Who's the best athlete in sports history?

[Danny Gunz]

RG3 could be the most athletic guy in the NFL

[BigStereotype]

I understand what you're getting at ... honestly I think Messi is the best footballer EVER ... but I just don't think he's a better athlete than someone like Bo Jackson ... that's just my opinion and I'm in awe of Messi as well

Bo Jackson was 6'1"/230 and ran a 4.12 40. FOUR-TWELVE. That's absurd. He's bigger than most soccer players, runs a hell of a lot faster, can jump higher, can cut just as fast...but because he's an American, he's not the best athlete. Get outta here son.

[-Mustang-]

Bo Jackson was 6'1"/230 and ran a 4.12 40. FOUR-TWELVE. That's absurd. He's bigger than most soccer players, runs a hell of a lot faster, can jump higher, can cut just as fast...but because he's an American, he's not the best athlete. Get outta here son.

you ain't gotta sell me on him I agree he was ridiculous

[BigStereotype]

you ain't gotta sell me on him I agree he was ridiculous

I think I quoted the wrong post

[KING MEAT]

floyd mayweather

[HAVISJ]

Bo Jackson and Lebron James. James was a highly recruited football player when he was in school. I have no doubt in my mind that he could play pro football.

[Walt Liquor]

in his prime,

Bo Jax.......... stupid...stupid stupid.

if you can't admit that the us has the best athletes of any one country then you're just not being honest with yourself, per olympic results

[Danny Gunz]

Bo Jackson and Lebron James. James was a highly recruited football player when he was in school. I have no doubt in my mind that he could play pro football.

Lebron James is unfairly talented

[Drunken Cat]

in his prime,

Bo Jax.......... stupid...stupid stupid.

if you can't admit that the us has the best athletes of any one country then you're just not being honest with yourself, per olympic results

Actually, if you do the arithmetic, it is actually Russia/USSR.

The reason for this is that while the first Olympics was in 1896, participation in the early games was limited to a hand full of countries. Russia did compete in 1900, 1908 and 1912, but was absent from every subsequent Olympics, until 1952. The US has competed in every Olympics since 1896, with the exception of 1916 (cancelled because of WW1), 1940 and 1944 (both cancelled because of WW2), and 1980 (which the US boycotted because it was in the Soviet Union). The Soviet Union also boycotted 1984, because it was in the US.

Thus, you can't compare raw metal counts and say the US had a better result. If you look at the comparisons for years in which both countries were actually present, Russia/USSR is surely well ahead.

[Walt Liquor]

Actually, if you do the arithmetic, it is actually Russia/USSR.

The reason for this is that while the first Olympics was in 1896, participation in the early games was limited to a hand full of countries. Russia did compete in 1900, 1908 and 1912, but was absent from every subsequent Olympics, until 1952. The US has competed in every Olympics since 1896, with the exception of 1916 (cancelled because of WW1), 1940 and 1944 (both cancelled because of WW2), and 1980 (which the US boycotted because it was in the Soviet Union). The Soviet Union also boycotted 1984, because it was in the US.

Thus, you can't compare raw metal counts and say the US had a better result. If you look at the comparisons for years in which both countries were actually present, Russia/USSR is surely well ahead.

even IF russia has more (not they surely dont or wont in the future because of the breakup of the soviet union), still doesn't mean the US-centric spots wont have the better athletes. the only sports where an american isnt the best or at least arguably the best is soccer and rugby.