Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Best American Athlete Ever

Define "best". Is that the same or different than "greatest"? Define "athlete".

In spite of that, and based on my own personal takes on those words, I'm going to go with a few others and say: Lance Armstrong.
 
basesloaded190 said:
I get the whole advancements in equipment and what not. I agree with you, but from an athletic perspective i think lance would have been just as dominate with the same equipment and time say Eddy Merckx
Click to expand...
Lance is great without a doubt, the question though is would others be able to surpass given the equipment he has and the money that he has dedicated to research...
 
thegoldenmackid said:
Lance is great without a doubt, the question though is would others be able to surpass given the equipment he has and the money that he has dedicated to research...
Click to expand...

I think what we all saw from lance the last decade will never be able to duplicated in the sport of cycling. Equipment will always be getting better and cyclists will always be getting stronger and faster, but lance had/has that special something that we only get to see once in a lifetime
 
I'll have to go with Jesse Owens. Mostly because the impact of his victory on the Nazi propaganda machine. This "inferior" black man thumped Hitler's "aryan supermen" for a whopping 4 Gold metals during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Germany.:cool: That's how you stick it to the man.
 
Badandy said:
Then so is wrestling. Look, I know you probably got no respect for wrestling when you were a kid and now try to overcompensate by trying to delegitimize other sports, but there's nothing inherently different and it reeks of pettiness.
Click to expand...

LOL. I'm not a wrestler. Try again.

You just don't like the idea that there are dudes out there who don't take ball games seriously.
 
My vote would have to be for Steve Prefontaine. He held every American track and field record from the 2,000 to the 10,000 meters. His 3 and 6 mile collegiate records still stand today.
 
Signal-11 said:
You just don't like the idea that there are dudes out there who don't take ball games seriously.
Click to expand...

No, I don't like the fact that you arbitrarily assign the word "sport" to whatever suits you. What's your criteria? I've wrestled people for fun. I've played basketball competitively.
 
Mousse said:
I'll have to go with Jesse Owens. Mostly because the impact of his victory on the Nazi propaganda machine. This "inferior" black man thumped Hitler's "aryan supermen" for a whopping 4 Gold metals during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Germany.:cool: That's how you stick it to the man.
Click to expand...

Yea, he gets props for that one...but I took the question as who was the best at their sport...yes, Owns was amazing, but I believe others have beaten his time(as is true with main records of the past as our society progresses)
 
Badandy said:
No, I don't like the fact that you arbitrarily assign the word "sport" to whatever suits you. What's your criteria? I've wrestled people for fun. I've played basketball competitively.
Click to expand...

My definition seems arbitrary because it is, just like everyone else's.

You really want to know where I draw my fuzzy line or is this more about being defensive about your games?
 
Along these lines...

...might be also interesting to come up with a short list of the world's 10 best athletes of the 20th century -- and not necessarily bias it towards the last 10-20 years or a particular country.
 
Signal-11 said:
I admit, it's hyperbole, but it's not nuts. Between the three you mentioned, two engage in a raw athletic endeavors. The other one plays a game.

Think about it. One plays baseball. One plays football. I play video games. Soccer, hockey, volleyball, it's all the same. The goal of the activity as either a participant or spectator is entertainment.

I find this to be true of any of the ball 'sports.' Those are games first, athletic activities second. I can't take them seriously. These are children's games that adults play for money.
Click to expand...

Okay Signal-11, explain a little further how that mind of your is working on this one. I understand some people draw a distinction between events in which you challenge yourself (running, mountain climbing, biking, etc.) vs. events in which you challenge others (the ball sports, etc.), but I'm not sure I get where your coming from here. To draw a line in the sand at "games first athletic second" seems kind of odd. Almost all sports are at their foundation a form of competition against someone or something else. In some sports it's direct competition and in other sports it's indirect competition. To me, regardless of the nature of the competition, they all require a level of athletic ability or developed skill. And to say an activity is disqualified because there is a focus or element of entertainment is even more odd. All sports/games/athletics involve entertainment whether it be for the spectators or the participants.

To use a little hyperbole of my own, "I don't understand the rules of the game your playing?";)
 
Went through this whole thread and honestly find it too ambiguous to be worth a hoot. Athleticism is really subjective in the end. People don't take some sports seriously while others do, the gymnastics argument is a good example.

I could throw out my hero, Beezie Madden, one of the greatest show jumping riders ever, and no one here would take me seriously.
 
abiyng87 said:
Athleticism is really subjective in the end. People don't take some sports seriously while others do, the gymnastics argument is a good example.
Click to expand...
Indeed – comparing totally different sports/disciplines is a totally subjective matter. Should stamina and strength be considered better than skill and verve – if so, why and if not, why not? While a formidable achievement, is winning a shedload of medals at one event (such as Phelps at the last Olympics) a greater achievement than consistently being at the top of your sport for a considerable period of time?

With some sports, it can even be difficult to judge players against each other. For example, in Association Football how does one weigh up a striker against a defender?
 
Jaffa Cake said:
Indeed – comparing totally different sports/disciplines is a totally subjective matter. Should stamina and strength be considered better than skill and verve – if so, why and if not, why not? While a formidable achievement, is winning a shedload of medals at one event (such as Phelps at the last Olympics) a greater achievement than consistently being at the top of your sport for a considerable period of time?

With some sports, it can even be difficult to judge players against each other. For example, in Association Football how does one weigh up a striker against a defender?
Click to expand...

Precisely. I don't know that anyone could ever pinpoint just one.
 
I don't know if you can ever truly say "Best American athlete of all time" for anumber of reasons.

1. Someone may be good at one sport but be poor at others (even multi-sport athletes).
2. There are technical factors. Some sports require more or different skills, strength, endurance than others.
3. Different time periods have different levels of training, and different types of allowed substances (nutritional or otherwise).
4. The type of competion can be different at different time periods. Poor competition can make an athlete seem better than if is competition was better (or vise versa).

The only thing someone can truly say ask "who is your favorite American athlete of all time?" It's technically impossible to say who is the best athlete of all time (even referring to an individual sport).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back