Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
John Barry just said...
Now_Im_Not_Banned:
--- Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on June 21, 2009, 03:57:20 PM ---
--- Quote from: Now_I_Know on June 21, 2009, 02:17:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on June 20, 2009, 10:09:17 AM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on June 20, 2009, 09:30:31 AM ---
--- Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on June 19, 2009, 10:51:51 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on June 19, 2009, 10:28:17 PM ---
--- Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on June 19, 2009, 03:13:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on June 19, 2009, 03:00:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: Styles1 on June 19, 2009, 02:45:25 PM ---Kobe has a long way to go before he retires. Let's continue this debate in about 7 to 8 years.
--- End quote ---
no doubt, but here's my thing...
let's say in a year or so this Laker squad breaks up & Kobe never wins another ring, but continues to put up the same stats (i mean look at the Celtics, shit happens).
so he never wins another ring, but you people will still stay debating that he is the best & shit.
so basically MJ is in a lose-lose situation for this debate, regardless of when it takes place. :P
--- End quote ---
Its simply not going to happen. In major sports in the US, there are basically 3 All time greats, where there is almost no debate about it. Jordan, Ali, and Tiger Woods. Jordan was crowned the greatest ever during his career. And at that time, there was very little debate. Shit wasnt it Magic that said "theres Michael Jordan, and then there's the rest of us"? With Tiger, its pretty clear he will go down as the greatest golfer ever...barring some horrible accident where he can never play golf again. Ali is difficult to guage because none of us were around at that time to truly get what the perception of him was during his career. Not to mention, there was so much political bullshit that lead to a lot of white America being very anti-Ali. But Kobe would have to pull off something miraculous to pass Jordan as the all time great. As I said, many dont even consider him a top 10 yet, but consider Shaq and Duncan in the top 10. So how people (Laker fans) try to push for Kobe> Jordan is fucking confusing lol.
--- End quote ---
I'd say the only two where most consider a single player as the best ever with out any real debate is Jordan and Ruth. Tiger hasn't passed Nicklaus yet and even if he does there'd still be a debate unless he slaughters the record. Tennis is pretty open Football doesn't really have . Boxing will get as money Louis or Marciano votes as it would Ali votes. Football's got no one because each position is so very different. Soccer has Pele or Maradonna.
--- End quote ---
You could be right about Ali, but I would bet at least 80% of polls would show people picking Ali as the greatest. Ruth has been up for debate for a long time lol. There is DEFINETELY no clearcut greatest in baseball, or football. Jordan is the clearcut greatest in Basketball obviously. The reason I say Tiger, is because he is in the same boat Jordan was in the middle of his career. He didnt have all the records or even all 6 championships, but everyone already knew he was going to go down as the all time great. Tiger hasn't past Nicklaus yet, but like i said...barring some unforeseen injury that ends his career, he will easily pass Nicklaus.
--- End quote ---
Debated with who? Ruth is still all these years later the clear cut greatest Baseball has ever seen. 342 BA, a fucking 690 slugging, 714 HRs with only 8400 ABs (that's 3000 less at bats than Aaron), and he was a winning World Series pitcher who at a high recorded 24 wins with 2 era and 35 complete games. Who the fuck even comes close to that in the MLB? Ruth is more clear cut than Jordan will ever be because we're still talking about him almost 100 year after he joined the majors. I'd like to see where Bonds stacks up in 60 years, or Aaron in the next 50. Ruth is the King of Baseball unless some guy comes along and wins 30 games as a pitcher with a perect game to boot and then hits 80 HRs.
"80% of polls would show people picking Ali" from with in boxing? No way. Joe Louis may even beat him out. From the mainstream fan Mike Tyson may get just as many votes in polls were done today.
--- Quote from: GET YOUR WALK ON on June 19, 2009, 10:31:58 PM ---wait shallow do you think tiger is the best athlete? (jus wonderin)
--- End quote ---
I refuse to call anyone the best athlete when their sport requires very little athleticism. He's definitely the best Golfer in his era and it's not even close but best athlete? No chance in hell. Give Pete Sampras or Steve Yzerman two years of training in Golf and I bet they can learn how to save for par against Tiger. Give Tiger Woods 5 years of training and let him go one on one with Sampras or last on the ice with Stevie Y. It'd be a complete joke.
--- End quote ---
Like I said, ive heard PLENTY of debate on greatest Baseball player of all time. Typically no one from our era is included in the conversation. But a player say, like Willie Mays definetely is. Babe Ruth is the greatest figure ever in baseball. His popularity in the sport pushes him above anyone. But skillwise Mays was ridiculous (best all around player ever), and you cant expect an African-American player who played during the middle of the century to be able to surpass Ruths popularity. The media and the American public would never have allowed it.
--- End quote ---
wow...notice how Daygo starts soundin like me when it works for his argument. "Babe Ruth was a bigger icon because of the media, but Mays was still better skillwise"...hmmmmmmm, sound familiar?....what a punk lol.
--- End quote ---
How stupid are you? Yeah because the media and fans nowadays are racist against Kobe but not MJ lol. If you think an African-American baseball player back then would receive the same love and respect from fans and media as the "Great Bambino" youre fuckin retarded lol.
--- End quote ---
MJ got more marketing and media attention than Kobe for reasons other than racism, you stupid moron. but my point stands. why the hell do i have to spell everything out for you? its like you have trouble getting things when it goes against your argument, LOL.
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: Shallow on June 22, 2009, 08:28:31 AM ---
--- Quote from: M Dogg on June 21, 2009, 10:47:17 PM ---
Ruth and Mays, I'll argue that Mays was the better all around player,and since Ruth didn't play in an integrated league, I can't put him at top. From the Jackie Robinson era to the Jose Canseco is to me the purest era of baseball, and from that Mayes is the GOAT, so to me Mayes is the GOAT of baseball. Ruth had all the power, his pitches could have been clocked at over 100 in his prime if they had speed guns back then, and he could hit the ball a mile away. But in all around skills, speed, power, fielding, Mayes was the best ever, the best all around talent. But since they didn't play in the same era, we can never tell.
--- End quote ---
Mays may have been a better athlete but doesn't the fact that he couldn't pitch put him behind Ruth? And people seem to only remember the fat, out of shape 30s Ruth. He was a rock solid outdielder in the 20s. The guy was no DH by today's standards. I know the whole no black pitchers argument is used a lot with his numbers, but I could count the number of black pitchers Mays had to face on one hand.
Of course if we're talking all around we got to bring Cobb into the argument. The redords he had for the time he had them, entirely in the deal ball era, really truly are a great feat. But Baseball wants to forget him. Everytime someone bats over 400 mid season everyone talks about Williams for having that one 400 year season. Cobb had three 400 year seasons, could play anywhere on the field, and is still top 5 in most major categories. And despite the hatred he did get more votes than Ruth and anyone else for the Hall of Fame.
--- End quote ---
Could you really count the number of black pitchers Willie hit against in one hand, 'cause he was in the Negro Leagues too you know, and I'm sure he faced more than 5 black pitchers there.
You want to bring these older players into the fold, and that's cool, but lets face the facts, before Jackie, they never faced the best of the best. That's like the old school Lakers in basketball, they never faced the best, but at least the Lakers made up for it by playing the Globetrotters in 3 games. Also, Cobbs was in the dead ball period, which I'll give him is due as a great hitter in a era that was marked by low scoring, but it's hard to put anyone in the dead ball period as the best.
If you want to add Ruth, you have to add Bonds, then the argument gets really dicey. If Bonds never took steroids, his without doubt the best player of this era clear of dirty, and his top 10 all time. With steroids, his greatest ever. Like Ruth, his playing his era, Ruth was a great man, don't get me wrong, but his era of baseball is hard to accept, especially as a person who's not white and knows players that look like me would not be in the league at that time. I know Ruth was a more progressive figure, but the league was so tainted by hate that it's an era that saw two leagues and never would they cross paths.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: M Dogg on June 22, 2009, 11:02:08 AM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on June 22, 2009, 08:28:31 AM ---
--- Quote from: M Dogg on June 21, 2009, 10:47:17 PM ---
Ruth and Mays, I'll argue that Mays was the better all around player,and since Ruth didn't play in an integrated league, I can't put him at top. From the Jackie Robinson era to the Jose Canseco is to me the purest era of baseball, and from that Mayes is the GOAT, so to me Mayes is the GOAT of baseball. Ruth had all the power, his pitches could have been clocked at over 100 in his prime if they had speed guns back then, and he could hit the ball a mile away. But in all around skills, speed, power, fielding, Mayes was the best ever, the best all around talent. But since they didn't play in the same era, we can never tell.
--- End quote ---
Mays may have been a better athlete but doesn't the fact that he couldn't pitch put him behind Ruth? And people seem to only remember the fat, out of shape 30s Ruth. He was a rock solid outdielder in the 20s. The guy was no DH by today's standards. I know the whole no black pitchers argument is used a lot with his numbers, but I could count the number of black pitchers Mays had to face on one hand.
Of course if we're talking all around we got to bring Cobb into the argument. The redords he had for the time he had them, entirely in the deal ball era, really truly are a great feat. But Baseball wants to forget him. Everytime someone bats over 400 mid season everyone talks about Williams for having that one 400 year season. Cobb had three 400 year seasons, could play anywhere on the field, and is still top 5 in most major categories. And despite the hatred he did get more votes than Ruth and anyone else for the Hall of Fame.
--- End quote ---
Could you really count the number of black pitchers Willie hit against in one hand, 'cause he was in the Negro Leagues too you know, and I'm sure he faced more than 5 black pitchers there.
You want to bring these older players into the fold, and that's cool, but lets face the facts, before Jackie, they never faced the best of the best. That's like the old school Lakers in basketball, they never faced the best, but at least the Lakers made up for it by playing the Globetrotters in 3 games. Also, Cobbs was in the dead ball period, which I'll give him is due as a great hitter in a era that was marked by low scoring, but it's hard to put anyone in the dead ball period as the best.
If you want to add Ruth, you have to add Bonds, then the argument gets really dicey. If Bonds never took steroids, his without doubt the best player of this era clear of dirty, and his top 10 all time. With steroids, his greatest ever. Like Ruth, his playing his era, Ruth was a great man, don't get me wrong, but his era of baseball is hard to accept, especially as a person who's not white and knows players that look like me would not be in the league at that time. I know Ruth was a more progressive figure, but the league was so tainted by hate that it's an era that saw two leagues and never would they cross paths.
--- End quote ---
C'mon, dude was 20 years old when he joined the Majors. How much Negro League ball could he have played? I'm talking about the number of black pitchers he faced in the MLB. Now whether you want to take the blacks weren't allowed to pitch like they weren't allowed to QB argument or the blacks didn't cut it pitching like whites don't cut it at running and catching in Football is up to. The bottom line is after blacks were allowed join the MLB, when Mr Sey Hay joined, black pitchers were few and far between. I'd argue that if Ruth played between 51 and 71 with the added teams, no spitballers, live ball era, amphetimine pills and steroids that he would have taken like everyone else did, and next to zero black pitchers he would have had a lot more 714 HRs and a bunch of other boosted stats.
You seem to think when Jackie joined the whole league filled up with blacks and it was half and half. It took a long fucking time. So if Ruth had the advantage of avoiding black pitchers then so did Mays, and Aaron. Shit, Bonds started in the 80s. How many has he faced? Now it's hard to compare and this isn't a science or anything but let's look at Jackie Robinson. In 1945 at the age of 26 Jackie Robinson joined the KC Monarchs. He had 163 at bats, got 63 hits, with 14 doubles, 4 triples and 5 homeruns. All the while hitting .387 and stealing 13 bases. Two year later his first year with the Dodgers he had 590 at bats. That's 3.62 times more ABs. He only had 2.7x more hits, 2.2x more doubles, 1 more triple, and 2.4x more HRs. He averaged a .297 BA and only had double the steals. The next year was pretty similar in numbers. I'm not saying Robinson would have sure kept his pace.
There really is no telling how Ruth would have done in a fair open league like we have today (maybe), but there's also no telling how Mays would have done either. In 1975 the all time high number of blacks in the MLB was 28%. So whatever the reasons were the MLB was almost always a very white league. Even today it's at 60%. What do you think it was in the 50s when Mays started?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version