The Super Athlete...

Mr. Kennedy

Really? Well, I'm pretty sure the average Amercian didn't know we have a cricket team. I might be willing to watch a game if ESPN aired cricket coverage.

Visit and shop for video games at my Amazon-based store, also get discounted HD DVDs while they last.

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

We have a Cricket team? That is news to me.

Miakal

I'd be absolutely shocked if U.S. didn't have a cricket team. We're a large country, somewhere someone is playing virtually every sport out there. A lot of times athletes will do more than one sport. I'm sure a lot of the cricket players also do baseball.

Dr. Giganto

Going back to the original topic, I think there's kind of a paradox here. For instance, because of evolution, today's athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster than athletes a few decades ago (such as Babe Ruth). But the thing is, the competition is also getting bigger, stronger, and faster. So, you probably won't see another player dominate baseball like Ruth did, or football like Jim Brown did, or maybe even hockey like Gretzky did.

I would be willing to bet that at least 50% of today's major leaguers would be better than Babe Ruth if they could go back in a time machine and play in the 1920's. So, even though today's athletes may be better than athletes back then, they won't be as legendary as somebody like Ruth

Tyler Durden

When we have these "comparing era" debates over here, I prefer to just stick to the "if they were great in that era...they would be still have been great in this one" school of thought.

Disco Raheem

I don't agree with that at all Bulldong.

For starters, the population of the world has more than tripled in the last century. So if you've got more people to choose from, logic states the level of competition will be higher as well as more closely matched.

On top of that, there is D's comment that athletic people are becoming faster and stronger than ever before. Maybe they just have better steroids.

Tyler Durden

Well with the population thing, I'm not talking about your average schmo sportsman I'm referring as the thread says to the true greats of the sport. They would be still be greats whatever the era.

If they were great in the 1930's then with modern training (and steroids lol!!) they would still be great now.

Disco you are an awesome drug dealing, chick banging guy now....and you would still have been exactly that in the 30's.....'cept you would have died a lot sooner and never really got to enjoy the whole shaved women thing so much.

Bulldong!!! I like it. I have a dong like a bull.....mmmmm.

K Jay

This thread has gone on far too long without mentioning either Muhammed Ali or Pele. Or far that matter Carl Lewis, an athlete at the top of more than one discipline. But for future greats, In my chosen sport I would say Wayne Rooney will one day be comparable to all the greats in soccer, and just to keep you North Americans happy so could Freddy Adu. In boxing I really think Ricky Hatton will go on to unify the toughest weight division in the world right now and either him of Floyd Mayweather could in three years time (if they stay undefeated) be classified the best pound for pound ever. Im not sure on your North American sports of Skewed rugby and baserounders, but wouldnt Payton Manning be considered special if the Colts get all the way undefeated?

I had a sig, once.

Dr. Giganto

Actually, in my original post I started to talk about Ali, Pele, and Peyton Manning, but then I deleted it just to condense my thoughts. I guess great minds think alike

If Peyton Manning either leads the Colts to an undefeated season, or wins a few Super Bowls, he would probably be considered the "super" football player. He already has the touchdown record.

And, to tie in with one of my earlier posts, Mike Tyson in his prime would have killed Ali in his prime.

Tyler Durden

Mmmmmm. Controversial....and wrong!!!