There's a study that looked at "The Greatest Athlete Ever" where they put up the best of the best in each sport. They looked at each athlete's performance and then compared it to averages and worked out standard deviations etc.

I can't recall who they nominated for tennis, or what the measure was. From memory Don Bradman was #1 amongst them all with Jordan right up there.

Athlete Sport Statistic Standard deviations

Bradman: Cricket Batting average 4.4
Pele: Soccer Goals per game 3.7
Ty Cobb: Baseball Batting average 3.6
Jack Nicklaus: Golf Major titles 3.5
Michael Jordan: Basketball Points per game 3.4
Bjorn Borg: Tennis Grand slam titles 3.2

The Ice Borg won 11 Grand Slams, won 82.7% of games (609-127)
Federer has won 20 slams and 82.0% of games (1,139-250)

Michael Jordan might not even be the best Michael. Michael Phelps 23 gold medals is crazy.

Federer has never won a french open. That will always be an asterisk i reckon.

He's definitely up there as one of the greatest.

Fed over MJ for mine.

But if we want to talk statistically, without question Don Bradman is the greatest sportsman of all time.

I'd say Federer gets the nod over Jordan because Federer is so far ahead of the next best tennis player where as the next best basketball player (probably LeBron) is closer to Jordan.

Greatest sportsman ever? Don Bradman comfortably. The next best batsman averaged about 40-50% less runs per innings than he did.

Guys, this is best since 1970, so leave Pele out of it or Don Bradman it's not relevant as you can't compare modern times with old times. So 1970 is a better measurement. And leave the women out this is based on sportsman, I might do a best modern day womens sports thread in another off topic post.

Jimmy Connors apparently has the best ATP win/loss record. Not sure that's grand slams as other have pointed out Bjorg, Fed might have past Bjorgs % stats.. But Connors on all ATP tour events in singles (GSlams/ATP events) has the best percentage win loss record. Jimmy connors longevity is off the charts like Ken Rosewell's was. He was still top 20 at 37 and top 50 at aged 39. Ken Roswell in the 1970's made the wimbledon mens singles final in his 40's, crazy stuff.

Winter Olympian men im gonna try and find more stuff on to. Micheal Phelps is off the charts, he won a world championship gold medal as a teenager aged 15 that's off the charts, Ian Thorpe won a world championship gold medal as well aged 15..

Swimming lacks the wider audience that tennis has perhaps(but that's debatable).. Participation I'm not sure what's higher in the western world swimming or tennis...

If that's true about the slaves, it's one hell of a comeback. From that to probably the most widely known and revered name in the history of sports

If that's true about the slaves, it's one hell of a comeback.

Jordan and lebron both did it playing with all star players surrounding them. Not sure either make nba finals with the players iverson had with him lol.

Playing solo (singles tennis, for example) gives you a really solid measure as to who is the best. In a team game, you can be boosted by your teammates or relegated. Might only take a teammate getting injured or wrecking team chemistry to kill a season or two and mean you don't have the championships to enter a discussion. Makes it difficult to compare.

Perhaps tiers rather than rankings. Federer, Jordan, Bradman, etc are solidly in the elite tier for their sports.

Anon 669440

"Court is one of only three players in history (all women) to have won the "Grand Slam Box Set"; consisting of every senior grand slam title (the singles, doubles and mixed doubles) and the only one of the three to have won all 12 more than once each. Uniquely, she won all 12 as an amateur and then after a period of retirement, returned as a professional to win all 12 again."

Similar career trajectory as Laver but more successful. She won 13 grand slam singles finals as an amateur and 11 in the open era. Her last singles grand slam (all 4 in the same year) was in 1970 - open era. Her open era match winning percentage in singles tournaments is above 90%.

International Tennis Hall of Fame has stated "For sheer strength of performance and accomplishment there has never been a tennis player to match ". They probably are better placed than most to make that assessment.

Laver and court played in an era when tennis was less global, than what the 80's guys onwards had to play in... And court won lots of australian opens when not all the best players turned up. 1988 was the first truly time that everyone would turn up and take the oz open seriously..

These debates will go on forever.

Federer's record on paper is ridiculous. 20 Grand Slams from 30 finals, and still winning them at THIRTY SIX!

I used to work with a guy who was mad about tennis.

I don't know much about tennis, but my old workmate used to swear he wasn't that good, because he won so many titles in a period where there wasn't much competition, and because he only won one french open.

When I say "wasn't that good" I mean as in, he thought Federer wasn't the best tennis player ever, and wasn't as great as people like Jordan etc.

Obviously a great player but not as good as he in on paper.

Yes he is the best sportsman ever. Cricket is barely a sport.

No

Yes

I guess 8 is a number, yeah

Perhaps Usain Bolt , then .

"Laver and court played in an era when tennis was less global, than what the 80's guys onwards had to play in... And court won lots of australian opens when not all the best players turned up. 1988 was the first truly time that everyone would turn up and take the oz open seriously.. "

Mostly true. MThough most of Court's open era grand slam tournament singles titles were at the non-Australian opens (7 out of the 11). Australian Open really became global in the 1980s, when prize money was increased and women like Evert, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Wade, Austin etc started coming out regularly. Court had retired after 1977.

I think a bigger impact than globalisation has been the professionalisation and commercialisation of sports generally, over the last 40 years. Prize money and sponsorships/advertising revenue have soared as TV coverage and commercial opportunities expanded. As a result, coaching, sports technology, sports psychology and sports science have had enormous amounts of money pumped into them and driven a lot of performance improvements.

The technological differences alone make it impossible to directly compare players in one generation with those of later generations for many sports. Think teh switch to synthetic surfaces and carbon fibre racquets with huge sweet spots for tennis; swimsuit and pool design for swimmers; track surfaces and shoe design for track sprinters; carbon fibre frames, aerodynamic helmets and access to altitude training for cyclists; larger bats for cricketers; sprung floors and beams for gymnasts.

In light of these sorts of problems with direct comparisons, I've always landed on comparing players' performance records against their peers at the time.

What about Bo Jackson? How hasn't he came up.

Basically a number one pick in two sports just to begin with

"Where as you could take any player from those sports and put them on a cricket field and they'd survive."

I'm not sure they would survive a well-directed cricket ball coming at them at 140km+, or bowling repeat spells off a long run. What batsmen do is freakish in terms of reflexes, and what fast bowlers do is elite in terms of physical fitness and skill execution.

Bradman played at a time when cricket was seriously played by very few countries. Even India and the West Indies were not really of any good standard then. If you want to do that then Jahanghir Khan is the best as he went unbeaten for nearly 6 years in squash over more than 500 matches.Bradman truly overrated by the cricket lovers.

Laver also achieved his greatness at a time went tennis was less global and less physical where his fine touches were rewarded. He wouldn't be as successful in today's situation for sure looking at his small stature and the nature of tennis these days. Federer on the other hand with his beautiful tennis would have been just as dominant in that era.

Federer it is for me. Woods second.