'huez , big news in the day.

 

 

Eddy Merckx is regarded as the best every cyclist , He competed (and won) all the cycling classics races unlike Armstrong who always trained for the Le Tour.

Think is with Indurain though, he would have had another win the year before his first, but he turned back on a stage to drag Delgdo, his team leader up as he was in danger of losing the Tour on whatever stage it was he had hit the wall.

 

Merckx is probably the greatest cyclist though overall I agree, but I'd put Indurain second, with Armstrong only arguably third, perhaps Hinault takes third place?

[E-P-K]

Think is with Indurain though, he would have had another win the year before his first, but he turned back on a stage to drag Delgdo, his team leader up as he was in danger of losing the Tour on whatever stage it was he had hit the wall.

 

 

well thats great team spirit as Delgado lost the tour that year before it had ever started, He turned up for the prologe (1st stage) 3 minutes late and had that 3minutes added to his time and he never made it back.

[joey-barrel]

How about Edwin Moses, won 122 races in a row in 400m hurdles over a 10 year period (August 1977 - June 1987).

[rgudon]

george best, closely followed by redgrave.

[Douchebag]

a tie between maradona, ali, and rossi

 

they were the greatest of all times, all other sports are under dispute. taylor would be there if darts were a sport and not a game.

[fatshaft]

a tie between maradona, ali, and rossi

 

they were the greatest of all times, all other sports are under dispute. taylor would be there if darts were a sport and not a game.

Ok, let's diverge to greatest per sport then:

 

Football: Maradona

Rugby:

F1: Jim Clark

Rally: Loeb

Cycling: Mercyx

Golf: Young Tom Morris

[Douchebag]

For golf Id have to pick Jack Niclaus above Tiger Woods or that old timer. He had a lot more competition from other greats like Palmer, Treviso and Watson. Winning the Masters in 86 was amazing. Woods has not had the same competition in his career yet. Only really had Mickelson pushing him and he's no all time great, so I dont rate Woods titles so much as Nicklaus victories.

[altogi]

I would say Michael Shumachar, Pele, Michael Jordon.

[ZeroTolerance]

Got to be Federer for me.

 

To have the (albeit joint at the moment) record for grand slam wins is one thing, to achieve that in less than 6 years is astonishing. And at only 27 has plenty of time to increase that to what i would believe would be an unmatchable level.

 

To be that consistent for that period of time at the absaloute pinnacle of your sport is a testament to him.

 

As was said yesterday there are plenty of clay court specialists or grass court specialists and then there is Federer.

 

There are also plenty more reasons in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_caree...y_Roger_Federer

 

See my comments on the Wimbledon thread, but Fed is not (yet) the greatest tennis player of all-time. That honour falls to Rod Laver.

 

In terms of other sports how about Wayne Gretzky. In the case of "The Great One" you're talking about someone who holds something like 65 records in his sport and in many of the key ones is as much as 50% ahead of the #2 on the all-time list.

 

Also Don Bradman. No one has even come close to his batting average.

[Douchebag]

tennis is an odd one, there have been lots of dominant players. Ivan Lendl won a bunch of titles but you wouldnt say he was the greatest. McEnroe didnt win a lot but for me he was the most talented player ever. Federer has won everything, but on top of their form, Nadal kicks his arse all over the court. In addition, Federer is obviously some kind of autistic rain man with an ugly wife. Theres a biscuit missing somewhere. Still a great player, but a bit lacking in flair sometimes.

[johnstrac]

Perhaps Jerry Rice in the world of American Football ?

[Oklahoma 1903]

back to back Giros

There's quite a few weegies could put that record to shame

[Coopy100]

Federer. Tennis is a test of everything sport should be about. total body coordination, stamina, strength, concentration, finesse the lot. So since federer is the best tennis player ever he is the greatest sportsman ever.

[StandFr33]

Federer. Tennis is a test of everything sport should be about. total body coordination, stamina, strength, concentration, finesse the lot. So since federer is the best tennis player ever he is the greatest sportsman ever.

I personally dont think Federer is the best Tennis player this decade, nevermind the best ever...............

 

Do you really think Fed would have won if Nadal had played?

 

Pete Sampras is possibly the greatest tennis player ever........

[ZeroTolerance]

Pete Sampras is possibly the greatest tennis player ever........

 

 

..... with the exception of Rod Laver. Who won a mere grand slams despite missing over 20 slam events having had to miss 5 years at the peak of his career by becoming pro when the slams were still amateur. Completely dominated the sport throughout his whole career in a way that neither Sampras or Federer (yet) can equal.

 

If Fed continues in this vein for the next 3-4 years then he will be the greatest.

[Sheeptastic]

..... with the exception of Rod Laver. Who won a mere grand slams despite missing over 20 slam events having had to miss 5 years at the peak of his career by becoming pro when the slams were still amateur. Completely dominated the sport throughout his whole career in a way that neither Sampras or Federer (yet) can equal.

 

If Fed continues in this vein for the next 3-4 years then he will be the greatest.

No he won't. He struggles against players who have a physical aspect to their game (see Roddick and Nadal as examples). Until he can learn how to overcome someone with a big physical aspect to their game then he won't be the greatest.

[E-P-K]

No he won't. He struggles against players who have a physical aspect to their game (see Roddick and Nadal as examples). Until he can learn how to overcome someone with a big physical aspect to their game then he won't be the greatest.

 

I take it you know his head to head record V Roddick ?

[Sheeptastic]

I take it you know his head to head record V Roddick ?

He's only getting older. If he was still in great shape, Roddick wouldn't have survived a set in that final. I just can't see Federer dominating tennis for much longer with the likes of Nadal kicking about.