08-19-2008, 05:12 AM
Quote:I can't name the greatest athlete in the world, but he's in the conversation. As the greastest swimmer ever he has to be. I will say right now that he is a better athlete than Tiger Woods. Gold doesn't need the same kind of athleticism. Now as a competitor, you can talk about Tiger with him, but not as an athlete.
I'm not sure I understand this any more than I understand Eppie's point. If you are making the distinction that athletes are people who do track-type sports (races, throws, etc...) and there is some other class of people who compete in games (Golf, Football, etc...) then the point is obvious, since Tiger is not an athlete.
On the other hand, if you're lumping all the sports together, then what kind of criteria are you using? Tiger can't jump in a pool and beat world records, and Phelps can't pick up the clubs and win the Masters. They just can't do what each other can do, and neither would be competitive in some third sport, like sprinting or what have you. Maybe if you had some kind of mega-thon, where every known sport was tested?
So, unless certain sports are just automatically "more athletic" than others, I don't get it. If it's about "competitor", then fine, but then all of a sudden you're competing with Gary Kasparov and SlayerS_`BoxeR` and who knows who else. That category goes far wider than just sports.
-Jester