my definition is a bit more than just sport excellence. it's a cultural impact. so much so, a grandmother in a foreign country who knows nothing about sport would stop what she was doing and watch x.
No grandmother outside of US knows who Brady is, maybe except as the ex-husband of Gisele Bundchen.
I stopped reading your list after seeing Ovechkin. You have been disqualified!
Ovechkin, Jagr, and Howe are all more complete players than Gretzky ever was, and would be great on any line, and against any opposition, in any era—unlike Gretzky.
I love Gretzky, but points totals don’t tell the full story.
It’s the same reasoning that people have for picking Wilt in basketball—he could do it all, against anybody, with any supporting cast…and, he did. Also Olajuwon, IIRC.
Lewis Hamilton? statistically the best f1 racer by far
schumacher gets disqualified for his dirty racing that nearly killed drivers multiple times. Was it Senna he tried to ram off the track and got a season ban for? He was a cool dude, but behind the wheel he was a total goblin
All we know about Hamilton is that he was faster than his team mate. Put him in an average car & he's an average driver.
Individual World Championships gold medals: Ledecky 14, Hoszzu 9.
I don't know if Hoszzu has officially retired, but she is basically done. (Failed to medal in her home country last year.) Ledecky still has multiple Olympics and World Championships ahead of her.
In case you think Ledekcy is just a "non-sprint freestyler" she won the US Championships in 400 IM last year. Her winning time would have been 3rd in the World Championships. She does not race IM in the Olympics and World Championships because she already has too many freestyle races. If she focused on IM, she could probably win an Olympic or World title. (She would need to work on breast, but her back and fly are already very good.)
She won gold medals in 200, 400, 800 and 1500 in the same World Championships. That's like winning 800, 1500, 3000. and 5000 in running. What kind of an absurd range is that?
Her time in 800 and 1500 would rank in the world top 100 among men. And she would qualify for the US Olympic trial for men in both events. No other woman could claim that, including Hoszzu.
She deserves the GOAT title more than most people mentioned on this thread.
I have nothing but the highest regard for Ledecky, but her breast sucks—but recently did look much improved to my eyes.
Unless I am mistaken, she went 4:35.77 at Philips 66 last year. In December, a 16-yr-old Summer McIntosh went 4:28.61 at the US Open for # 3 all-time. Hosszu is way down at 4:26.36 in the terrible Rio pool. Ledecky isn’t even in the top 25 for the event. The young women, like Grimes, are dominating. OTOH Hosszu is not only a distant (for now) WR-holder in the 400 IM, but she is also the 200IM WR-holder, #11 all-time in 200 back, #13 all-time in the 100 back, #25 all-time in the 200 free, and #6 all-time in the 200 fly.
Ledecky’s entire claim to fame at this point is 200-1500 free, where she is of course the GOAT, male or female—but she is hardly the best swimmer.
Hosszu is the female equivalent of Phelps, the GOAT all-around female swimmer. FOR NOW. She could soon be dethroned by one of the crop of young women who are currently kicking azz LC—McInosh, Grimes, etc. They are amazing.
I stopped reading your list after seeing Ovechkin. You have been disqualified!
Ovechkin, Jagr, and Howe are all more complete players than Gretzky ever was, and would be great on any line, and against any opposition, in any era—unlike Gretzky.
I love Gretzky, but points totals don’t tell the full story.
It’s the same reasoning that people have for picking Wilt in basketball—he could do it all, against anybody, with any supporting cast…and, he did. Also Olajuwon, IIRC.
Lara is probably 3rd on the list (Sachin being second) but is not even on the same planet as Bradman's dominance. I mean he wasn't even the best player of his own era, nevermind all time.
281 straight weeks at #1, almost 5 1/2 years. Nobody else has cracked 100 weeks.
Jack was also dominant, but nowhere near the depth of fields during Tiger’s reign.
Nicklaus faced far more all-timers than Woods when competing for Majors.
At the time Nicklaus was at his peak, there were maybe 8-10 players realistically capable of winning majors. So naturally a bunch of them won multiples and cemented themselves as greats. Now there are 200+ guys who on their day that can win, the depth is ridiculous. Someone who wins 5 majors today is probably the equivalent of 15 in Jack's day. And I'm a huge Nicklaus fanboy, but you can't compare eras. Tiger might have won 30 or 40 in the same era.