v2 G.O.A.T The Last 8 Group 2

The second of today's groups pits cricket, football, swimming, golf and athletics against each other for your votes

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Don Bradman- Cricket- Championed by Fists of fury

"Sir Donald Bradman
Australia
Test record: 6,996 runs in 80 innings at an average of 99.94 (29 centuries)

It is a rare phenomenon indeed where an individual can be undisputedly and universally acknowledged as the finest to have ever participated in a sport. It is rarer still for that individual to be recognised as the greatest there ever will be, despite seemingly no human being beyond Mystic Meg and the recently unmasked Eric Bristow possessing the gift of foresight.

For Pele, there is Maradona. For Nicklaus, there is Woods. For ‘The Don’, there is no rival. He stands alone.

Such are the statistics of Donald George Bradman. Plying his trade throughout the 1930’s and 40’s in the famous ‘baggy green’ of Australia, Bradman compiled a record almost twice as formidable as anyone else in the history of Test cricket. In a sport harking back to 1877, that is an astonishing feat. Bradman’s final Test average of 99.94 grows all the more impressive when you consider that the widely recognised barometer for a modern batsman attaining greatness is, in comparison, a mere 50. For a sportsman to be so far afield of his predecessors, contemporaries and successors is surely unique.

Perhaps indicative of the supremacy asserted almost every time The Don walked to the crease, former Australia captain Bill Woodfull proclaimed Bradman to be “worth three batsmen to Australia.” Where a team scoring 300 in one day is classed as operating at a fairly brisk pace, Bradman once single handedly made 309 on the first day of a Test against England at Headingley. Such dominance of bat over ball was unusually rare in the age of uncovered pitches, and remains so in today’s comparatively batsman friendly era.

Despite being the holder of records that will likely never be challenged in anger, let alone broken, statistics are but one facet of what makes a great sportsman. It often takes a truly inspirational individual to transcend the sport within which they participate. Much as Muhammad Ali transcended the sport of boxing, Don Bradman transcended cricket. Bradman emerged during a period of great economic hardship in Australia, and through the sheer force of his on-field performances it is said gave happiness and hope to a populace in the midst of depression.

You can't tell youngsters today of the attraction of the fellow. I mean, business used to stop in the town when Bradman was playing and likely to go in - all the offices closed, the shops closed; everybody went up to see him play. – England bowler Bill Bowes, 1983

Bradman would go on to exhibit a further trait of any world class sportsman: success in the face of adversity. After scoring an extraordinary 974 runs at an average of 139.14 in the 1930 Ashes tour of England, Bradman was infamously targeted by hostile and aggressive ‘Bodyline’ bowling during the 1932-33 return series in Australia – a theory designed with the sole intention of taking Bradman’s wicket, whereby the English fast bowlers would deliberately target the body of the batsman with a packed leg-side cordon of fielders lying in wait – The Don was almost rendered mortal with a series average of 56.57 (still a world class average by anyone’s standards). It was his own controversial tactic of combating bodyline by backing away and hitting the ball in an unorthodox manner in to the vacant off-side that won Bradman plaudits for attempting to find a solution to Bodyline.

It should be noted that, despite the whole of Australia being in uproar over the “vicious and unsporting” tactics employed by the English captain Douglas Jardine, and despite his own misgivings, Bradman conducted himself with dignity throughout and fought the onslaught in the way he knew best – by scoring runs. ‘Bodyline’, or ‘fast leg theory’ as it was also known, would later be outlawed.

Somewhat ironically, and perhaps unfortunately, the great Don Bradman is as much remembered for his final innings than the unsurpassed genius that had carved a path of destruction through the cricketing world wielding but a plank of willow in the preceding years. Striding to the crease at The Oval in 1948, Bradman required a mere 4 runs from his final Test innings to ensure an overall perfect Test average of 100. Whether through the emotion stirred in The Don through the adulation of the English crowd and opponents as he walked out that day (as much cheers of relief that his utter dominion over England’s bowlers was nearing an end, perhaps?), or the cricketing Gods inflicting a cruel twist of fate as if to reclaim the immortality they had lent him, Bradman was bowled for a duck by Warwickshire leg-spinner Eric Hollies, thus ending his career with that infamous average of 99.94 – a now magical figure in its own right. It will never be bettered.

Next to Mr. Winston Churchill, he was the most celebrated man in England during the summer of 1948. His appearances throughout the country were like one continuous farewell matinée. A miracle has been removed from among us. So must ancient Italy have felt when she heard of the death of Hannibal – cricket writer R.C. Robertson-Glasgow upon Bradman’s retirement, 1949

Sir Donald Bradman died in February of 2001 aged 92. It would have come as a surprise to many that he failed to get out of the 90’s. There are numerous others with a rightful claim to being the greatest sportsman that ever lived, but in Bradman there has surely never been another so superior to their peers. A genius, an icon and a gentleman; The Don satisfies all of the criteria.

Sir Donald George Bradman was, without any question, the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games. – Wisden Almanack"

Pele- Football- Championed by- paperbag_puncher

"Only when I sat down to write this article did the sheer scale of what I was attempting to do hit me. This article should really write itself, yet there are no words that can accurately describe the greatness of 'The King of Football' There are few human beings throughout history in any walk of life who have reached the iconic status of Pele.
“My name is Ronald Reagan, I’m the President of the United States of America. But you don’t need to introduce yourself, because everyone knows who Pele is.”
Ronald Reagan

Like most young boys I grew up hearing stories of this mythical man from Brazil who could create magic with his feet. I’d always been told of his greatness and happily accepted it but I was doing the man a great disservice by simply accepting it. Only as I got older and researched further did I realise how great he actually was. I am genuinely grateful that I have agreed to write this piece as it has given me the opportunity to revisit and explore the career of arguably the greatest sports person to have graced this earth.

There is no doubt in my mind that Pele was the most complete player of those who are generally mentioned in the greatest ever debates. Blessed with an unbelievable combination of pace, power, balance and close control he beat defenders at will making everything look effortless. Capable of the unpredictable and the sublime he was very much ahead of his time. Two footed and lethal in the air he was the ultimate goal scorer. The famous stat of 1281 goals in 1363 games is testament to this.

Pele said in 2006: ""For 20 years they have asked me the same question, who is the greatest? Pele or Maradona? I reply that all you have to do is look at the facts - how many goals did he score with his right foot or with his head?""

Pele made his debut for Santos at the tender age of 15 scoring on his debut in 1956. By the time the 1957 season came around he was a first team regular and finished as the league’s top scorer. Just 10 months later he was called up to the Brazilian national team scoring in a 2-1 defeat to Argentina making him the youngest ever international scorer at 16 years and 9 months. He would go on to become and still is Brazil’s top goal scorer with a remarkable 77 goals in 92 games.

1958 was Pele’s breakout year and he announced himself to the world in style. He won his first major title the Campeonato Paulista with Santos scoring a record 58 goals along the way (a record that still stands) He was selected for the 1958 World Cup at the insistence of of his team mates despite being injured, which shows the regard the 17 year old was already held in. He played a pivotal role scoring the winner against Wales in the quarters, a hat-trick against France and another brace Vs Sweden in the final on his way to becoming the youngest ever World Cup Winner.

Brazil repeated the trick in 1962 but did it without Pele who injured himself in the second game having looked ominously bright in the opening game. The 1966 was even worse for him. Pele was ruthlessly and cynically targeted by opposing defences meaning he missed the loss to Hungary and was never at his best for the two games he did play. Without their talisman the defending champions were eliminated in the first round.
He got his redemption in 1970 inspiring perhaps the greatest team of all time to a third world cup success. Pele at the peak of his powers won the player of the tournament and provided us with two of his most iconic moments. Had his lob from the half way line against the Czechs or his audacious dummy to round the Uruguayan goalie resulted in goals they surely would have been 2 of the greatest in World Cup history.

At one stage it was universally accepted that Pele was the greatest footballer of all time. In recent years it has almost become fashionable to dismiss his claim and achievements in favour of two little Argies. There are two sticks that are usually used to beat him which are contradictory for me. True he never tested himself in Europe. Having been named a ‘national treasure’ by the Brazilian Government and not being allowed to be ‘exported’ he spent his best years in his native land. However, we do have some clues as to how he would have fared had he moved to a big European club. His goals record and performances at international level leave me unequivocally convinced that he would have burned it up in any league. Also Santos (mainly to be able to afford his wages) regularly toured and faced the biggest clubs in Europe where Pele showed he was still on another level. The other criticism is that he was part of the greatest international team ever and had world class team mates around him which somehow should dilute his success. Many of these same team mates also predominantly played in Brazil yet this isn’t held against the likes of Garrincha, Rivelino, Tostao or Jairzinho who regularly had to play second fiddle to Pele and his Santos team. Nor is it held against one Lionel Messi who is a part of the greatest team I have ever seen. Like Messi now, Pele was the undoubted jewel in a beautiful crown.

For me, to be worthy of being called the greatest sports person of all time you need to tick several boxes. You must be supremely talented and have a strong argument to be the GOAT in your own sport. In my opinion you also have to have transcended your own sport and have made a widespread universal and lasting impact. With all due respect to the big hitters who have been voted through so far, most people have no idea who Bradman, Merckx etc are. While this may not be a popularity contest Pele’s notoriety and worldwide acclaim stemmed solely from his prodigious talent and countless achievements. He wasn’t a character, he wasn’t a loveable rogue. He did all his talking with his feet and his reputation is a product of his talent alone.

I have used a lot of words despite originally stating words could not do the great man justice. Still for me Pele is a treat best enjoyed visually. Watching him nutmeg two defenders and rounding the keeper or seeing him effortlessly flicking the ball over a defender’s head and volleying home is still jaw dropping even today. I will leave you with some quotes from his peers and contemporaries who say it a lot better than I ever could.

""I told myself before the game, 'he's made of skin and bones just like everyone else'. But I was wrong.”
Tarcisio Burgnich, the Italy defender who marked Pele in the Mexico 1970 Final

“The difficulty, the extraordinary, is not to score 1,000 goals like Pele – it’s to score one goal like Pele.”
Carlos Drummond de Andrade, Brazilian poet

“The greatest player in history was Di Stefano. I refuse to classify Pele as a player. He was above that.”
Ferenc Puskas

“After the fifth goal, even I wanted to cheer for him.”
Sigge Parling of Sweden on a 5-2 defeat by Brazil in the 1958 FIFA World Cup Final

“I arrived hoping to stop a great man, but I went away convinced I had been undone by someone who was not born on the same planet as the rest of us.”
Costa Pereira on Benfica’s 5-2 loss to Santos in the 1962 Intercontinental Cup in Lisbon

""Pele was the greatest – he was simply flawless. And off the pitch he is always smiling and upbeat. You never see him bad-tempered. He loves being Pele.”
Tostao
“When I saw Pele play, it made me feel I should hang up my boots.”
Just Fontaine

“Pele was one of the few who contradicted my theory: instead of 15 minutes of fame, he will have 15 centuries.”
Andy Warhol

“Pele was the only footballer who surpassed the boundaries of logic.”
Johan Cruyff

“His great secret was improvisation. Those things he did were in one moment. He had an extraordinary perception of the game.”
Carlos Alberto Torres

“I sometimes feel as though football was invented for this magical player.”
Sir Bobby Charlton

""Pele played football for 22 years, and in that time he did more to promote world friendship and fraternity than any other ambassador anywhere.”
J.B. Pinheiro, the Brazilian ambassador to the United Nations

Malcolm Allison: “How do you spell Pele?”
Pat Crerand: “Easy: G-O-D.”
British television commentators during Mexico 1970

Pelé is the greatest player of all time. He reigned supreme for 20 years. All the others – Diego Maradona, Johan Cruyff, Michel Platini – rank beneath him. There's no one to compare with Pelé.
—West Germany's 1974 FIFA World Cup-winning captain Franz Beckenbauer

The best player ever? Pelé. Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are both great players with specific qualities, but Pelé was better.
—Real Madrid legend Alfredo Di Stéfano
"

Michael Phelps- Swimming- Championed by 88chris05

"There probably aren't enough superlatives in a dictionary to fully explain the greatness of Michael Phelps, or just how much he's achieved in his professional swimming career. I'll make my agenda clear early on - if Phelps doesn't make it to the advanced stages (let's just say, last eight or better) of this process, then I honestly would consider it a v2 travesty. If anyone reading this isn't a great fan of swimming, then don't fret - you don't need to be in order to gain an understanding of some sort of Phelps' accomplishments, as they're so glaring and awe-inspiring. So I'll do my best to give a reasonable explanation of them here.

Unless you paid absolutely no attention to the London 2012 Olympic Games, you'll know that, during the Games, Phelps became the most decorated Olympian of all time, with his London haul of four gold and two silver medals bringing his overall tally to twenty-two (a staggering eighteen gold, two silver and two bronze, spanning the Athens Games of 2004, the Beijing Games of 2008 and last year's London edition). This would be a damn good time for me to dispel and irksome myth, namely this idea I've seen thrown about that Phelps only became the most decorated Olympian of them all because there are ""loads of medals in swimming"" and / or because ""it's easy to win them in that sport."" First off, as I'll explain a little further down, there's nothing remotely easy about swimming and secondly, you'll find that, of the top ten most prolific Olympic medal winners in history, Phelps is the only swimmer amongst them. It should also be noted that Phelps is the owner of eleven individual golds in the Olympics (thirteen individual medals of all colours), more than any other man or woman in history - once again, this serves to dim the off-base talk suggesting that relay medals have given an over-inflated view of Phelps' achievements.

On top of that, there's thirty-four World Championship medals (a record), twenty-six of them being gold (a record), seven 'World Swimmer of the Year' titles (a record), a world record set at the tender age of fifteen years and nine months (a record), thirty-nine world records in all (a record), as well as becoming, in 2008, the only swimmer ever to win the coveted 'Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year' award.

Some CV: some athlete.

However, those numbers alone still can't fully convey how utterly dominant Phelps has been within his field, and nor can they give full context to his brilliance.

To me, even more than his medal collection, what sets Phelps apart is his unbelievable desire to test himself and take on new challengers, no matter how daunting they may be. By 2004, Phelps had already established himself as the most complete and best all-round swimmer on the planet at that time, with four gold medals and two silvers at the previous year's World Championships. By now, Phelps had established himself as being completely dominant in the 200m individual medley, 400m individual medley and also the 200m backstroke, and held the world record in all of these events. He was also the silver medal winner in the 100m butterfly. Let's remember here, before we get too far in, that all but a very select few swimmers spend their whole career concentrating and excelling in just one specialist event.

These were the events he'd been training for and participating in all of his career thus far, and it would have been easy for him to have stayed within these confines (although it was already one hell of a hectic schedule!) and remain undefeated throughout the 2004 Olympics. However, Phelps wanted to try and do the impossible; eclipse Mark Spitz's feat of seven golds in one Games in the 1972 Munich Olympics, and to do that meant adding the 200m freestyle to his schedule.

In that event, Phelps had to settle for a bronze medal, trailing in behind Australian legend Ian Thorpe and also Holland's Pieter Van Den Hoogenband. But the point is, a bronze in the 200m freestyle was still a remarkable feat - Thorpe and Van Den Hoogenband were the two preeminent freestylers of that era, and also the two fastest ever over that distance. Phelps, in comparison, had never even taken a stab at that discipline before Athens. It's worth noting that, after Phelps had dominated him at the 200m individual medley event at the 2003 World Championships, Thorpe never ventured in to one of Phelps' signature events again. However, the nineteen year old Phelps vowed to carry on until he became the world's best freestyler, to go along with being the world's best in the butterfly and medleys. Keep in mind that, at the time, most observers felt that this was a truly unreachable goal. Nevertheless, Phelps was the most successful athlete of the Games, narrowly falling short of Spitz's seven golds but still scooping up six golds (four of which came in individual events, equalling Spitz in that regard) and two bronzes.

His dominance in the butterly and medleys assured (he completed the 100m-200m double and the 200m-400m double in those events respectively in Athens), Phelps, good to his word, then set his sights on Thorpe's 200m freestyle world record (thought to be the best record in men's swimming at the time) of 1 minute 44.06 seconds, edging it out at the 2007 World Championships with a 1 minute 43.86 and then totally dismantling it with a 1 minute 42.96 clocking in winning the 200m freestyle gold at the 2008 Beijing Games.

I mean seriously, come on - he's not even meant to be a freestyler!

Almost as a bit of fun, Phelps even tried his hand at the backstroke in 2006, an event in which he was even less experienced and trained in than the freestyle. At the Pan Pacific championships that year, he won the silver medal in the 200m backstroke event. It was the only time he ever competed in backstroke at a major championship but, a year later, he showed his hand when he gave the discipline another whirl at the US Nationals; incredibly, he clocked the third fastest time ever recorded in the 200m backstroke, and went one better in the 100m, coming up with the second best time ever, just 0.03 seconds off the world record for the event. That a part-time (at best) backstroker could, almost at the drop of a hat, produce such performances in his weakest event, all while dominating the butterfly, medleys and freestyle (2007 had been the year in which Phelps scooped seven golds in seven events at the World Championships, lest we forget) is way beyond remarkable. I don't think there are sufficient words for it, in fact.

And then, of course, came the most successful Olympic campaign ever in Beijing in 2008, as Phelps took eight gold medals in eight events (seven of them in world record time, the other 'only' an Olympic record), eclipsing Spitz's aforementioned seven. His five individual golds at the meet (400m individual medley, 200m freestyle, 200m butterfly, 200m individual medley and 100m butterfly) also equaled the record for the most individual golds won in a single Olympics.

After the Games, a debate raged on about who was the stand out performer and / or biggest star of the Beijing Olympics - Phelps, or the incredible Jamaican track star Usain Bolt, who set world records in winning gold in the 100m, 200m and 4x100m sprints. Well, due to track and field's popularity and his telegenic personality (a contrast to the quiet, reserved Phelps), Bolt was the star of Beijing. But was he the greatest performer of the Games, as many claimed? Absolutely not. Phelps was. The variety of his schedule is scary. Ian Thorpe won nine Olympic medals, which is fantastic, of course. But all of them were in freestyle. Phelps' medals came in freestyle, butterfly and medley - to even compare, I honestly think that Bolt would have needed to add long jump to his arsenal and won the gold in that event, and / or perhaps a longer sprint such as the 400m.

After the eight golds of Beijing it was, naturally, impossible for Phelps to go beyond what he'd already done, however the medals continued to flow right up until his retirement after London 2012; five golds and one silver at the 2009 World Championships, four golds, two silvers and one bronze at the 2011 World Championships and then, to put the seal on his career, those four golds and two silvers in London.

Not only does Phelps boast unrivalled diversity and variety in the pool, then, but he also has insane fitness and unbelievable longevity to bolster his claim of being the greatest sportsperson of them all.

Take his Beijing feats, for example; to collect his eight gold medals, Phelps had to complete seventeen races in one week, what with the qualification rounds before the finals. While he was doing this across the past three Olympics, he often had rivals awaiting him near the end of the week - rivals who competed in just one specialty event and, having nothing like the work load of Phelps, would have been rubbing their hands together watching him fatigue himself. Milorad Cavic, a world champion over the 50m butterfly (and a former world record holder over the 100m distance) was awaiting Phelps in the 100m butterfy final in Beijing. How much fresher and less fatigued he must have been than Phelps at that stage was staggering - he'd dropped the 200m butterfly in order to maximise his chances of upsetting Phelps over the shorter course, and Phelps had already collected six gold medals that week. And yet, Phelps was still able to claim the gold in what was, without doubt, the greatest race I've ever seen in the pool.

Once more, to consistently be able to race across so many different disciplines for a week and then, at the end of it, be able to beat world-class specialists at their best event and after they've basically spent a week resting in comparison is a true mark of Phelps' ridiculous talent, and also his wonderful winning mentality.

What's more, swimming is a hard sport to stay at the top of, and seldom do its top practicioners produce anything like their best after their mid twenties. Before Phelps came along, no man in history had ever managed to win the same event at three successive Olympics in the pool, and many observers were wondering if the 'threepeat' was indeed possible at all, given how short a swimmer's peak is. Step forward Mr. Phelps, who made history at London 2012 by becoming the first man ever to do this, taking gold in the 200m individual medley (ahead of his great rival Ryan Lochte) to go along with the golds he took in that same event in 2004 and 2008. Not content with making history once, less than twenty-four hours later he was at it again, winning the final of the 100m butterfly (the last individual race of his career), turning a never done before threepeat in to a double threepeat.

Typical Phelps, really - nobody ever did it, and then he goes and does it twice at the same Olympics! It's just an outrageously fabulous achievement. And, for the third successive Olympics, Phelps took home more medals than any other athlete of the Games, regardless of discipline.

There have been some great all-rounders in sport; Gary Sobers in cricket, Frank Riijkaard in football - but none of them have been as complete across so many areas as Michael Phelps has been. If you wanted to be pedantic, then you could argue that Phelps lacks Usain Bolt's irrepressible star quality, or that he's not at the centre of the dreams of the world's youngsters the way that Lionel Messi is. But swimming is a sport which has grown immensely in participation levels, both amatuer and professional, in the past two decades, as well as being a truly demanding and punishing one in which incredible focus, dedication and a great deal of God-given talent are all neccessities. And Michael Phelps has been, to put it mildly, the Don Bradman of swimming. In many ways, in fact, you could argue that the 'Baltimore Bullett' has dominated his own field to an even greater extent than Bradman dominated his.

Not the greatest sporting personality, but as a sportsman in the purest form, and a true freak of nature, Phelps simply must be amongst the very, very elite of all time. Despite the length of this article, I still don't think I've done him full justice - that's how highly I think of Michael Phelps, unquestionably the greatest swimmer and most successful Olympian to ever walk the planet. "

Tiger Woods- Golf- Championed by Adam D

"So far these GOAT debates have been fascinating reading. What sports are sports? How does a sportsman shine if they are part of a team? How can someone who is not athletically fit be considered a ""great"" sportsman? How can someone be considered the GOAT if they are not even the best in their sport?

Well all of these arguments could be levelled at Mr Woods to a certain extent, however, I will prove why all of these points in isolation do not matter to Tiger.

Tiger Woods is not just the greatest golfer of his generation, he is the greatest of all time. Whats that I hear you say? Jack Niklaus has won more?
Well for a start, he hasnt. Niklaus HAS won more Majors but not tournaments.

In fact, the person with the most tournament wins is Sam Snead who dominated from 1936 to 1965, clocking up 7 major wins. But I doubt he is going to grace this list anytime soon.

Lets get back to Niklaus vs Woods because lets face it, thats the golfing GOAT debate that will spring up. Now I like Niklaus and I like Woods, but which is better? There is only one way to find out....actually, its a matter of opinion and for me the reason why Woods outshines the Niklaus era is down to the talent pool around them.

Let me talk about that for a second. In Niklaus' era, we had the big names and historical superstars of the sport. In Woods era, we have Major winners such as Keegan Bradley and Zach Johnson. Whats my point you may ask as this is surely a selling point for Jack?

My point is that in the 60,70 and 80s, golf was dominated by a group of great players in a smaller pool. And that was down to the social class aspect of the sport. Fewer people played, and skill was the biggest factor in winning a tournament. Today, everyone is welcomed onto the many, many more courses around the world. And due to big hitting taking precedent over course management, the field has become much more even and full of depth.

Tigers dominance in a more scientific era of golf is that much more impressive. And its also the reason why he should be voted above the likes of Federer and Phil Taylor and Ronnie O'Sullivan. Tiger doesnt have to beat a single opponent on each day. He has won these tournaments by beating EVERY player over 4 days.

This is not a case of playing better than this rounds opponent but a case of playing better than every person in the competition. That is why his achievements should be considered above the other individual sports on this list.

So what has Tiger achieved?

At age 2, he appeared on TV putting against Bob Hope! At age three, he shot a 48 over nine holes over the Cypress Navy course. Before turning seven, Tiger won the Under Age 10 section of the Drive, Pitch, and Putt competition, held at the Navy Golf Course in Cypress, California.

In 1984 at the age of eight, he won the 9–10 boys' event, the youngest age group available, at the Junior World Golf Championships. He first broke 80 at age eight. He went on to win the Junior World Championships six times, including four consecutive wins from 1988 to 1991.

And THEN he went to college!

By the time he turned Pro in 1996, he had already amassed dozens of junior titles.

I am going to sum up his career in a very brief manner as the stats talk for themselves.

Woods has won 74 official PGA Tour events including 14 majors. He is 14–1 when going into the final round of a major with at least a share of the lead. He has been heralded as ""the greatest closer in history"" by multiple golf experts. He owns the lowest career scoring average and the most career earnings of any player in PGA Tour history.

He has spent the most consecutive and cumulative weeks atop the world rankings. He is one of five players (along with Gene Sarazen,Ben Hogan, Gary Player, and Jack Nicklaus) to have won all four professional major championships in his career, known as the Career Grand Slam, and was the youngest to do so. Woods is the only player to have won all four professional major championships in a row, accomplishing the feat in the 2000–2001 seasons.


On top of this he has another 38 European Tour wins and other worldwide tournaments.

Simply put, no one in the modern era has dominated the sport like Tiger. He has been so dominant that he won the US Open in 2008 on one leg (He was recovering from Knee surgery before the tournament and had to have major knee surgery afterwards).

Outside of his sporting achievements it has to be noted that Tiger Woods has transcended just playing the game. He has a successful video game franchise named after him - when was the last time anyone played Roger Federers Tennis 2013 or Jerry Rice American Football 2013?

The final thing I want to touch upon is his infidelity. Some may discount him for this very reason but that is ludicrous. However, we must remember that Tiger hasnt commited a crime. He hasnt taken drugs to cheat at his sport. He hasnt dodged a military draft or served jail time for serious crimes. He cheated on his wife (albeit on numerous occasions) which might make him less of a man but not a sporting great.

Tiger deserves to be the v2 GOAT.
"

Michael Johnson- Track & Field- Championed by 88chris05

"I was eight years old in 1996 and, as a result, the Atlanta Games of that year are the first Olympic Games I can remember properly - and for any sports fan, that's a serious footnote in your memory. It says much about the greatness of the man I'm writing about here that, whenever I think back to that summer of 1996 and the Olympics, the first thing to enter my head is never the Games themselves, and nor is it a collection of moments. Instead, it's just one name which crops up instantly - Michael Johnson.

It took some nerve - or, you might even say, some well-placed arrogance - to wear those golden running spikes, and it must also have taken a large helping of self-belief and stubbornness to ignore the plethora of coaches who had told him right throughout his college and junior career to abandon his unusual 'duck' style of running in favour of the traditional high knee lift, long strides and pumping arms which we usually associate with sprinting. But both the running spikes and that unique style had me hooked from 1996 onwards and I became determined to find out all I could about the man who came away with three gold medals on the track from those Games.

With the emergence of Usain Bolt in recent times, it's easy to forget that, just ten to fifteen years earlier, there was one man on the track who blew everyone's mind and redefined the parameters just as much as the brilliant Jamaican. In fact, I'd argue that Johnson, in many ways, redefined them even more than Bolt has.

For starters, his dominance of the 400m throughout the nineties must be right up there with the greatest spells of dominance in any one event in history. Before Johnson, whose incredible feats earned him the nickname 'Superman', no man had ever won the 400m title at back to back Olympics. Johnson did this at a canter, taking the gold medal in the one lap event at Atlanta in '96 and at Sydney four years later. He won four successive world titles at that same distance, too, from 1993 right up until 1999. His fifty-four consecutive 'finals' wins in the 400m is, of course, a record - so far ahead of his peers in that event is he, that comparisons are pretty pointless.

But there were more notable 'firsts' in Johnson's career. The 100m-200m double is, of course, a rare achievement, the sort which only the giants of sporting history (Owens, Lewis, Bolt etc) have managed. But do you know what's been an even rarer achievement in men's track and field? The 200m-400m double. Because once more, before this remarkable Texan came along, absolutely nobody had managed to win the two events together at the Olympics - or at any major championships, for that matter. Not content with making history once by doing so at the 1995 World Championships in Gothenburg, Johnson made it two 'doubles' in as many years at the following summer's Olympics. And which man has replicated this feat since? That's right - absolutely none of them.

Usain Bolt's double of the 100m-200m (or even his 'double double' of doing the 100m-200m act at two successive Olympics, a feat which he controversially shares with Carl Lewis) make him one of a few, but Johnson's achievements really do make him one of a kind.

I think it's key to remember, also, that the 400m takes on a very different dynamic to the shorter sprints. Unlike the 100m or the 200m, the 400m discipline takes a different type of training, a large amount of kidology and tactics. There is no element of just running flat out as fast as you can; pacing yourself, the concept of even-paced running, adapting to running two bends ect all make it a different ball game. Genuinely, I feel that Johnson's ability to adapt so perfectly to both events make him a serious contender to be considered the finest track athlete the world has ever seen.

Johnsons' gold medal tally in the 200m (two World Championships, one Olympics) doesn't read quite as staggeringly (but is still only surpassed by a certain Mr Bolt, mind you!) but, as I mentioned above, I genuinely think that Johnson expanded the ideas of what was possible in this event more than anyone else has thus far in his own way. In track and field, particularly in the sprints, you seldom see a world record which lasts more than three or four years, generally speaking. It's amazing what the human body can do when you're setting its every faculty towards a certain mark - for instance, Roger Bannister's four minute mile in 1954 was considered superhuman and, almost, a case of someone doing the impossible, and yet it lasted as a world record for a mere six weeks.

So then, let's keep in mind that Pietro Mennea's 200m world record of 19.72 seconds had stood for a whole seventeen years by 1996, remarkable in a sport which is pitted so often against the clock. At the Olympic trials that year, Johnson edged it out with a 19.66, a fantastic feat in itself, but what he did in the Olympics themselves in that event will stay with me forever. Even as an eight year old, I knew I was watching something remarkable. But it's only looking back that I can fully appreciate the magnitude of Johnson's gold medal winning performance.

Johnson won the gold in a staggering 19.32 seconds, a whole .34 of a second ahead of his own personal best (by an absolute mile the most that anyone has improved a short sprint record since the introduction of electronic timing in the sixties), and .36 ahead of second-placed Frankie Fredericks who, just weeks earlier, had beaten Johnson and was fancied by many to do so again (a shell-shocked Fredericks remarked after the race, ""If I'd have known that Michael was going to run 19.32, I wouldn't have bothered showing up.""). Ato Boldon, who took the bronze medal, went to Johnson after the race and bowed, later commenting that Johnson's race that night was ""fifty years ahead of its time.""

Now, I know what you're all thinking. Rather than fifty, the record 'only' lasted for twelve years (still a hell of a long time by track and field standards, of course) before Usain Bolt narrowly beat it with his wonderful 19.30 in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. But as I said before, it's amazing what can be done by the human body when its sole focus is on a time which you have the luxury of shooting for. Basically, if someone can run a 19.32, you know that it's a real possibility and, in many ways, inevitable that someone can eventually go 19.30 or better, like Bolt has. Edging a world record out like that is the norm.

However, totally obliterating one like Johnson did most certainly isn't. With Mennea's 19.72 came the realisation that humans could and eventually would be running in the 19.6 bracket. With Johnson's 19.66 three months before Atlanta came the realisation that maybe, just maybe, we could see a high 19.5 time in our lifespan if we were lucky. Absolutely nobody, however, would have ever dared conjour up the the thought of a man eating up 200m of track in a low 19.3 time. It boggled the mind, tore up all logic and left a world-wide audience, including BBC commentator David Coleman, saying ""this man surely isn't human!""

When Bolt broke the 200m world record, there were loud cheers in my house. However, when Johnson ran that 19.32 in Atlanta, there was nothing but a stunned silence, followed by a series of glances which seemd to be asking, 'Did I really just see that?'

And of course, Johnson's 400m world record still remains intact at 43.18 seconds, despite thirteen and a half years having passed since he finally set it at the 1999 World Championships in Seville. Again, it's worth noting that, in track and field, world records that can last a decade or more come at a premium. From the top of my head, I do believe that Michael Johnson is the only man to have set a world record lasting a decade or longer in two individual events since the introduction of electronic timing, and it says a hell of a lot about the man's accomplishments that you have to scroll a fair way down his CV to find a fact as impressive as that!

In all, Johnson stepped on to a podium to collect thirteen medals at either the Olympic Games or World Championships during his career - and ever single one of them was gold.

And as if his towering accomplishments weren't enough, he still manged to show what sportsmanship should be all about in 2008 when, after his relay team mate Antonio Pettigrew admitted under oath that he had used performance enhancing substances throughout the late nineties and early twenty-first century, Johnson voluntarily returned his Gold medal won with Pettigrew and two others in the 4x400m relay at the Sydney Olympics of 2000. In an age where far too many are adopting a relaxed attitude to doping in sport, Johnson's gesture, to me at least, added to his greatness even more, if that were at all possible.

It's a terrible shame that, a certain Mr Carl Lewis aside, track and field athletes have often struggled to receive their dues over in the States, because in Michael Johnson they really did have one of the finest sportsman to have graced the planet. To me, Johnson is everything a sporting great should be.
"

This is going to be a controversial group, I can see it already

Well, I'm discounting Johnson (excellent though he was, he's in tough company here) and Woods (not the golfing GOAT, at least yet).

Phelps record is extraordinary - One Olympics dominating like Spitz is the stuff of legend, but to be almost as dominant in the previous and following Games puts him into a class apart. However, as I've already said, swimming simply doesn't do it for me so I am biased against Phelps's case.

Leaves Bradman and Pele - objectively the finest sportsman ever (regarding how his career statistics compare with his peers) against the best and most iconic player from the most global sport there is.

I think the level of participation has to swing this in Pele's favour.

Achievement, positive trasncendence of own sport, global appreciation, test of time, skill and athleticism in abundance allied to talent and effort.

Gavin hast...

Pele.

Has Hasting's gone already?

Bradman, just. Was far far better than anyone else, and ever will be.

Tricky, don't think Golf or Cricket should be in this, but my dislike for Woods might require a tactical vote for the cucumber sandwich muncher.

If you listen to his peers, pele had this competition sewn up before a vote was cast. However, whenever I watch clips of him, I never see anything to separate him from the other footballing gods. I wonder if say, eusebio was Brazilian and pele Portuguese whether it might be him we're voting for.

Bradman, statistically the greatest ever and by a margin, but the era question mark?

In this group though, for me they're the obvious choice. Woods not clearly the best golfer, I'd have had bolt ahead of Johnson, and brilliant though phelps record is, it's padded by relays and owes much to just being born a bizarre physical specimen.

I find it hard to vote for a cricketer from a period with limited competition, so going to assume that all those experts of the day had more to go on than done grainy clips... Pele it is.

For all of their achivements, Woods, Phelps and Johnson wouldn't have reached my last eight.

This has to be between Pele and Bradman. Very, very difficult. Probably deserves to be the final.

Bradman statistically so far ahead of the very best of the rest.

If you'll excuse the man love, Pele the most beautiful of the Beautiful Team.

Can quibbles can be made for either?

Compared to the modern day batsman, Bradman had the advantages of poorer fielding, no technology for opponents to study a batsman's potential flaws and no DRS so umpires would tend to give benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

Pele's enduring iconic status is due in some part to his 1970 World Cup mastery being the first major international sporting competition broadcast in colour. I doubt grainy black and white film would have had the same long lasting effect.

However, these are tiny spots on two bodies of greatness who both also experienced disadvantages compared to the current day players of their respective sports.

Tricky really, Ive witnessed Phelps, Woods and Johnson do amazing things. Ive seen bolt better what Johnson did (and Rudisha in a one of race, that to me ist he greatest athletics run in history) but Im not sure that I'll see anyone dominate golf the way Woods did or swimming the way Phelps has.
Pele and Bradmans records speak for themselves, but Im going down the Bradmans opposition was weak and I agree, when I see Pele he doesnt look that special though clearly he was.
So on the basis that I believe Phelps achievement in Beijing was the greatest ever in sport he is going to get my vote.

This quality isnt quite up to the other semis standard!

I had to pick Tiger out of this lot, just pips Sir Don

As this process has gone further and further on I've found myself giving extra emphasis to athletes from individual sports; it's much easier, for instance, to feel sure that Roger Federer is a greater tennis player than Pete Sampras than it is to be asbolutely sure that Maradona really was a better player than Ferenc Puskas, for instance. So I'll just nudge Pele aside for now.

Woods has done an unbelievable amount for golf outside of his sheer achievements on the greens and fairways, but right now he can't realistically be ahead of Nicklaus in the all-time golfing stakes, for me, and it's touch and go whether he'll ever get there, in fact.

Johnson was amazing, seemingly super-human and dominated his era to the extent that only three or four other track athletes ever have. However, he's not quite as far ahead of his nearest rivals as Bradman and Phelps are, so by the narrowest of narrow margins, he falls away here, regrettably.

So it's down to Bradman or Phelps for me. Well, I championed one and not the other, so I guess I should stick with my guns and make Phelps my pick here. The level of his accomplishment and dominance in his field is incredible and I'd argue that he's just as far ahead - maybe even more - of the second best swimmer in history or the contenders to be (ie, Spitz, Biondi, Gross, Popov, Salnikov etc) than Bradman is of the likes of Graeme Pollock, Lara, Sobers, Tendulkar, Greg Chappell, Headley etc.

Phelps for me. But if a footballer has to progress, I'd much rather it were Pele than Maradona.

A quick note about woods.

He has just won(yesterday) his 17th WGC.

yes golf is about the 'majors' more than anything else. And Jack didnt compete in any of this events

However WGC's are very much high ranking events. a case could be argued that eventually they could come very close to having the same presitige as the 4 majors.

Infact we could argue that the field strength is at worst on par but actually better than the major championships!!

Don't get sucked in, no different from winning a Masters series tennis event.

how is that then sr.

Whats harder the cadilac or the open championship on average?

Honest answer please?

This particular WGC wasn't that impressive. NOt sure how you can rank it like a major.

How many people were in it? NOt a full field.

I havent ranked it like a major, i made that very clear.

However people need to realise that tigers 17's wins is seriously impressive and that these events have the best players playing!! the best. Some majors dont even have these sort of field strengths and in the opens case- the tourny is a total lottery

How is The Open a lottery?

how is it not?

There are numerous examples of players winning it on many occasions, plus plenty of others regularly finishing high up.

Don't answer questions with questions Oakey.

Oh come on mate- you know exactly what I am talking about.

Tiger on the basis that holding all four majors at the same time in fields of 150 players is the greatest achievment in sports history.

monty junior wrote:Tiger on the basis that holding all four majors at the same time in fields of 150 players is the greatest achievment in sports history.

Look at the people he was up against. Fat knackers.

If anyone on here didnt know.

The open can produce a lot of single low ranked winners or in last years case an aged player. We have also had an OAP competing (got to a play off- tom watson- legend that he is offcourse)

This is primarily due to the inconsitancies of the weather and the links format.

Many players do not play much links golf. Therefore it can level the playing field.

There are also arguments that this sort of golf requires luck as well, due to alot of run in golf shots..


BTW - links is my fav format, I am not knocking it or the magical Open championship. Just stating that it can produce some very random winners

mystiroakey wrote:If anyone on here didnt know the open can produce a lot of single low ranked winners or in last years case an aged player. We have also had an OAP competing (got to a play off- tom watson- legend that he is offcourse)

This is primarily due to the inconsitancies of the weather and the links format.

Many players do not play much links golf. Therefore it can level the playing field.

There are also arguments that this sort of golf requires luck as well, due to alot of run in golf shots..


BTW - links is my fav format, I am not knocking it or the magical Open championship. Just stating that it can produce some very random winners

Oakey, Every Major and every other competition has the opportunity to create random winners.

Look at the "randoms" (or low ranked) that have won this year in non majors on the PGA (Henley, Gay, Merrick, Thompson and Brown)

The fact that players don't play against other players but against the course and have no bearing upon other players score is PRECISELY why golf (in all competitions) produces a lot of winners from across the rankings. Rankings do not matter if you play better than the rest of the field for four rounds.

Links wasn't difficult to Woods (3), Seve (3), Faldo (3) , Els(2) , Norman (2) or Harrington (2) So The Open isn't that much of a lottery is it?

The Masters, US OPen and PGA have produced plenty random (one time) winners too.

super_realist wrote:

monty junior wrote:Tiger on the basis that holding all four majors at the same time in fields of 150 players is the greatest achievment in sports history.

Look at the people he was up against. Fat knackers.

A prime Els,Mickelson, Duval ,Singh etc..

Won US Open by 15 shots
Open by 8
Beat Bob May in an incredible final day shootout
Won the Masters by two after going head to head with the world no.2 and 3 at the time Duval and Mickelson.

SR take st andrews out of the equation!

Woods was at it again last night..............winning that is.

I agree with monty. It was an unbelivable achievment!

Holding all 4 majors is something else

Oakey, Fine, we still have Els, Harrington, Faldo and Seve winning 2 Opens at venues other than St.ANdrews.

What of the other majors? Probably even more unexpected winners.

Just look at the recent winners mate.. Darren Clarke, Todd hamilton, Watson at an age of 100 almost won it pal

sadly I think the open would be a better and truer 'Test' if it was only held at St Andrews

The weather also makes the open a lottery, might as well raffle the trophy off

mystiroakey wrote:Just look at the recent winners mate.. Darren Clarke, Todd hamilton, Watson at an age of 100 almost won it pal

sadly I think the open would be a better and truer 'Test' if it was only held at St Andrews

How would it be a better test? St.ANdrews is the worst venue on the rota, both to play and spectate, it's too easy and NEVER creates any drama.

The other three majors have hardly created expected victors either recently have they.

Masters, Mullet, Schwartzel, Mickelson, Cabrera, Immelman
US Open, God Botherer, McIlroy, McDowell, Glover, Nine Chins,
PGA: McIlroy, Bradley, Kaymer, Yang, Harrington.

Hardly the worlds best winning regularly is it. Arguably as much as a lottery as you claim The OPen to be.

"Masters, Mullet, Schwartzel, Mickelson, Cabrera, Immelman
US Open, God Botherer, McIlroy, McDowell, Glover, Nine Chins,
PGA: McIlroy, Bradley, Kaymer, Yang, Harrington."

You naming those on the whole inform, quality golfers isnt really help your arguments pal

Look at the variety though. That's why by and large golf produces surprise winners.

Look at the last five winners of The Open. Els, Clark, Oosthuizen, Cink, Harrington.

Hardly hackers are they?
Els has always played well, as something like 9 top 10's. Whilst Oosthuizen, Cink and Harrington were in form top players at the time.

THe only person you have is Clark.

Surely the argument 'it's generally random winners' actually lend support to Woods' case? As in, so many people can win a major, yet despite that he has so many?

Azzy, it's pretty well regarded that Woods was a golf phenomenon in majors. THere's a doubt now seeing as it's getting on for 6 years since he won one.

There are PLENTY multiple major winners, just not many who have won as many as Woods/Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Watson, Thompson, Harrington, etc.

easy choice for me this one, Bradman is in my top 3 for GOAT, none of the others are. I'm rather appalled Woods is doing so well, but maybe not surprised given how easily he made it this far.

Pele gets my vote today!

This is starting to get difficult! I was torn between Phelps and Pele, but I had to go for the former, much as I respect Pele to an enormous degree. I think 'modern bias' might be at play for me, but I won't ever forget watching Phelps at Beijing and London.

Diggers wrote:Tricky really, Ive witnessed Phelps, Woods and Johnson do amazing things. Ive seen bolt better what Johnson did (and Rudisha in a one of race, that to me ist he greatest athletics run in history)

I agree, that really was the greatest race I've ever seen as well. Absolutely unbelievable, it beggars belief that he pulled that out in the Olympic final with no pacemaker.

super_realist wrote:Look at the variety though. That's why by and large golf produces surprise winners.

Look at the last five winners of The Open. Els, Clark, Oosthuizen, Cink, Harrington.

Hardly hackers are they?
Els has always played well, as something like 9 top 10's. Whilst Oosthuizen, Cink and Harrington were in form top players at the time.

THe only person you have is Clark.

ousty was not a form contender

good player- but that was his breakthrough event mate.. and offcourse that was at st andrews!

Silver wrote:This is starting to get difficult! I was torn between Phelps and Pele, but I had to go for the former, much as I respect Pele to an enormous degree. I think 'modern bias' might be at play for me, but I won't ever forget watching Phelps at Beijing and London.

Diggers wrote:Tricky really, Ive witnessed Phelps, Woods and Johnson do amazing things. Ive seen bolt better what Johnson did (and Rudisha in a one of race, that to me ist he greatest athletics run in history)

I agree, that really was the greatest race I've ever seen as well. Absolutely unbelievable, it beggars belief that he pulled that out in the Olympic final with no pacemaker.

diggers doesnt really believe that about rudisha... he spawned olympic tickets and saw it live, so feels obliged to big it up... never shuts up about it. It was a boring race, not even close and the stopwatch was faulty. Looked better on the telly. I'm not bitter by the way, i got tickets for the 3 day eventing.

Bradman easy.

Wow this process just gets sillier.

Bradman above Johnson and Phelps, only in this country or Australia.

Really have my doubts about Bradman at this stage getting so many votes. Its obviously primarily a British board with a strong cricket following but is there really enough in Bradmans era to warrant placing so high?

For instance we have Bolt who is the fastest man of all time in two sprint events, global superstar and competing in the fastest ever field of sprinters getting a handful of votes but Bradman (granted has fantastic stats) sailing on consistently despite legitimate question marks in my view over the general size and competitiveness of cricket as a sport at that time.

Marciano for arguments sake can boast a better statistical record than Ali with greater dominance over his competition but most boxing fans would place Ali higher by virtue of acknowledging his era was vastly superior.

Im not a cricket expert but is there not a genuine case for Bradmans greatness being in somepart down to a much more limited field of competition compared to the cricket of today?