Best Athlete in the World?

[Biggles]

Is it possible that Manny Pacquiao is not only the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world, but also currently the top athlete in the world (given that Mr. Woods is "otherwise occupied") ?

 

[Northstar]

There is no such thing as "best athlete in the world" only "best at their respective sport". I would say Tiger wouldn't stand a chance in the ring against Manny and Manny wouldn't be able to match Tiger on the golf course.

 

[niky]

But Manny is better at karaoke!

(that would be racist if I weren't Filipino... but hell... it's an accurate stereotype... )

-

Seriously, Manny is a phenom. I didn't really respect him that much at first... just another flyweight with more speed than brains and terrific hands. Great, but there are a lot of flyweights who are lightning quick and aggressive.

But since he started training under Roach, he's really matured. He's a dangerous fighter now... speed, toughness and brains. It's amazing that someone can go up so many weight divisions and still be competitive... in his case... not just competitive... but dominant.

There will probably never be another like him... which is sad... for a country that fell head over heels for Muhammad Ali during the "Thrilla in Manila", Pacquiao is something of a demi-God. He's our Ayrton Senna... our Pele... our Yao Ming...

Best athlete in the world? Hard to say... there are too many deserving of that title. But best boxer at the moment? Definitely, yes.

 

[daan]

Tiger Woods an "athlete"? He walks around a park, or gets driven round in a buggy, hitting a ball with a club every now and then. Not exactly the definition of athlete.

Usain Bolt was who I thought of when I read the thread title.

 

[maximumattack]

It's very difficult to define what makes someone the best athlete in the world, is it because they can do things that no other person on earth can do?

If it is this then I would nominate Mariusz Pudzianowski for his dominance of the Worlds Strongest Man competitions in recent years, no other person has ever won as many titles as him or is as consistent across all events as him.

 

[Cocomoto]

Feel the same here, daan. When i saw Usain Bolt meters ahed of others competitions, looking back and smilling...

 

[Max Powers]

Two words, Alexander Ovechkin. He has a ridiculous combo of speed, strength, stamina, and finesse, and plays one of the most physically taxing sports on earth.

If we're talking about all time and not currently, I would change it to Mario Lemieux, who I consider the most physically gifted athlete of all time.

 

[Dijital Majik]

Anderson Silva?

BJ Penn?

When you think of the wide variety of skills MMA fighters have to be competant at, I'd be hard pressed to see past these dominant two. Each is a world class striker and world class grappler, and both have supreme conditioning and toughness. And talent.

 

[Blitz187]

But Manny is better at karaoke!

(that would be racist if I weren't Filipino... but hell... it's an accurate stereotype... )

-

My significant other is also Filipino and I know what you mean.... What is it with Filipinos and karaoke??

On topic: I would have to agree that there is probably not a best athlete in the world... but there is a best athlete in their respective sports as stated earlier in a post.

 

[Der Alta]

Define "athlete" and we can have a fantastic discussion of the subject. As it is right now, Jay Cutler could be determined as the best Athlete in the world. So could Tiger Woods.

 

[Biggles]

There is no such thing as "best athlete in the world" only "best at their respective sport". I would say Tiger wouldn't stand a chance in the ring against Manny and Manny wouldn't be able to match Tiger on the golf course.

Obviously. It's just a "talking point".

Ovechkin? Better than Gretzky?

I'm not a big boxing fan, but since I first saw Pacquiao fight against Marco Antonia Barerra a few years back, I have been following his career. The speed, commitment & mental concentration of this guy is really something to behold. I think the boxing world has been slow to acknowledge him, because as a Filipino he doesn't "fit the mould" of what a world-class boxer should be ie. there's an element of racism.

I tend to favour more of an "all-round athlete": over-all athleticism, hand-to-eye co-ordination, "game-intelligence", rather someone like Usain Bolt, whose remarkable ability is so narrowly - although admittedly measurably - defined.

 

[daan]

Technically, the world's best athlete should be a decathlete like Roman Sebrele or Bryan Clay.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121392004594090355.html

 

[Omnis]

Basically, if you took everyone in the world to an NFL combine, the guy who would come out on top would be the best athlete.

And then have them do an Ironman and see what happens.

Ahtleticism has nothing to do with technique.

 

[Biggles]

Technically, the world's best athlete should be a decathlete like Roman Sebrele or Bryan Clay.

The referenced list seems heavily (& very questionably) North American weighted: 6 out of 10. Sidney Crosby? Jeremy Wariner & not Usain Bolt? Alex Rodriguez? (But equally, why pick Liu Xiang in particular?)

Decathletes train specifically to excel at a range of track & field events which require a perfect balance of strength, speed & fitness. But the intangibles of hand-eye (or foot-eye) co-ordination, & "game intelligence" don't enter into it much, & "gymnastic" ability - extreme body control, not so much.

I would lean more towards exceptional soccer players or tennis players - sports that are intensely competitive & require a wide range of skills as well as fundamental athleticism.

But there, gratifyingly justifying my OP , at number three on the list is Mr. Floyd Merryweather hisself. We'll soon find out if Pretty Boy deserves to be on that list rather than Manny Pacquiao...

 

[Biggles]

Basically, if you took everyone in the world to an NFL combine, the guy who would come out on top would be the best athlete.

And then have them do an Ironman and see what happens.

Ahtleticism has nothing to do with technique.

 

[Max Powers]

Ovechkin? Better than Gretzky?

In terms of physical ability absolutely. Also notice I was considering current players.

Gretzky was not the most physically gifted athlete, he was just an incredibly smart player with great hockey sense, which made him the best ever at his sport. If we're talking about the best physical athlete to ever play in the NHL, I would put my vote in for Mario Lemieux. Gretzky will go down as the best and most productive player ever, but Lemieux was far and away more physically gifted than Gretzky.

 

[Omnis]

Why are you rolleyesing my post? The Mario Lemieux argument makes my point perfectly. Wayne Gretzky is far and away the better hockey player, but he's not the better athlete.

Kimbo Slice has monster athleticism but he sucked as a football player and sucks as a fighter.

JaMarcus Russell is a very very athletic but he is a terrible quarterback both mentally and as a passer.

Athleticism is only concerned with tangibles. It's the technique and the intangibles that make someone great at whatever they do, and when you combine a freak athlete with excellent intangibles and flawless technique, you get the legends, heroes, and superstars of a sport.

 

[crooky369]

Is it possible that Manny Pacquiao is not only the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world, but also currently the top athlete in the world (given that Mr. Woods is "otherwise occupied") ?

👎 You can't say that until he has at least beaten Mayweather. Some people seem to think the fight is a foregone conclusion but I would never go as far to say Mayweather is the underdog.

 

[Biggles]

Why are you rolleyesing my post?

Your reply is so, err ... NFLcentric!

Because you are an NFL aficionado you see athleticism in terms of the extreme, but very limited range of abilities required to play football - a game that has reduced the participants to muscle-twitch cogs in a big machine. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen football behemoths mess-up the simple athletic endeavour of picking up a dropped ball rolling on the ground. Focusing exclusively on strength, power or speed ignores all the other less obvious athletic attributes that go to make a rounded athlete ( I would never describe Kimbo as having "monster athleticism" - maybe just the "monster" part. ).

Track & field is naturally also concerned with limited & clearly defined abilities. I'm much more interested in the intangibles that lift an athlete out of the ordinary & make him or her extraordinary, aside from, or even in spite of, their purely physical attributes. Wayne Gretzky is a perfect example of this. Or how about Diego Maradona, the best soccer player of his generation, able to control & at times completely dominate games at the highest level - a stubby little guy standing 5'5" in his stockinged feet?

You can't say that until he has at least beaten Mayweather. Some people seem to think the fight is a foregone conclusion but I would never go as far to say Mayweather is the underdog.

I don't think the fight is a foregone conclusion by any means - just pointing out that the panel of (so-called) experts chose Mayweather for their top ten list. If Manny does beat Mayweather, he would certainly deserve to be on that list in place of Mayweather.

 

[NISM0_SKYLINE]

I think Ovechkin is the best current player, but overall he has a little bit of a way to go. But I think he will some day I mean he scored his first goal what, 30 minutes into his career? He's just an amazing player.

I have to vote for Mario Andretti. I know it's racing, but still Daytona 500 winner, Indy 500 winner, Le Mans winner, F1 Champion, and countless other things. He could race any car and win with it in any series.

I also have to bring up Michael Phelps. I don't swim often, but there is no way I could sweim like that. I know he's trained his entire life, but still thats is an amazing feat to do.

 

[niky]

It's an old list (mid-2008). It was only recently that Manny surpassed Mayweather's record of number of weight divisions won and inherited the title "Best Pound for Pound Boxer". And his dominance of weight divisions will be hard to beat, unless someone can figure out how to go from flyweight to heavyweight and stay in fighting form...

👎 You can't say that until he has at least beaten Mayweather. Some people seem to think the fight is a foregone conclusion but I would never go as far to say Mayweather is the underdog.

Mayweather has never lost. Pacquiao has lost quite a few. Why? Well... there were times in the past where Pacquiao has lacked the mindset and concentration of a champion. He used to be "all fists, no brains". He was still electrifying to watch in his amateur/local fights (undefeated there, completely), as no one was as fast as he was.

A Manny Pacquiao fight in the early days was predictable. The bell rings on the first round. Pacquiao throws fifty punches. Ninety percent of that flurry connects. The other guy hits the floor.

When he got to the big leagues, it wasn't that easy. In the early days, when he wasn't smart enough or strong enough, he'd lose a decision, even after knocking a guy out early on, by losing interest in the fight and throwing away too many rounds.

But now? Manny has improved by learning. He's taken on fighters who actually had a chance of beating him. He's sometimes lost, but that's from taking on tough fights. In his recent fights against guys who've also fought Mayweather, he's dispatched of them quicker than Mayweather. Cotto is the one guy who (almost) went the distance, but that's because after getting knocked out early, he tried to keep out of Manny's reach.

I think it was dela Hoya (or somebody) who said: "his punches weren't that hard at first... I was thinking: 'I could take this' (double "! w00t!), and then I was on the floor..."

Yeah, I give Floyd good chances, too... but Manny doesn't have anything left to prove. More belts, beaten Mayweather's foes faster and more decisively, and in the better condition at the moment. It's Mayweather who's got something to prove now. One thing in Mayweather's favor is the Philippine elections. Pacquiao is running for a Congressional seat, which may distract him from his training.

 

[Omnis]

Your reply is so, err ... NFLcentric!

Because you are an NFL aficionado you see athleticism in terms of the extreme, but very limited range of abilities required to play football - a game that has reduced the participants to muscle-twitch cogs in a big machine. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen football behemoths mess-up the simple athletic endeavour of picking up a dropped ball rolling on the ground. Focusing exclusively on strength, power or speed ignores all the other less obvious athletic attributes that go to make a rounded athlete ( I would never describe Kimbo as having "monster athleticism" - maybe just the "monster" part. ).

Track & field is naturally also concerned with limited & clearly defined abilities. I'm much more interested in the intangibles that lift an athlete out of the ordinary & make him or her extraordinary, aside from, or even in spite of, their purely physical attributes. Wayne Gretzky is a perfect example of this. Or how about Diego Maradona, the best soccer player of his generation, able to control & at times completely dominate games at the highest level - a stubby little guy standing 5'5" in his stockinged feet?

Speed and Strength are the only athletic attributes. F=MA. Everything else is technique. Track and Field is called Athletics for a reason (although, ironically, technique here is more important than most other sports). I used NFL football as my example because I think football is the sport which relies least on technique and is most purely reliant on the players' athleticism. They can't even jump on a football, right? That's why the NFL combine evaluates what it does (athleticism) and not technical prowess.

I think what you're asking with this thread is not who is the best athlete, but who is the most functionally proficient person of their discipline. In other words, who has best put together technical mastery with athletic excellence.

 

[niky]

Same can be said about Rugby.... which doesn't even force you to pass overhand...

 

[Biggles]

Speed and Strength are the only athletic attributes. F=MA. Everything else is technique. Track and Field is called Athletics for a reason (although, ironically, technique here is more important than most other sports). I used NFL football as my example because I think football is the sport which relies least on technique and is most purely reliant on the players' athleticism. They can't even jump on a football, right? That's why the NFL combine evaluates what it does (athleticism) and not technical prowess.

I think what you're asking with this thread is not who is the best athlete, but who is the most functionally proficient person of their discipline. In other words, who has best put together technical mastery with athletic excellence.

I disagree. What you are calling "technical mastery" covers much more than simply "technique". Complex sports activities require a wider range of attributes than just speed & strength - in football consider the varied (& hard to measure) qualities required of a great quarter-back. In a similar way Maradona was a great player not because of "technique", not because he could kick the ball harder, but because his intuitive understanding of the game, his ability to place a pass, his timing, his body control, etc. were outstanding & more than compensated for his physical shortcomings.

(Rugby is very different from American Football - the players are on the field all the time, receive little or no in-game coaching or instructions, & are required to respond spontaneously & creatively on a continuing basis throughout the game, which often flows for many minutes without interruption. Furthermore, in any game each player is likely to be called upon at some time to run with the ball, kick the ball, pass the ball, tackle etc., unlike football where most players' roles are very specific & limited.)

Manny has improved by learning. He's taken on fighters who actually had a chance of beating him. He's sometimes lost,

As a "mature fighter" Manny has only lost once, to Erik Morales in a decision. He then went on to decisively defeat Morales in two subsequent match-ups.

 

[A2K78]

Why he's the greatest? For starters he has the championships and records to prove it. Ontop of that when for somebody like Rossi it really take great physical stamina to handle a bike like a YZR-M1 at extremely high speeds.

 

[Omnis]

I disagree. What you are calling "technical mastery" covers much more than simply "technique". (1) Complex sports activities require a wider range of attributes than just speed & strength - in football consider the varied (& hard to measure) qualities required of a great quarter-back. (2)In a similar way Maradona was a great player not because of "technique", not because he could kick the ball harder, but because his intuitive understanding of the game, his ability to place a pass, his timing, his body control, etc. were outstanding & more than compensated for his physical shortcomings.

(Rugby is very different from American Football - the players are on the field all the time, receive little or no in-game coaching or instructions, & are required to respond spontaneously & creatively on a continuing basis throughout the game, which often flows for many minutes without interruption. Furthermore, in any game each player is likely to be called upon at some time to run with the ball, kick the ball, pass the ball, tackle etc., unlike football where most players' roles are very specific & limited.)



As a "mature fighter" Manny has only lost once, to Erik Morales in a decision. He then went on to decisively defeat Morales in two subsequent match-ups.

(1) I never said that they didn't. Athleticism boils down to only speed and strength. Quarterback is an obvious exception to why I used football to make my point. If Rugby suits it better, that's fine.

(2) A great athlete isn't necessarily a great player, and vice versa. This is where you're getting it twisted. By your Maradona example, you are saying that he was a great player (and there is no doubt that he is one of the best of all time) but was not a great athlete.

 

[Gabkicks]

...
If it is this then I would nominate Mariusz Pudzianowski for his dominance of the Worlds Strongest Man competitions in recent years...

You know Mariusz is entering MMA? He has a kyokushin karate background, but his technique doesnt look very good cus he is rusty @ kyokushin and new to fighting i guess.. His opponent was nothing to rave about either . completely overwhelmed as soon as marius started coming at him.

 

[Biggles]

(1) I never said that they didn't. Athleticism boils down to only speed and strength. Quarterback is an obvious exception to why I used football to make my point. If Rugby suits it better, that's fine.

(2) A great athlete isn't necessarily a great player, and vice versa. This is where you're getting it twisted. By your Maradona example, you are saying that he was a great player (and there is no doubt that he is one of the best of all time) but was not a great athlete.

You are defining athleticism in a particularly narrow way. I would define it very differently, as in Webster's definition:

physical prowess consisting variously of coordination, dexterity, vigor, stamina, etc.

I would precisely put the emphasis on "coordination & dexterity" rather than raw strength or speed (as in running speed - there are many other types of speed: Manny Pacquiao's extraordinary hand-speed for example). I think football is almost uniquely focused on strength & speed (which, at its worst, turns it into a ploddingly scripted & unimaginative sport), but most other sports are not.

 

[Omnis]

You are defining athleticism in a particularly narrow way. I would define it very differently, as in Webster's definition:

physical prowess consisting variously of coordination, dexterity, vigor, stamina, etc.

I would precisely put the emphasis on "coordination & dexterity" rather than raw strength or speed (as in running speed - there are many other types of speed: Manny Pacquiao's extraordinary hand-speed for example). I think football is almost uniquely focused on strength & speed (which, at its worst, turns it into a ploddingly scripted & unimaginative sport), but most other sports are not.

I'm not talking about merely running speed. Are you really looking that narrowly at what I've said? It's all about the application of force.

 

[crooky369]

I think Ovechkin is the best current player, but overall he has a little bit of a way to go. But I think he will some day I mean he scored his first goal what, 30 minutes into his career? He's just an amazing player.

I have to vote for Mario Andretti. I know it's racing, but still Daytona 500 winner, Indy 500 winner, Le Mans winner, F1 Champion, and countless other things. He could race any car and win with it in any series.

I also have to bring up Michael Phelps. I don't swim often, but there is no way I could sweim like that. I know he's trained his entire life, but still thats is an amazing feat to do.

He never won Le Mans. Graham Hill did win Le Mans which is more prestigious than Daytona and also the F1 championship and the Indy 500.