There is a difference wrote:
1) I don't think Carl Lewis should even be in the top 100, let alone the top 10. Granted he was superb at what he did but does anyone have the impression he would have been great at other sports (football, basketball, soccer...) if he had focused on them instead? I do not. And to me this is what it means to be a great all-around athlete.
2) Kirk Gibson??? You must know something that I don't know.
You have a good point with Carl Lewis, but it's hard to ignore his versatility on the track. He was simply the best at the 100m, 200m, and long jump. To that end, he is considered one of the best Olympians of all time, winning Sports Illustrated's "Olympian of the Century" Award, along with his 23 medals throughout the Olympic Games, World Championships, and Pan-Am Games. Lewis won 9 gold medals and one silver throughout his Olympic career, setting world records in each of his 3 events (100m, 200m, indoor long jump). Kirk Gibson was a stud. Not only was Gibson NL MVP, ALCS MVP, 2x WS Champion, and a Silver Slugger Award Winner, but he was an integral part of the Michigan State football team in the 1970s. Gibson was a standout wide receiver at MSU, leading the team to a Big Ten title and a Rose Bowl appearance. He set Big 10 and MSU receiving records and appeared in both the Hula Bowl and Senior bowl, while making multiple All-America teams. Gibson was the quintessential all-around athlete. Not to mention, two of Gibson's homers are considered in the top of sports' moments.