David Williams wrote:I wouldn't go for Bolt over several other athletes (Carl Lewis, for one), but at least you can be pretty confident there is no-one in the world who even has the capability to be faster than him.
I've always thought of Carl Lewis as a bit overrated. Obviously he was great and everything, but when it comes to being the greatest, someone like Michael Johnson was far more dominant than him. At the sprints, he was at the top for a long time, but he was generally at the top without really being that much above the others. He didn't ever destroy the world record at 100m. He sort of edged it down to 9.86 in 1991. And speaking of 1991, that was the year when someone else took the long jump world record from Bob Beamon. He was great because he was at the top for so long, but he didn't move the boundaries.
As for Bolt, if he continues like this, you could probably call him the greatest ever track athlete after not very long, but as for no-one in the world having the capability to be faster, I'd have to disagree. Think of all the millions of people in Africa (and other places) who simply haven't or won't go into athletics.
JimBentley wrote:How about Jackie Joyner-Kersee? For a while, she was so far ahead of her heptathlon rivals that it was a bit silly and her world record from nearly twenty years ago has never been remotely challenged since. She was also best in the world at the long jump for a good while, and must've been in the top ten for 100m hurdles and 200m at the same time, all while remaining good enough at such diverse disciplines as high jump, javelin and shot put to retain her heptathlon domination. Amazing.
I generally wouldn't rate these multiple discipline athletes as great because I tend to think that they are there because they've failed at single discipline events. Jack of all trades, master of none. And also, it's always an arbitrary hotch-potch of events so it could be someone else if it was defined slightly differently.
Obviously Joyner-Kersee was a single discipline athelete as well so that stands her in better stead, but I don't think she was a massive great at these and would still be relying on her reputation from the heptathlon.
Then there's the obvious consideration that she wasn't as good as men anyway! (And that the long jump is for failed sprinters - the triple jump being for failed long jumpers) I'm not entirely joking either - would a white sprinter that could run 100m in 9.7s be a consideration for greatest? Being a woman or being white are just two different handicaps. Why does one get separated off and have its own greats? And how can any human be a great sprinter when many other animals would trounce them?
Basically, I'm generally happy to talk about greatest track and field athletes, but when something is basically a pure physical ability, you can't compare it to other sports where skill is involved. If you are in doubt, think whether an animal or a brute force machine could beat a human at the event. As far as I might ever try to answer the question of the thread, I would never say someone where the aforemnetioned applies.
) crowned as World Champions in these games/sports. So for me, Taylor and Ronnie are two of the most skilled individuals in modern history but not 'sportsmen'.
)
