RealGM

Taking cupcakesnake's suggestion, I'm breaking this out into its own thread historically focused. Later I want to do actual historical projects here, but for now, just keeping it as a discussion.

Here's the article:
ESPN's Top 100 Athletes of the 21st Century

Here are the women's basketball players on the list:

21. Diana Taurasi
34. Tamika Catchings
36. Maya Moore
60. Candace Parker
74. Lisa Leslie
81. Sheryl Swoopes
84. Lauren Jackson
90. A'ja Wilson

I'll also note that swimmer Michael Phelps tops their list followed by Serena Williams.

I'll definitely add some commentary in subsequent posts, but I'll leave it there for the OP.

cupcakesnake wrote:Was just browsing the ESPN article. They've released the rest of it and Taurasi is there at 21, the highest ranking for a women's basketball player. I know you've been clear you're not using this list as a strong indicator of "in-sport greatness" but I'm not sure what to use this list for at all. Fame is a huge metric for a lot of ESPN stuff and certainly a list like this. No doubt Taurasi was the post famous pre-CC WNBA athlete. The same list puts Kobe in the top 10 (comfortably ahead of Duncan and Shaq). Like Kobe, Taurasi (who had to share the White Mamba nickname with Brian Scalabrine) has been an ESPN darling. I do kind of see her as the Kobe of the WNBA; an incredible player near the top of her sport, but also one who many fans/media rate a little higher than is reasonable based on actual performance. I don't want to drag Taurasi here though. I still have her in the GOAT debate, I'd just start her closer to 10 than 1 with my initial assumptions.

(Also lol at Dave Mcmenamin being chosen to write Steve Nash's little entry. Basically uses his one paragraph to hint that Kobe/Shaq deserved Nash's MVPs. So rude!)

Not sure where I'd have Parker. I think I'd start her over Taurasi, but a lot of that is a personal preference for defense + versatility vs. scoring. I think you're underrating Parker's scoring a little bit. Yes she did not become the Lebron of the WNBA like the media hyped her as (a lot of that had to do with her winning that dunk contest in high school), but she wasn't exactly an offensive slouch or an Andre Iguodala type. We're still talking about someone who's 22nd all-time in points per game, and 40th all-time in ts%. I think it becomes a bit of Kevin Garnett situation (sorry for all the NBA analogies... hopefully we wont need them someday!), where fans over-index so hard on Candace being not as a good a scorer as some other stars, and forget she was still a very good scorer, and on top of that is one of the very best all-time defense and versatility players. Also her scoring game... we're talking about a multiple time 30 points per 100 type of player, who did so on very good efficiency despite not being a 3-point shooter.

I'm curious how you'd compare someone like Parker to someone like Tamika Catchings?

We should maybe start a WNBA historical thread? Or could move this to the WNBA Board Projects Thread as a warm up for an eventual Retro POY project?

Yeah absolutely no surprise that Taurasi is in their Top 25. I saw it as a given she'd top all other female basketball players on their list.

I will reiterate: While before their list was released I wouldn't have seen Sue Bird or Breanna Stewart as likely Top 25 candidates, I'm surprised that they aren't on the list at all. In the case of Bird, I don't actually disagree necessarily, but it's interesting because despite the fact that Bird was never an MVP level player, her stature within women's basketball to me feels absolutely massive. With Stewie, her not making the list while A'ja does is something I object to. I just think Stewie's done more to this point in her career.

Re: Kobe so high. Yup, this is where a list like this predictably gets focused on who the biggest icons are from a sport rather than how good the players actually were.

Re: Taurasi as Kobe of WNBA. To some degree yeah: She's seen as the ultimate killer-instinct scorer. Funny thing is: I don't actually think Taurasi's scoring is overrated, while Kobe's absolutely was. With Taurasi I consider her the GOAT WNBA scorer and the issue is just that she's really not that great at anything else. With Kobe we're just talking about a guy who managed to inherit the mantle from the GOAT NBA scorer (Jordan) while not putting up stats that were anything like Jordan except peak PPG.

Re: McMenamin. Thank you for that. Yes, F that dude and F ESPN for having a Laker guy do the write-up for Nash. I used to tsk-tsk at people who knocked ESPN, but they've become the slap-dash quick-score corporation that people worried they would become.

Re: Parker & Catchings. The two greatest UT grads! Well, I think the big thing I tend to look at is actual ability to impact the game to help their team win, and I see Catchings as someone with a major track record along those lines while Parker not so much.

I previously have posted a link to Across the Court's 3-year RAPM studies from 2006-2015. This is imperfect in general of course, but particularly so in this case because Catchings was a superstar before 2006 and Parker's Sparks won the 2016 title, but still, I think it's capturing quite a lot of each player's prime.

Here are the Top 10 performances by this metric between the two players:

1. Catchings 2011-13 +8.7
2. Catchings 2005-07 +7.4
3. Parker 2013-15 +6.7
4. Catchings 2006-08 +6.3
(tie) Catchings 2010-12 +6.3
6. Catchings 2009-11 +6.0
7. Catchings 2008-10 +5.8
8. Catchings 2013-15 +5.7
9. Catchings 2007-09 +5.5
10. Catchings 2014-16 +4.9
(tie) Parker 2007-09 +4.9

So yeah, by such a metric, it's really no contest.

By one of my pet stats - just raw +/- team leaders from season to season - here's the all-time leaderboard through 2023:

1. Tamika Catchings 10
2. Maya Moore 8
3. Elena Delle Donne 6
(tie) Sancho Lyttle 6
5. Yolanda Griffith 5
(tie) Lauren Jackson 5
(tie) Kara Lawson 5
(tie)Breanna Stewart 5
9. Sue Bird 4
(tie) Margo Dydek 4
(tie) Lisa Leslie 4
(tie) Candace Parker 4
(tie) Diana Taurasi 4
(tie) Penny Taylor 4
(tie) Alyssa Thomas 4

And for reference, the other player on ESPN's list not on this list:

A'ja Wilson 2

This is a super-simplistic metric not to be taken too seriously, but I think that basically no matter what +/- metrics you use, you'll tend to see Catchings & Moore at the top.

Here's where I'll also note that Moore has the WNBA record for most years in a row leading her team in +/- at 8, that in our records we have no man surpassing this (Dirk did it 8 times in a row), and the feather in the cap: Moore only played 8 seasons, which means she led every single team she was on in the WNBA in +/-.

Now, all of this information doesn't actually focus on the play. Why was it that Parker didn't show as strong of an impact signal as Catchings (or Moore)? This data can't explain the why.

I do think the big part of the disconnect between her stature among ESPN-types and her impact has to do with the volume scoring.

We see that as a rookie on the Sparks she's immediately given full offensive primacy, the team has a massive turnaround, and she wins the MVP as a rookie.

However, the team's offense sucked. The turnaround came from defense, and in the previous year, Lisa Leslie was out having a baby. Now Parker's a fine defender who I think can be said to be more versatile than Leslie, but I consider Leslie to be the superior defensive anchor, and I don't think there's generally much of a debate about that.

So then what Parker experienced as a rookie was pretty much the perfect situation to allow the hype machine surrounding her to get carried away. Looking like an amazing offensive player...but not really having massive impact, and having a correlation with defensive team success that happened to coincide with arguably the best defender in WNBA history to that point.

My feeling on Parker is that while in another role she was very capable of being a versatile "connector" type making heady plays, when the offense was based around her volume scoring, the results were not amazing. And in this, along with her hype, I'd say she's kinda like the WNBA's Wilt. Supposed to emerge as the best the league had ever seen, but fell short achieving that despite initial hype (MVP as rookie) seeming to indicate she was achieving it.

Re: similarities to Garnett. Understandable connection to make, but Garnett's a guy who shows impact that's more impressive than the box score while Parker doesn't. I think perhaps part of what's going on here is that we might think of Parker being comparable in height for a woman as Garnett is for a man, but a) with a gap in height that might be as high as 9 inches, this probably isn't so, and b) I would say Garnett was more quick-twitch for his size than Parker.

Now, none of this means Parker couldn't have been better offensively than Garnett, and frankly that's a specific comparison we could have, but if we're also seeing signs that alpha Parker didn't have the kind of offensive impact her box score implied, then it's not necessarily a surprise that Parker would fall short of being a women's KG.

Thinking in these terms I can't help but look over to Brittney Griner who I think is a physical standout in the women's game at least as much KG in the men's. But Griner's got some other things holding her back.

Ice Man wrote:

cupcakesnake wrote:No doubt Taurasi was the post famous pre-CC WNBA athlete.

Sample size of 1, but as an overall sports fan who didn't follow women's basketball (my knowledge being about the same as with the NHL, meaning I could only name the stars who were so big that their names made into the mainstream sports clips), my assumption until recently was that Britney Griner was the best ever player. She was the most publicized. I'm not talking about the Russia jail thing, I mean as a player.

Besides her, I had heard of -

Lobo
Bird
Tauresi
Swoopes
Miller
Parker
Catchings
Jackson
Stewart
Cooper
Leslie
Nancy Lieberman

Maybe a couple of others. But I had never heard of Kelsey Plum, even though as I later learned she was the all-time NCAA scoring leader. That's weird, don't you think?

Your recollection is pretty reasonable given the hype I recall.

With Griner specifically, I still consider her to be the best prospect ever to arrive in the WNBA, and it wasn't just based on a vague notion of potential. Her impact numbers in college were, from what I've seen, the best we've ever seen.

I remember saying after she was drafted that she was such an overwhelming talent that it would actually be more of a surprise needing explanation if she failed to become the WNBA GOAT than if she did. And of course, she did fail in that lofty goal despite being a clear-cut all-time great. So what happened?

I'd say 2 big things:

1. Mediocre BBIQ. She's a terrifying shot-blocker, but not the type of defensive player who can see what's coming moves in advance. Offenses can mitigate for her in a way that I tend to see as analogous to Artis Gilmore. Gilmore/Griner remain quite valuable, but not at the tippy top tier of defenders once the league got used to them. The Mercury would end up with 2 amazing defensive seasons led by Griner in her 2nd & 3rd years - the first - with Taurasi - would lead to a title, the second - with Taurasi taking gobs of money NOT to play in the WNBA from her Russian overlords - would not.

2. Limited offensive utility outside of the interior. Despite the fact she's actually a proficient free throw shooter - which is a big deal given her overwhelming physical advantage which leads to FTAs - she never really developed as a do-it-all offensive force. It's possible she would have had she not been on the same team as Taurasi, but I think it's unlikely.

Last note, it's possible you just forgot Maya Moore, but I think it's quite plausible to have not heard of her unless you were following the college game. While she came out as a mega-prospect up there with anyone other than Griner (note that she's 2nd on that college RAPM list behind Griner), and despite the fact that she immediately catapulted the Lynx to a title, the jack-of-all-trades way they chose to use Moore when added to a team that already had a volume scoring star in Augustus seems to have created a narrative that was far more "We're a team!" than "Look out, here comes the new WNBA GOAT!".

Had there been a hype machine around Moore after that initial title, I think she could have become a breakout mainstream star then, but it didn't happen.

Then there's the matter that the Jordan brand was actually just in the process of trying to make Moore a crossover star...



when Moore left the WNBA to go free a man from prison.

cupcakesnake wrote:I definitely remember the hype around Griner and Parker as prospects. Knowing so little about the W, I bought the hype and figured there's no way either of them wouldn't be the GOAT because they were things the league had never seen before. Candace was a non-center who could DUNK. Griner was too big to not be the Wilt Chamberlain of the W. If I had better understood the league, I'd have been able to respect it enough to know that basically no one is going to come in and trample the competition. It's the same with Clark this year. Fans don't know the league so they assume it's ripe for a transcendent talent to come in and dominate everyone from day 1. I think we have piled up enough seasons to know this just doesn't happen in the WNBA. The next time it happens will be the first, and part of me doubts it ever will happen, because it's just how the league works.

So I'll just say: I think there's a good case to be made that Maya Moore was the most valuable player in the league as a rookie. Just a question of whether Catchings was still ahead of her.

And yeah, so funny that while Parker had only recently won the MVP as a rookie - when I don't think she really was close to the most valuable player - that the Lynx really didn't even look to promote her as a candidate, instead veterans Lindsay Whalen & Seimone Augustus got the push, while Moore got a single 5th place vote as did role player teammate Rebekkah Brunson.

All this then to say that I don't think it's at all clear cut that the WNBA is so strong that a rookie can't come in and be an MVP-level player, Clark's just not that lady. Doesn't mean she won't become a major WNBA GOAT candidate with time, but as a rookie, she's no Maya.

One more bit of commentary on ESPN's list from me that really has nothing to with the W:

I think Phelps is overrated. I think he's an athlete in a sport that people don't care that much about which has managed to score an unreasonable amount of different Olympic categories, and thus allow for their top athletes to get more attention than they would otherwise get.

Now, I'm not swimming expert so feel free to chip away at my ignorance, but I'll put it like this:

If you're swimming in real life and you want to go fast you use free style, and if you want to pace you're self you use backstroke. If we only count those events without any relays, here's Phelps total list of Olympic Golds:

2004: 0 instead of 6
2008: 1 instead of 8
2012: 0 instead of 4
2016: 0 instead of 5

Basically Phelps is a guy who excels at the butterfly which is a stroke that has no actual use other than to work you out.

Not saying the world of swimming isn't free to call him their GOAT anyway, but realistically nobody would be looking to take a swimmer seriously for the #1 spot here if it weren't for the inflation of medals that swimming produces.

At #2 they have Serena Williams and I think that's reasonable. To me she's the clear cut top female athlete of the 21st century at this time, and unless Simone Biles (#7) surpasses her, probably nobody tops her in that category for a long time.

They list Messi, LeBron & Brady next, and those guys absolutely represent the best of the major team sports (with the exception of Barry Bonds who they have at #38, obviously lowered because of steroids). (Note they have Sidney Crosby as the top hockey player at 22, but I think the general sentiment among hockey people is that he doesn't represent hockey's version of a transcendent talent - Gretzky, he is not.)

Federer coming it at 6 above tennis rival Djokovic is an interesting thing. I don't think that will age well and it almost certainly speaks primarily to the fact that Federer came first and he wasn't surpassed for a very long time. While I think Federer was a) the best tennis ball striker in history, b) the most graceful tennis player in history, and c) the player whose game could best translate to any era of the sport, at this time it's pretty clear that Djokovic will achieve the most in his career.

Doctor MJ wrote:One more bit of commentary on ESPN's list from me that really has nothing to with the W:

I think Phelps is overrated. I think he's an athlete in a sport that people don't care that much about which has managed to score an unreasonable amount of different Olympic categories, and thus allow for their top athletes to get more attention than they would otherwise get.

Now, I'm not swimming expert so feel free to chip away at my ignorance, but I'll put it like this:

If you're swimming in real life and you want to go fast you use free style, and if you want to pace you're self you use backstroke. If we only count those events without any relays, here's Phelps total list of Olympic Golds:

2004: 0 instead of 6
2008: 1 instead of 8
2012: 0 instead of 4
2016: 0 instead of 5

Basically Phelps is a guy who excels at the butterfly which is a stroke that has no actual use other than to work you out.

Not saying the world of swimming isn't free to call him their GOAT anyway, but realistically nobody would be looking to take a swimmer seriously for the #1 spot here if it weren't for the inflation of medals that swimming produces.

At #2 they have Serena Williams and I think that's reasonable. To me she's the clear cut top female athlete of the 21st century at this time, and unless Simone Biles (#7) surpasses her, probably nobody tops her in that category for a long time.

They list Messi, LeBron & Brady next, and those guys absolutely represent the best of the major team sports (with the exception of Barry Bonds who they have at #38, obviously lowered because of steroids). (Note they have Sidney Crosby as the top hockey player at 22, but I think the general sentiment among hockey people is that he doesn't represent hockey's version of a transcendent talent - Gretzky, he is not.)

Federer coming it at 6 above tennis rival Djokovic is an interesting thing. I don't think that will age well and it almost certainly speaks primarily to the fact that Federer came first and he wasn't surpassed for a very long time. While I think Federer was a) the best tennis ball striker in history, b) the most graceful tennis player in history, and c) the player whose game could best translate to any era of the sport, at this time it's pretty clear that Djokovic will achieve the most in his career.

i think off-court and cultural impact had a lot to do with the rankings.

i think djokovic got dinged because of the anti-vaxx and unconventional opinions? i thought floyd at 25 and jon jones at 66 were also low but if you factor in things outside of the ring/octagon then yeah

Doctor MJ wrote:All this then to say that I don't think it's at all clear cut that the WNBA is so strong that a rookie can't come in and be an MVP-level player, Clark's just not that lady. Doesn't mean she won't become a major WNBA GOAT candidate with time, but as a rookie, she's no Maya.

I wasn't there for Moore, but just looking at the history, I'm not sure what to make of this comparison. Unlike Clark, Moore joined a loaded team. That means that Moore got to win a title rather than be on a losing squad, and presumably helped her scoring efficiency, since her teammates could set her up sometimes rather than always the reverse. On the other hand, she surely wasn't given the keys to the team as has been done with Clark, which would have lowered her overall production. Also, I assume she was the better defender.

At any rate, as a rookie Moore ended up similar points, efficiency, and rebounds as Clark, a whole lot fewer assists, and a whole lot fewer turnovers. Overall, those stats look to be something of a wash. But again, I wasn't there.

Ghetto Gospel wrote:i think djokovic got dinged because of the anti-vaxx and unconventional opinions?

That and his overall demeanor. Tennis fans never cared for Novak the way they did Federer (especially) or Nadal. Ask most tennis fans and they might reluctantly call the Novak the GOAT, but then they immediately will start talking about how much they miss Roger.

Ghetto Gospel wrote:i think off-court and cultural impact had a lot to do with the rankings.

i think djokovic got dinged because of the anti-vaxx and unconventional opinions? i thought floyd at 25 and jon jones at 66 were also low but if you factor in things outside of the ring/octagon then yeah

I think there's some truth in what you're saying about off-court stuff and Djokovic, but I also think that over time Djokovic is going to be the guy who is the clear cut men's tennis player from there. Federer still being atop to me feels like a group of casuals with outdated opinions.

Re: combat sports. Will be interesting how this goes in the future. Combat sports are about as original as modern sports can be and deserve respect for the capabilities involved, but the damage they do to the combatants makes things a bit dicey for the mainstream.

Also my hot take:

I think it is extremely damaging to combat sports when the best heavyweight athletes choose to go elsewhere. Well and good to talk about the sweet science of lightweights in general, but when in the case of boxing your "best boxer" is someone who would get beaten to a pulp by other boxers who simply aren't allowed in the ring with the "best", it makes the sport feel minor league.

(Note, you can make the case that this is analogous to women in gymnastics being bigger icons than the men, but I don't think it hits the same way because the audience is female-dominated for gymnastics.)

Career PIPM Wins Added (1997-2019?) for comparison

Ice Man wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:All this then to say that I don't think it's at all clear cut that the WNBA is so strong that a rookie can't come in and be an MVP-level player, Clark's just not that lady. Doesn't mean she won't become a major WNBA GOAT candidate with time, but as a rookie, she's no Maya.

I wasn't there for Moore, but just looking at the history, I'm not sure what to make of this comparison. Unlike Clark, Moore joined a loaded team. That means that Moore got to win a title rather than be on a losing squad, and presumably helped her scoring efficiency, since her teammates could set her up sometimes rather than always the reverse. On the other hand, she surely wasn't given the keys to the team as has been done with Clark, which would have lowered her overall production. Also, I assume she was the better defender.

At any rate, as a rookie Moore ended up similar points, efficiency, and rebounds as Clark, a whole lot fewer assists, and a whole lot fewer turnovers. Overall, those stats look to be something of a wash. But again, I wasn't there.

I would suggest that the idea that the Lynx were "loaded" was a chosen narrative that isn't so clear cut.

I mentioned before that teammates Whalen & Augustus got more MVP votes in 2011 than Moore, and another teammate Brunson tied with Moore (each got a single 5th place vote). Note that all of those other players were on the Lynx the previous year when they had an SRS of -4.5 and the Lynx franchise in general was known for being a perpetual doormat. That poor performance led them to have the 2nd best odds to win the lottery, and win the lottery they did, changing everything.

To go into the +/- realm, here's the raw +/- across RS & PS for the Lynx starters in 2011:

Moore +344
Taj +333
Brunson +295
Whalen +274
Augustus +229

I'd note specifically that the two players promoted as MVP candidates (Whalen & Augustus) are WAY behind Moore.

I'd also note that they both had negative +/- the previous year.

Let me also go with the 3-year RAPM studies we have. Keep in mind that Moore was a rookie in 2011 so studies from 2009-11 and 2010-12 only include one or two years of her, and may also limit how much of an outlier she looks like.

2009-11:
Moore +5.0
Taj +3.6
Whalen +2.1
Augustus +1.7
Brunson +1.3

2010-12:
Moore +7.5
Taj +5.3
Whalen +1.7
Augustus +1.5
Brunson +0.1

2011-13:
Moore +10.3
Taj +4.0
Whalen +1.8
Augustus +1.7
Brunson +1.4

You can see that the gap between Moore and everyone else on the team is big right from the start (particularly compared to the other stars), and just gets bigger from there.

So yeah, I think that the narrative about a loaded Lynx team painted the wrong picture. Moore's teammates deserve credit like all secondary and tertiary players do, but in terms of impact, she was on a completely different level than the rest.

With all that said, a key thing to keep in mind with the Clark comparison:

There's really no question at all as to whether Clark can be the kind of all-around force as Moore - she can't. She's not the kind of athlete Moore is, and quite honestly, I'd say that's part of her appeal.

The question for Clark is whether her work as a scorer and playmaker can become some valuable that it allows her to surpass those who are stronger than her in other ways. And I'm not saying she can't - I'm super-excited for her - but to the question:

Would Clark have led the 2011 Lynx to the title as a rookie like Moore did? No, I don't think there's any chance of that.

Doctor MJ wrote:Re: combat sports. Will be interesting how this goes in the future. Combat sports are about as original as modern sports can be and deserve respect for the capabilities involved, but the damage they do to the combatants makes things a bit dicey for the mainstream.

Also my hot take:

I think it is extremely damaging to combat sports when the best heavyweight athletes choose to go elsewhere. Well and good to talk about the sweet science of lightweights in general, but when in the case of boxing your "best boxer" is someone who would get beaten to a pulp by other boxers who simply aren't allowed in the ring with the "best", it makes the sport feel minor league.

(Note, you can make the case that this is analogous to women in gymnastics being bigger icons than the men, but I don't think it hits the same way because the audience is female-dominated for gymnastics.)

i could be misremembering this but a decade ago, floyd felt like he was in the same airspace as kobe in terms of overall sports impact, popularity and name recognition. i expected floyd to be in whatever range kobe would finish in, in this case 10. he's certainly more mainstream than a lot of athletes ahead of him in the rankings.

i think it's fair to critique a fighter in a lower weight class. it's hard to call someone the baddest man on the planet or the best fighter when another fighter 50 lbs heavier could take them out. though i think if you were to make that point, it's hard to argue for serena being the greatest tennis player of all time or to put her at 2 in these rankings ahead of the other great male tennis players.

Ice Man wrote:

Ghetto Gospel wrote:i think djokovic got dinged because of the anti-vaxx and unconventional opinions?

That and his overall demeanor. Tennis fans never cared for Novak the way they did Federer (especially) or Nadal. Ask most tennis fans and they might reluctantly call the Novak the GOAT, but then they immediately will start talking about how much they miss Roger.

And I'm one of them.

Djokovic is the GOAT and should be ranked as the top men's player on any list like this.

He's also a think-skinned brat promoting dangerous health ideas coming in the wake of two of the best sports role models we've ever seen, and this probably is part of why the casual voters here being a bit behind the curve still haven't elevated him above Fed/Rafa in their minds yet.

a bit off topic, and i hope it doesn't go someplace weird, but the list is littered with men compared to women.

there are 2 women in the top 10 on this list, and they are both in sports that are a little bit more ambiguous with regards to gender excellence. certainly, to the mainstream audience, the athleticism difference is much less apparent and quantifiable in both tennis and gymnastics (especially gymnastics) as compared to say basketball or timed sports like track and swimming.

i hope to one day see in a list like this where a dominant WNBA player gets rated higher than a dominant NBA player. a'ja wilson is on her way to her 3rd MVP and could conceivably rack up a few more. would she ever get placed higher on this list than any of her nba contemporaries like say giannis or jokic? i understand the reason why sports is split based on gender, but, i would like to hope that one day we can move past that and place women a little higher in some of these lists and compare them to their peers only

Ghetto Gospel wrote:a bit off topic, and i hope it doesn't go someplace weird, but the list is littered with men compared to women.

there are 2 women in the top 10 on this list, and they are both in sports that are a little bit more ambiguous with regards to gender excellence. certainly, to the mainstream audience, the athleticism difference is much less apparent and quantifiable in both tennis and gymnastics (especially gymnastics) as compared to say basketball or timed sports like track and swimming.

i hope to one day see in a list like this where a dominant WNBA player gets rated higher than a dominant NBA player. a'ja wilson is on her way to her 3rd MVP and could conceivably rack up a few more. would she ever get placed higher on this list than any of her nba contemporaries like say giannis or jokic? i understand the reason why sports is split based on gender, but, i would like to hope that one day we can move past that and place women a little higher in some of these lists and compare them to their peers only

I have no issues with putting men and women together. It is not about athleticism difference. This isn't the top most athletic person this century. It is about athletic performance in competition. What Serena Williams did in women's tennis was remarkable. There are only one or two women in history that can say they have equal or better resumes. If you look at how athletic she is in her sport, in her gender, and what she was able to accomplished as a whole, she is definitely a top athlete this century.