Greatest Athletes In History Of Their Sport

Jack Nicklaus, Maradona, Usain Bolt, Lance Armstrong, Schumacher/Fangio, Ali, etc.

Not even close. In fact it's very easy to see who the GOAT is in cycling. Eddy Merckx by a long distance.


Armstrong basically just competed in the Tour de France and then did nothing for an entire year. Although I liked him, he is overrated by the general public.
 
With tennis, we can say that Pancho Gonzales was the best player in the world for 8 years and beat all his challengers and rivals, and also that he was still a threat to the top players into his 40s. He also won 113 tournaments despite taking bouts of retirement/semi retirement. He had a dominant serve (both in power and variety), was 6ft 3ins tall (much taller than his rivals), had long arms so had a big wing-span, moved like a cat around the court in his prime, and he was a touch player. He also beat his rivals even more badly from the baseline when Jack Kramer once tried to hurt Gonzales by outlawing serve and volleying.

Federer has 290+ weeks as world number 1. Gonzales was number 1 for even longer, even though there weren't official rankings until 1973. Yes, Federer won 17 majors, but Gonzales was banned from them from age 21 to age 40, yet still won 2 majors as an amateur. He also won 15 pro majors, which were against better players than those in the amateurs and fewer in number.

Surely this is enough to show that Federer is not the undisputed GOAT?

Just looking at achievements, it is fairly close between them. I could make an argument either way. On the one hand, two of Gonzales' 17 majors were amateur, three were Tournament of Champions titles - a round robin tournament, seemingly the equivalent of the modern WTF(Fed has 6 of those). On the other hand, during most years of Gonzales' pro career there were only three major pro tournaments, not four.

Head-to-head, era-to-era, I would take Fed. You could give 1979 John McEnroe(much less Gonzales) any racquet he wanted and I'm not sure he could get a set off of Fed. But that's where the difficulty always lies in comparing eras.

Undisputed? No. But Fed is still the better candidate IMO.
 
Last edited:
Not even close. In fact it's very easy to see who the GOAT is in cycling. Eddy Merckx by a long distance.


Armstrong basically just competed in the Tour de France and then did nothing for an entire year. Although I liked him, he is overrated by the general public.

I definitely agree with you. The cannibal Merckx would crush cyclist all year around in the classics. He didn't just prepare all year for the TdF like Armstrong. In Europe Merckx is still seen as the king of the sport.
 
29 FO titles, 6 Olympic medals, in an era where the average life expectancy of a male was around 48 years old. He played through numerous injuries and fought a world war and never whined or complained a damn bit.

I knew some guys who were in the trenches with him. Said he b!tched constantly.
 
are_you_kidding_me_rage_face_meme_poster-r3726a85aa584458cad9751d80824bbf6_jih_400.jpg

I didn't know who Babe Ruth was either. Baseball and American Football are not really popular worldwide.
 
Interesting how we all agree how Phelps is the best swimmer, which he is, yet Fed is still under review. Swimming has one "major" every four years, and of course in those majors Phelps has won the most, just as Fed has the most majors. But what if Phelps had to swim four majors a year, under different conditions, and still was able to come out on top more often than anyone else, then we would all say, this guy is insane.

Shouldn't we factor in the fact that swimming gives so many opportunities for one swimmer to win many medals. See how many of the multiple medal winners are from swimming.

Tennis gives only one singles gold, and three in total. How many races do you participate in to win a swimming gold, as compared to 7 matches for a tennis singles gold. Each match is hours long. The swimming events are over in a few minutes.
 
Shouldn't we factor in the fact that swimming gives so many opportunities for one swimmer to win many medals. See how many of the multiple medal winners are from swimming.

Tennis gives only one singles gold, and three in total. How many races do you participate in to win a swimming gold, as compared to 7 matches for a tennis singles gold. Each match is hours long. The swimming events are over in a few minutes.

Phelps might be the Greatest Olympian,but he certainly isn't the Greatest Athlete of all time.
 
Lebron james will surpass Jordan, many will laugh now though, but in a couple of years I will laugh

No he won`t. Miami will at best win 2-3 Championships with this generation of players. People forget that Lebron is already 28
 
Track : probably Haile Gebrasellasie (several others too such as Nurmi, Zatopek, Viren come to mind too).

Edwin Moses.

Field: Sergei Bubka
 
When Gonzales played, would a guy ranked 100, have been able to upset one of the guys at the top, and if this did happen once, was it a threat every time. The depth of todays game makes Fed's longevity that much more amazing.

On the other hand, Gonzales was facing the top players far more regularly than today's players do. That tends to make someone very battle hardened.
 
So much misinformation in one thread....but that's to be expected.

Anyway, moving on to a wise post:


I would put Fed somewhere in the top 5 of all time great tennis players.. Some undisputed best ever though? dominated by his main rival (Something an "undisputed best ever" shouldn't have ), and then you got legit claims to Tilden, Pancho, Laver, Sampras, Rosewall etc..).

To be sure, Federer is top 5, but in no way the absolute GOAT, as he simply lacks the key accomplishment, and as you point out, he was utterly dominated by his main rival in a way that is rare for so-called GOAT player. How could he be a GOAT with an astoundingly poor record against his main rival?


Fed has certainly been dominant but certainly not dominant or successful ENOUGH to just give him the undisputed best ever title when you have other guys with similar and arguable more success then that in tennis history. Guys who weren't destroyed time and time again by their main rivals on the big stages.

Agreed.
 
On the other hand, Gonzales was facing the top players far more regularly than today's players do. That tends to make someone very battle hardened.

You always like to hide negative facts. Pancho was either playing in the pro or amateur field, which means the depth/talent was depleted. Any generation has top players, but with a much smaller pool, and fewer matches per tournaments, there's more chances for the top players to face one another more often. That doesn't equate more competition.

And stop saying that Pancho didn't get a chance to compete at the slam because he was a pro. Assuming the playing field weren't split into amateur and pro, and everyone has a chance to compete, there's no evidence to suggest he could have won 17 slams. Maybe he can win 9, or 10, who knows. However, you can't give out credits base on conjecture.
 
So much misinformation in one thread....but that's to be expected.

Anyway, moving on to a wise post:




To be sure, Federer is top 5, but in no way the absolute GOAT, as he simply lacks the key accomplishment, and as you point out, he was utterly dominated by his main rival in a way that is rare for so-called GOAT player. How could he be a GOAT with an astoundingly poor record against his main rival?




Agreed.

Well, overall he is now the GOAT. His main rival is 5 years younger, which Agassi said is one era in tennis. With the O silver, he will be the GOAT till Nadal racks up 6 more Slams.
 
Heck if Nadal could have just stayed healthy it would have been (or still could be) DISPUTED if Fed is even the "best" of this era.


Fed has been fortunate IMO that injuries stopped Nadal dead in his track during the 2009 season where his tennis really began to peak around that time (enabling Roger to win those 2 slams in 2009). And of course, injuries are hitting Nadal again (perhaps enabling Roger again to win Wimbledon).. Again, a big plus for Roger.

Not quite sure how anyone could consider someone a HANDS DOWN best ever if a lot of their success hinges upon their rival not being around. Makes absolutely No sense...
 
Last edited:
Exactly. That is the nature of the modern tennis business, even in the face of conflicting evidence.

It's the nature of modern sports in general, not just Tennis.

The opinions of casual fans and the media is usually Tiger > Jack, Fed > All, Kobe/LeBron could be >> Jordan, etc. etc.

Basketball is a bit better, because there are some purists in the media (and Jordan was around relatively recently), but everyone tries to sensationalize everything in modern sports media.
 
It's the nature of modern sports in general, not just Tennis.

The opinions of casual fans and the media is usually Tiger > Jack, Fed > All, Kobe/LeBron could be >> Jordan, etc. etc.

Basketball is a bit better, because there are some purists in the media (and Jordan was around relatively recently), but everyone tries to sensationalize everything in modern sports media.

But that's the point: the NBA--or rather, sports historians and fans almost universally cite Jordan as the greatest, with some making an argument about Magic. Kobe--try as he will--is still proving he's no Jordan by beating himself into old age (basketball-wise) trying to pass Jordan.

Boxing runs along the same lines: no one picks Tyson as the greatest boxer. Beyond his weight division, some have tried to sell De LaHoya, Mayweather, et al, as "pound for pound" greatest boxers, but time after time, Ali tops most lists, as his body of accomplishments are rather untouchable. Tennis, or modern day tennis seeks to flush decades of recognized achievement in order to push the current face, as if in doing so, it guaranteess the survival of the sport.
 
You always like to hide negative facts. Pancho was either playing in the pro or amateur field, which means the depth/talent was depleted.

So you only consider players of the open era as eligible?

Any generation has top players, but with a much smaller pool, and fewer matches per tournaments, there's more chances for the top players to face one another more often. That doesn't equate more competition.

Gonzales stayed the best for a long time despite challenges from players like Segura, Sedgman, McGregor, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Gimeno, MacKay etc. Hoad gave him the most trouble, and Segura and Sedgman were long term rivals of his who he beat much more often than not. He was playing these guys on a very regular basis, and wasn't toppled.

And stop saying that Pancho didn't get a chance to compete at the slam because he was a pro. Assuming the playing field weren't split into amateur and pro, and everyone has a chance to compete, there's no evidence to suggest he could have won 17 slams.

There's no evidence to suggest that he wouldn't have either, particularly when he was the best player in the world for 8 years. Gonzales never won a major on clay because it reduced the effectiveness of his serve, so that's probably his weakest point. Saying that, he only played 5 majors in his career at Roland Garros, 1 as an amateur, 3 as a pro in the pre-open days, and 1 in the open era, and he reached 2 finals and 3 semi finals.

Maybe he can win 9, or 10, who knows. However, you can't give out credits base on conjecture.

The point is that he was denied the opportunity to compete in the mainstream majors during the years he dominated the sport. Imagine if Federer was banned from the majors from 2004 to 2022. He'd have 1 mainstream major.
 
Track : probably Haile Gebrasellasie (several others too such as Nurmi, Zatopek, Viren come to mind too).

Edwin Moses.

Field: Sergei Bubka

Noureddine Morceli and Hicham El Guerrouj were dominant 1,500m runners. Morceli dominated from 1990-1995, and kept his top place in 1996. El Guerrouj started threatening Morceli in 1996, and dominated from 1997-2004.
 
Last edited:
Steve Redgrave - Rowing

5 gold medals across 5 consecutive Olympic games, outstanding :shock:



That's all I know about rowing though :lol:
 
So you only consider players of the open era as eligible?
Of course it count as part of his career. I just don't like the way you worded by saying he faced so many top players as an indication of high quality, but ignore the negative facts.

The point is that he was denied the opportunity to compete in the mainstream majors during the years he dominated the sport. Imagine if Federer was banned from the majors from 2004 to 2022. He'd have 1 mainstream major.

He didn't play at the slam but still competing on other events which you claimed he won 113 titles. Funny how you don't mention that he would have won much less than 113 had he was competing at the slams. Anyway it doesn't matter because facts are there...Fed won 17 and for Pancho we have no idea how he would do had there wasn't a split fields.

Keep in mind there's a lot of speculation for Graf's achievements had Seles was healthy, but that doesn't take away her goat resume.

Capiche ?
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there some guy who didn't lose a squash match in 8 years? Edwin Moses didn't lose an event in 10 years?
 
Edwin Moses went precisely 9 years, 9 months and 9 days between losses, winning 122 consecutive 400m hurdles races in between.

He won gold at the 1976 and 1984 Olympics (1980 was boycotted by the USA), and was world champion in 1983 and 1987.

Harald Schmid of West Germany beat Moses on the 26th August 1977. Moses' next loss was on the 4th June 1987 when Danny Harris beat him. Moses then won another 10 races in a row, before surprisingly only managing bronze at the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Moses then retired.

I suppose his only "failure", if you can call it that, was failing to run a 400m hurdles race in under 47 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Swimming is a bit of a red herring in that respect. There are so many disciplines and lengths which are only minor variations on each other taking Phelps' 18 gold as being a sign he's amongst greats like Steve Redgrave who won at least one gold at five consecutive Olympics (and at 6 different games total) is a little unfair.

They hand out swimming golds like confetti compared to most other sports. If you compare sports in relation to how many events someone can compete in to a high level and how many chances they will get in the span of their entire career swimming comes out with dozens more opportunities than most sports. Phelps may be the greatest swimmer, perhaps of all time, but he's nowhere near the likes of Jordan, Federer etc in terms of overall sporting greatness imo.

Here's some examples to compare him to *traditional* Olympic athletes as well. Decathlete Bryan Clay could be regarded as one of the best all-round athletes of all time in factual terms. He will be lucky to get two shots at an Olympic medal in his career. Basically no-one knows who he is despite having won gold and silver medals in successive Olympics. He ***** on Phelps in terms of overall sporting ability and quality of competition. Likewise, Hicham El Guerrouj only ever won 2 golds and a silver and he is possibly the greatest middle distance runner of all time.

Swimming is a chump sport in terms of being easy to dominate if you're a once in a decade talent. The short recovery times compared to most sports (especially tennis) allow athletes to compete in tons of categories and rack up the medals. If we want to give Phelps an accolade it should be that he is the most successful swimmer of all time or has won the most gold medals. But to put him on par with the likes of Ali, El Guerrouj, Federer, Jordan etc in terms of being amongst the all-time greatest sportspeople I'd not even rate Phelps in the top 20 names I can think of off-hand.

Don't believe me how easy it is to rack up medals in swimming? Let's look at some all-time lists.
- In the top 15 all time list of (summer) gold medal winners... 6 are swimmers, 6 are gymnasts, 1 fencing, 1 athletics, 1 canoeist.

- If you look at athletes who have competed only since 1980 swimmers hold 8 of the top 10 medal winning spots, athletics 1, canoeing 1. (drugs started getting really good in the 80s huh!)

Phelps may be the greatest swimmer of all time but his legend is half that he competes in a soft sport and half that he's America's sweetheart. Had he been born in China or Latvia he would be a relative nobody in global terms - probably remarked about more commonly as the best drugs cheat in history.

Compare Phelps dominance to others in his own sport and the difference is more extreme than nearly anyone else in their sport. It is a bigger difference than between Federer and others in history in tennis, so if Federer is to be considered an all time great athlete, Phelps most definitely is.
 
Johnny Weismuller.Haven´t seen any other Olympic Champion kill a lion with his arms or open in two pieces an alligator.
 
Compare Phelps dominance to others in his own sport and the difference is more extreme than nearly anyone else in their sport.

Phil Taylor has been more dominant in his sport than Phelps in his. This is a guy who has won 67 PDC majors, while his nearest rival, James Wade, has just 7.
 
Last edited:
Phil Taylor has been more dominant in his sport than Phelps in his. This is a guy who has won 67 PDC majors, while his nearest rival, James Wade, has just 7.

Do you have reading comprehension issues or is the word "nearly" beyond your grasp.
 
Because Gonzales was a professional player from October 1949 onwards, and the open era didn't start until April 1968. Before the open era, only amateur players could play in the 4 mainstream majors as professional players were banned.

Well unless you have special info from a parallel universe, you cannot say with any certainty that Gonzales would have won an equivalent number of majors if he could have played. You're simply speculating
 
Well unless you have special info from a parallel universe, you cannot say with any certainty that Gonzales would have won an equivalent number of majors if he could have played. You're simply speculating

Exactly. He could have won 5, 7, or 9 slams, no one knows. And how many would he win if the two fields were combined? That would be even harder to win.
 
The point is that he was denied the opportunity to compete in the mainstream majors during the years he dominated the sport. Imagine if Federer was banned from the majors from 2004 to 2022. He'd have 1 mainstream major.
This, again.

Firstly, he was not denied - he chose not to compete by taking another path.

It's also facetious to theoretically gift people achievements they didn't achieve. They either got them, or they didn't - no matter what the reason was.

If you want to go down the path of calculating or arguing for theoretical achievements then it is just as valid to give Federer some more titles because the surface conditions on which he played were systematically changed over his formative years in a way which could not have been more specifically harmful to his chance of winning (and which also improved Nadal's chances).
 
Hello fans,

TMF: Why do you exaggerate Federer's achievements? Roger won many majors against relatively weak competition. For years Roddick was his main opponent. Roddick is hardly an all-time great. When Nadal came along, Roger lost mostly to him.

In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s there was tougher competition. Nevertheless Rosewall and Laver won 23 and 19 majors respectively.
 
In the 50's and 60's there wasn't toughest competition. Tennis is much harder now, physically and mentally. The end of the 70's, beginning of the 80's are the strongest era of tennis (Connors, Mcenroe, Borg, Vilas, Nastase, young Lendl, etc.).

And if there aren't all time greats in Federer's era is because he won almost everything. Roddick and Hewitt would have fantastic careers if it wasn't for Federer (not at the level of Borg, Lendl or Agassi but in the league of Becker/Edberg probably). How many times were they denied by Federer??. Not to mention he was in the era of the best claycourter ever. If not he would have AT LEAST 4 Roland Garros and would be sitting on 20+ slams.
 
But I've stated this before, Fed continue to win more means he's moving further ahead of the past retired players. After 2009 RG, Fed was already in the discussion as the goat along with Laver(ahead of Sampras, borg). He could have retired at that time and still holds the top position. But since he continue to add more trophies/records to his unparalleled career, he earn his place to be the greatest. The same with Phelps who continue to add more medals after London, and is now the undisputed greatest swimmer. If you can't denied Phelps, then you can't denied Federer either. And they have not vested in the present era, because Jordan was in the 90s and Ruth was in the 20s.

You're make an assumption that Federer is already ahead of anyone who ever played. It is not a fact.

Federer may be ahead or not but you make like it's a given that Federer is the GOAT.

There are too many contenders for the throne of the greatest ever in tennis to make that assumption.
 
Last edited:
Hello fans,

TMF: Why do you exaggerate Federer's achievements? Roger won many majors against relatively weak competition. For years Roddick was his main opponent. Roddick is hardly an all-time great. When Nadal came along, Roger lost mostly to him.

In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s there was tougher competition. Nevertheless Rosewall and Laver won 23 and 19 majors respectively.

The only one who is exaggerating anyone's achievements is you. You are free to whine about how Federer's open majors don't count for whatever reason, but to count tournaments as open majors when they are clearly not is the exaggeration.

Domination implies a lack of competition by definition. If someone were to burst onto the scene in the next few years and dominate Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray when they are all in their best years, would that mean that in fact this era is weak as well, or is that newcomer just that good?

The fact is that there is a much larger pool of players who are interested in becoming professional tennis players now than ever before, and it is reasonable to expect that on average the tour is more talented now than ever.

I think what TMF was getting at is that you can make up excuses and play around with hypotheticals all you want, but at the end of the day the most successful tennis player who has ever lived is Federer. This doesn't necessarily imply that he is the goat, but it is probably the only indicator that isn't based off of pure bias.
 
Exactly. He could have won 5, 7, or 9 slams, no one knows. And how many would he win if the two fields were combined? That would be even harder to win.

Most likely Pancho Gonzalez would have won a huge amount of majors as Tilden, Rosewall, Laver would have if they could enter those tournaments. Gonzalez crushed players like Trabert and Cooper who won three majors in a year. I doubt if he would have won only nine majors considering his dominance and his longevity as a player.
 
This, again.

Yes. This again.

It's also facetious to theoretically gift people achievements they didn't achieve. They either got them, or they didn't - no matter what the reason was.

I haven't theoretically gifted people anything. I said that Gonzales was banned from the majors from age 21 to age 40. That is a fact, and has unquestionably harmed his reputation with the fans who only judge all time greatness by the number of mainstream majors. That should not be the case.

Hello fans,

TMF: Why do you exaggerate Federer's achievements? Roger won many majors against relatively weak competition. For years Roddick was his main opponent. Roddick is hardly an all-time great. When Nadal came along, Roger lost mostly to him.

Let's not go down that road. Federer can only beat who is in front of him, and he has won 17 majors.

In the 50's and 60's there wasn't toughest competition. Tennis is much harder now, physically and mentally. The end of the 70's, beginning of the 80's are the strongest era of tennis (Connors, Mcenroe, Borg, Vilas, Nastase, young Lendl, etc.).

Gonzales had serious challenges from Segura, Sedgman and Hoad during his career. You think that's easy? Back in the 1950s and 1960s, you couldn't even sit down at the change of ends. Fitness in those days was much more based on stamina than today. These days, there's the wear and the tear on players' joints. Whether that's harder depends on your point of view.

I recently watched the 1970 Dunlop Sydney Open final between Laver and Rosewall. After Laver won in 5 sets, Rosewall was allowed to leave the trophy ceremony early because he had a men's doubles final to play straight after the ceremony! Yes, easy.

Most likely Pancho Gonzalez would have won a huge amount of majors as Tilden, Rosewall, Laver would have if they could enter those tournaments. Gonzalez crushed players like Trabert and Cooper who won three majors in a year. I doubt if he would have won only nine majors considering his dominance and his longevity as a player.

Exactly. Tony Trabert won the French Championships, Wimbledon and the US Championships in 1955 to become the dominant amateur player in the world. He turned professional in the fall of that year and was pitted against Gonzales on a 101 match pro tour. The two men had a really intense feud, and Gonzales crushed Trabert by 74-27. Ironically, Trabert beat Gonzales in 5 sets in the 1956 French Pro final, which stopped Gonzales winning the professional Grand Slam as Gonzales won the Wembley Pro, US Pro and Tournament of Champions that year.

Another example. The best amateur player of 1959 was Alex Olmedo, who won the Australian Championships and Wimbledon that year. Olmedo turns professional and goes on a 4-man 1960 world pro tour with Gonzales, Rosewall and Segura, and Olmedo only wins 11 out of 55 matches against these 3 men to finish in 4th place.

Ashley Cooper, who won 3 of the 4 amateur majors in 1958, soon burned out in the professional game altogether in the early 1960s. When Cooper and Mal Anderson, the 2 best amateur players of 1958 went on the 4-man 1959 world pro tour with Gonzales and Hoad, they failed to win a single match against Gonzales, but won enough matches against Hoad to allow Gonzales to win the tour.
 
Last edited:
Mustard,

I don't deny Federer his 17 majors. I only believe that he would not have won such an amount if players like Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl had been his opponents.
 
Back
Top