Who is most athletic athlete?

[Emmz]

http://m.bbref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXtXXthorpji01.shtml

 

Oh god f***in eh what a stud baseball player man. I wish we had his .286 lifetime on base percentage in Boston. We f***ing need someone like that.

[Sox Fan on Cape]

In fairness, we should mention Deion Sanders.

[User Name]

Post stats of his major sports career. K?

 

That statement was about major sports, and it's extremely accurate. He was not that good at pro baseball or basketball.

 

Who gives a flying f*** about amateur sports.

 

People who know just how competitive the Olympics are? Winning a decathlon is a major achievement. Also, no amount of derogatory comments about his stats won't diminish the fact that he played at the highest level in all three sports.

[Northern Star]

Post stats of his major sports career. K?

 

That statement was about major sports, and it's extremely accurate. He was not that good at pro baseball or basketball.

 

Who gives a flying f*** about amateur sports.

 

So an athlete can only be athletic if he's playing what Americans regard as major sports? Dude, what happened to you? You used to be way better than the ******** arguments you're throwing up of late. If you're just going the troll route, stop wasting our time, because I KNOW you're better than this.

[Emmz]

No comments necessary, he was a mediocre baseball player and not important enough (probably due to mediocrity) to have any info on his basketball career.

 

Just read the stats. And uhh, okay, well he was a great athlete, but he was mediocre at baseball. Bo was better at Thorpe's own game, and was an all-star in a sport he stunk at.

 

He can run the decathalon and win all the golds he wants, Bo Jackson was very possibly a dual-sport HOFer if not for a fluke play that would never have happened if he wasn't as powerful a runner as he was. Bo Jackson was better at what he did. Thorpe was versatile, and skilled enough to play professionally in almost anything, but Bo is the better athlete.

[User Name]

So when you speak of the "better athlete" the one who could be a dual-pro-sport HOF is better than the one who could be a one pro-sport HOF, but win Olympic gold medals and play several other sports professionally? That's your opinion, but i don't share it at all. We can agree to disagree.

 

For what it's worth, Thorpe is considered the best athlete of the past century by a lot of historians and sportswriters. There's a reason for that.

[Northern Star]

No comments necessary, he was a mediocre baseball player and not important enough (probably due to mediocrity) to have any info on his basketball career.

 

Just read the stats. And uhh, okay, well he was a great athlete, but he was mediocre at baseball. Bo was better at Thorpe's own game, and was an all-star in a sport he stunk at.

 

He can run the decathalon and win all the golds he wants, Bo Jackson was very possibly a dual-sport HOFer if not for a fluke play that would never have happened if he wasn't as powerful a runner as he was. Bo Jackson was better at what he did. Thorpe was versatile, and skilled enough to play professionally in almost anything, but Bo is the better athlete.

 

[youtube=]o1eHKf-dMwo

[Emmz]

I think many historians consider Bo Jackson the best athlete of the last century as well, so that's a moot point.

 

Jackson was better at two major sports than Thorpe.

[User Name]

Where are they? On my searches i have not seen any publication or writer name Bo Jackson over Thorpe. The burden of proof is on you.

 

And what does does Jackson being "better at two major sports" prove? He can't touch Thorpe's ability to excel at basically any and all sports.

[Emmz]

So an athlete can only be athletic if he's playing what Americans regard as major sports? Dude, what happened to you? You used to be way better than the ******** arguments you're throwing up of late. If you're just going the troll route, stop wasting our time, because I KNOW you're better than this.

 

It's just way too common for someone to accuse another of trolling because of a disagreement.

[Porcupine penis]

I was also looking up some other people and wow, Julius Peppers was a hell of an athlete. I was watching film of him and he was absolutely insane on the football field and on the basketball court.

[Northern Star]

It's just way too common for someone to accuse another of trolling because of a disagreement.

 

Some opinions are just way too dumb/ill-informed to be considered as anything but.

[Northern Star]

Where are they? On my searches i have not seen any publication or writer name Bo Jackson over Thorpe. The burden of proof is on you.

 

And what does does Jackson being "better at two major sports" prove? He can't touch Thorpe's ability to excel at basically any and all sports.

 

I am failing to see the wisdom of placing more importance on baseball and football skills than general athletic skills which are tested to a higher level since the Olympics are competed for by athletes from the entire world, not just a small pool from a handful of countries at best.

[Whiteandnerdy42]

I'm sorry, but being good at professional sports does not make you "the best!" The original argument going for LeBron is so wrong because he only plays one sport and isn't an all-around athlete! Bo Jackson is definitely an excellent player, no doubt about it, but his overall athleticism just doesn't compare.

[User Name]

I'm sorry, but being good at professional sports does not make you "the best!" The original argument going for LeBron is so wrong because he only plays one sport and isn't an all-around athlete! Bo Jackson is definitely an excellent player, no doubt about it, but his overall athleticism just doesn't compare.

 

My argument for LBJ stems from what i've read about his physical abilities, but from the description in this post then Jim Thorpe is your man.

[Emmz]

Some opinions are just way too dumb/ill-informed to be considered as anything but.

 

Sing it soul sista.

[Emmz]

Where are they? On my searches i have not seen any publication or writer name Bo Jackson over Thorpe. The burden of proof is on you.

 

And what does does Jackson being "better at two major sports" prove? He can't touch Thorpe's ability to excel at basically any and all sports.

 

Maybe he was content playing two sports, and being better at the two sports means he was better in the comparable sample size.

 

Perception is nothing in an argument, but just google Bo Jackson greatest athlete. You will get hits. It's not rocket science.

[User Name]

Because it's not "rocket science" it should be easy to understand that excelling in two sports simply doesn't compare to excelling in basically all of them in a discussion of this nature.

[Emmz]

He didn't "excel" professionally in two of them. It's subjective, and as someone who last year was pushing "no absolutes derp" you should understand this.

[Emmz]

We have a sample size of two sports to compare them, and Jackson was better at both. It's that easy to understand.

[User Name]

That's because you choose to ignore Olympic performance as part of the argument, even though the level of competition is elite. It's not that hard: Reaching the Majors in three different sports + excelling in the Olympics + having the ability to play professionally basically every sport = Most "athletic" athlete ever.

 

This brings me to another point: You're conveniently bending the original subject. We're not talking about statistical accomplishments. We're talking about overall athletic ability, which in this case, is mostly subjective. Evidence of Thorpe's ability to play basically any sport at an elite/near elite level is found aplenty though.

[Emmz]

The amount of sports you can play=athletic ability then? Stats don't even need to factor into it. Bo Jackson is such a freak of nature he almost seems like just an urban legend. I'm just using stats because they're there. They're physical, and not just subjective opinion. They're comparable.

[Emmz]

You've yet to provide this so-called plentiful evidence that gives him an edge. Olympics? As far as I'm concerned it's because he did't compete. In the sports they both competed in, he was better (athletically, statistically, easily) at both sports.

 

So Thorpe won in the olympics, Bo never went. You keep saying that the talent level at the olympics is elite. Baseball and football aren't consisting of elite talent? What makes that a supposedly better argument? I'd say that the NFL and MLB are consisting of even more elite talent if anything. Bo Jackson was an elite amongst elites in both leagues.

[User Name]

You didn't provide any evidence about Bo Jackson. You told me to "go check myself". So do the same. Also, the amount of sports you can play at a professional level, for the context of this discussion, is an important measure of ability. Look at the follow-up post by the OP explaining why success in America for American sports should not be the measuring stick. You conveniently ignore this in your quest to always be right.

 

Another thing i don't understand is why you have to be so dismissive and aggressive about everything. You seem to not understand the fact that you can, in fact, be wrong about something. Like in this instance where you're clearly wrong, everyone's telling you you're wrong, but apparently we're all stupid and you're a prodigy of sports analysis. Good times.

[Emmz]

1. Dude, like two people have said I'm wrong. chill

 

2. You still haven't provided evidence, you're trying to maintain this "you're wrong, but I'm going to avoid making any valid points and just continue talking out of my ass" attitude. You should be the last person to make a "waaah you're dismissive claim".

 

3. I've posted a link of Thorpe's terrible major league baseball stats.. You've shown me what exactly?

[onlybereaved]

There is no absolute way to answer and prove this regardless of how hard someone argues one way or another. In the end, it just ends up being another 'who can argue better' or 'who can argue the longest until everyone else gives up'.

 

'Fill in the blank (talksox member) seems like a good candidate to 'win' the argument, like most every other thread, for said reasons. lol.

 

Just like in music, the "best" musician(s) are likely to never be heard by the masses...I would lean towards the potential "most athletic athlete ever" being someone who we may not even be familiar with (most obviously considering the fact that the thread doesn't indicate that it has to be someone in professional level sports, or well known etc).

 

There is a 9 year old girl in europe who weighs 90 lbs who can bench-press 900 lbs. Can LBJ or anyone else bench press that many times their own weight?

 

Wayyy too many variables here, pointless thread because of this IMO

[Emmz]

There is no absolute way to answer and prove this regardless of how hard someone argues one way or another. In the end, it just ends up being another 'who can argue better' or 'who can argue the longest until everyone else gives up'.

 

'Fill in the blank (talksox member) seems like a good candidate to 'win' the argument, like most every other thread, for said reasons. lol.

 

Just like in music, the "best" musician(s) are likely to never be heard by the masses...I would lean towards the potential "most athletic athlete ever" being someone who we may not even be familiar with (most obviously considering the fact that the thread doesn't indicate that it has to be someone in professional level sports, or well known etc).

 

There is a 9 year old girl in europe who weighs 90 lbs who can bench-press 900 lbs. Can LBJ or anyone else bench press that many times their own weight?

 

Wayyy too many variables here, pointless thread because of this IMO

This. So much this.

 

Kinda actually touched on the subjectivity of the thing twice, but this puts it perfectly.

 

The nature of a disagreement/debate/argument is that you think you're right.

 

I don't feel these topics are totally pointless, but I don't mind discussions like this.

[onlybereaved]

Word. Because it gets way too complex. Things we can't even measure remotely accurately.

 

Here is an example to consider:

 

Wayne Gretzky. Like him or not, the guy is considered in the hockey world as the greatest. It's neat though to watch his highlight videos and take note of how a huge percentage of the players he faced were pylons. Many goals he scored and moves he made wouldn't get by a Jr. B Goalie now-a-days. There aren't pylons in the NHL for the most part, and the sport has evolved so much even since he left, that his same moves/speed etc would get him on a 3rd line at best. (With all due respect, obviously I love Wayne, just making a point).

 

How can you take the evolution of the sport into question, or would you argue that it's all relative (ie. Jack Nickolas vs. Tiger Woods argument that goes on for days with equipment, course logistics, blah blah)

 

Tank Abbott at one time dominated the UFC....that guy now wouldn't last 1 round with the weakest UFC dudes, etc.

 

The discussions are cool, but when they come down to nasty arguments, it really should be avoided because no-one can prove or disprove, etc

[User Name]

Word. Because it gets way too complex. Things we can't even measure remotely accurately.

 

Here is an example to consider:

 

Wayne Gretzky. Like him or not, the guy is considered in the hockey world as the greatest. It's neat though to watch his highlight videos and take note of how a huge percentage of the players he faced were pylons. Many goals he scored and moves he made wouldn't get by a Jr. B Goalie now-a-days. There aren't pylons in the NHL for the most part, and the sport has evolved so much even since he left, that his same moves/speed etc would get him on a 3rd line at best. (With all due respect, obviously I love Wayne, just making a point).

 

How can you take the evolution of the sport into question, or would you argue that it's all relative (ie. Jack Nickolas vs. Tiger Woods argument that goes on for days with equipment, course logistics, blah blah)

 

Tank Abbott at one time dominated the UFC....that guy now wouldn't last 1 round with the weakest UFC dudes, etc.

 

The discussions are cool, but when they come down to nasty arguments, it really should be avoided because no-one can prove or disprove, etc

 

This is a sensible position, and especially that last paragraph. Positions can be presented without mocking the other person's argument or trying to prove one knows everything. Also the victim card which is way overplayed around these parts.

[Dojji]

The nature of a disagreement/debate/argument is that you think you're right.

 

There's a question of tactics involved, Emmz. Not trying to call you out in particular, but it's definitely possible to be right the wrong way. Even worse when you're only dubiously right, or when you're arguing a matter of opinion.