Are we in the greatest sports era for the greatest ever?

[Slyfox696]

I heard something (fairly unrelated) on the radio the other day and it triggered my thoughts on this. Are we currently living in the greatest sports era for the greatest ever?

For example, Tom Brady is considered by many to be the greatest quarterback of all time (and thus, by extension, the best football player ever, given the importance of the position). LeBron James is considered by many to be the greatest NBA player of all time. The argument can be made Roger Federer is the greatest men's tennis player ever. I think almost everyone would agree Serena Williams is the greatest women's tennis player ever. Mike Trout is making his case as arguably the greatest baseball player ever (longevity is huge factor here). Tiger Woods is arguably the most transcendent golf player ever, even if his total majors aren't the most, and most people agree if not for injuries/personal strife, he likely would have smashed the major record. While I don't watch soccer much, Lionel Messi is increasingly being called the greatest footballer ever. As short/incomplete as the history of women's basketball is, it is certainly a reasonable argument to call Diana Taurasi the greatest women's basketball player ever.

Certainly not all of these players are in their primes. No one is arguing Tiger Woods today is the greatest ever or that Mike Trout is definitely the best ever if he retired today. However, we are currently living in an era where many of the best players in their sport's history are currently playing right now. Pretty awesome to think about.

Thoughts on this?

[A11]

The advances in technology and sports science plus greater expectations in terms of professionalism means that all sports would/should currently be peaking.

My actual opinion on the actual argument of greatest of all time depends on how you evaluate it, if you look at it from pure athleticism and actual ability its probably likely that each generation surpasses the previous because they get taller, stronger,etc. plus they see what his generation can do practice that skill and improve it in their own way and then the next generation sees that and improves on the skill a bit more and so on and so on.
But if your going to look at it from an achievement point of view, because thats a more objective measure, you cant really compare until everyone's finished up and they arent going to achieve anything else

[#AbsoluteUnit]

You make great cases Sly for pretty much every sport. I will not say that you are wrong. Just two quick points:

1.)

Tom Brady is considered by many to be the greatest quarterback of all time

I don't have anything against this statement. However, Brady may be the "greatest quarterback" - in his generation. No, he's got a legit case going for him. 5 Super Bowl wins? Awesome! Yet....... he also has 3 Super Bowl losses. Nothing wrong about that. If we're going to discuss "the greatest QB ever," I'd say Joe Montana.

But I will not argue that Brady has been this generations QB. I will not deny that.

2.)

LeBron James is considered by many to be the greatest NBA player of all time.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I will not argue to you that he is or isn't. Phenomenal athlete. By far one of the greatest players of the game. But again, like I said in point 1, he is this generations greatest player, bar none.

I totally messed up my response. I did not mean to debate with you on each point you made. My fault.

As for your question, is this the greatest sports era? I honestly do not know. However, you have made a great reason for why this may be the greatest sports era. I will not deny that.

[klunderbunker]

A few things.

First of all, I'm not saying you're wrong about these people being the best ever, though I'm also not saying you're right. That's a debate for another time though.

One major thing though is access. You can grab your phone, watch ESPN, or check YouTube and see countless highlights of any big time modern athlete. LeBron James probably has more highlights than any modern athlete and they're available at your fingertips.

You know who you can't do that for? Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, Jack Nickalus, Jim Brown, and a host off others whose heyday was before ESPN and cameras covering everything. Right now, I have the NBA Eastern Conference Finals on TV, featuring LeBron James. This series has received extensive coverage with all kinds of analysis from journalists, former players and various other experts on basketball. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, the NBA Finals were aired on tape delay at 2am some years. Hardcore fans knew the players, but they had to go out of their way to see those people.

For a similar example, consider music. According to Billboard, Katy Perry has put out 28 songs (I'm assuming they mean that have made the charts) with 14 top ten hits and 9 number one hits. On the other hand, the Beatles, possibly the most influential and famous band of all time, had 71 songs with 34 top ten hits and 20 number ones. Now, if you look at the percentages of those, Perry has had about a third of her songs go to #1. The Beatles have had about 28%, but still less. Is Katy Perry a bigger star than the Beatles? Based on these numbers, in a way yes. Now, would anyone realistically suggest that? Of course not. Perry has gotten huge in the age of YouTube, the internet, and having cameras on celebrities every time they took a step. The Beatles had Billboard Magazine, the radio, and word of mouth for the most part.

The thing is, had we been able to see these people and go back and look at what some of them did, I'd be curious to see how many of them would still be considered all time greats (which, to be fair, could work both ways as people thought of as legends might not be as great as we've been told). The thing is though, we can see these people today and are constantly told how great they are. That plays a big part in their status and it's an advantage that earlier generations didn't have. You can still make some pretty fair comparisons, but it's a big thing to remember for one side in something like this.

[mrluck_07]

Coverage is very key. You also have to consider the level of competition an athlete went up against. It's easier to dominate against weaker opponents. But if this isn't the greatest era it certainly has an argument.

[Slyfox696]

One major thing though is access. You can grab your phone, watch ESPN, or check YouTube and see countless highlights of any big time modern athlete.

True, but what does that have to do with this? Sure, I can watch highlights of LeBron, but I can also see he's going to his eighth straight conference finals with three different teams (2 cities). I can see his performances in elimination games is probably the best all time. I can see see his stats. I can see Roger Federer has more grand slam victories than anyone in history. I can see Tiger Woods, before his injury, was on pace to smash the Majors wins record.

Sure, I can see more highlights, but how do the highlights erase the indisputable facts?

Also, I forgot to mention GSP for the UFC.

[klunderbunker]

True, but what does that have to do with this? Sure, I can watch highlights of LeBron, but I can also see he's going to his eighth straight conference finals with three different teams (2 cities). I can see his performances in elimination games is probably the best all time. I can see see his stats. I can see Roger Federer has more grand slam victories than anyone in history. I can see Tiger Woods, before his injury, was on pace to smash the Majors wins record.

Sure, I can see more highlights, but how do the highlights erase the indisputable facts?

Also, I forgot to mention GSP for the UFC.

Well for one thing, there's a lot more to greatness than stats. My point was it's a lot easier to call these people the greatest because we can see them so easily. That puts them higher up than the people we've only mainly heard of. Stats alone don't show indisputable facts.

[Slyfox696]

Well for one thing, there's a lot more to greatness than stats. My point was it's a lot easier to call these people the greatest because we can see them so easily. That puts them higher up than the people we've only mainly heard of. Stats alone don't show indisputable facts.

I'm not sure I agree. I'm aware of what George Mikan and Lou Gehrig did. I can see career victories of Jimmy Connors and Arnold Palmer. I can research the stats of Johnny Unitas.

I'm not sure I agree with you that accessibility makes them greater. In fact, I'd argue that in many cases it is the opposite. Because we can see their highlights, but we also see their lowlights.

[klunderbunker]

I'm not sure I agree. I'm aware of what George Mikan and Lou Gehrig did. I can see career victories of Jimmy Connors and Arnold Palmer. I can research the stats of Johnny Unitas.

True you can, but I put a lot of value into seeing them play. There are times where stats tell you everything (Wayne Gretzky, Cy Young, Michael Phelps being so far ahead of everyone else for example), but there are some cases where there's more to it than just numbers.

I'm not sure I agree with you that accessibility makes them greater. In fact, I'd argue that in many cases it is the opposite. Because we can see their highlights, but we also see their lowlights.

I'm not saying it instantly makes them greater. I'm saying it makes it easier to say they're greater if that makes sense.

[Slyfox696]

I'm saying it makes it easier to say they're greater if that makes sense.

Not really, but I don't have time for a five hour debate anymore. Adulthood and all.