# Top 100 Athletes of the 20th Century



## Star

5 tool baseball players are the best all-around athletes. Babe Ruth was not only head and shoulders above his peers as an offensive player, he was also an all-star defensive player, add to that, that he was one of the greatest pitchers of his time and my vote for greatest athlete of the 20th century goes to Babe Ruth-----goes to Babe Ruth, with apologies to Jordan, Thorpe, Didrikson-Zaharias, Ali, and Louis.





*Top 100 Athletes of the 20th Century*

The top athletes of century as voted by a 16-member panel assembled by The Associated Press, with first place votes in parenthesis, points based on 100 points for a first place vote through one point for a 100th place vote: 

No. Athlete (1st place) Pts

1. Babe Ruth (5) 1551 
2. Michael Jordan (4) 1524 
3. Jim Thorpe (3) 1471 
4. Muhammad Ali (2) 1462 
5. Wayne Gretzky 1368 
6. Jim Brown 1333 
7. Joe Louis (1) 1327 
8. Jesse Owens 1307 
9. Babe Didrikson Zaharias (1) 1254 
10. Wilt Chamberlain 1235 

11. Willie Mays 1182 
12. Jack Nicklaus 1167 
13. Ted Williams 1124 
14. Ty Cobb 1115 
15. Pele 1095 
16. Bill Russell 1071 
17. Lou Gehrig 1064 
18. Hank Aaron 1044 
19. Joe DiMaggio 1031 
20.* Martina Navratilova *1026 

21. Carl Lewis 1009 
22. Gordie Howe 988 
23. Sugar Ray Robinson 949 
24. Larry Bird 945 
25. Ben Hogan 937 
26. Oscar Robertson 929 
27. Red Grange 905 
28. Walter Payton 882 
29. Jackie Robinson 875 
30. *Rod Laver *863 

31. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 837 
32. Magic Johnson 835 
33. Arnold Palmer 814 
34. Sandy Koufax 792 
35. Mickey Mantle (tie) 785 
35. Mark Spitz 785 
37. Joe Montana 772 
38. Jack Dempsey 765 
39. Bobby Orr 729 
40. Jackie Joyner-Kersee 685 

41. *Billie Jean King *683 
42. Walter Johnson 671 
43. Sammy Baugh 621 
44. Rocky Marciano (tie) 596 
44. Johnny Unitas 596 
46. Stan Musial 589 
47. Bobby Jones 572 
48. Rogers Hornsby 567 
49. Honus Wagner 560 
50. Jerry Rice 552 

51. *Pete Sampras *550 
52. Nadia Comaneci 547 
53. *Bill Tilden* 537 
54. Don Hutson 533 
55. *Chris Evert *509 
56. Cy Young 508 
57. Julius Erving 488 
58. Tiger Woods 483 
59. Roger Bannister 471 
60. Jerry West 451 

61. Rafer Johnson 447 
62. Maurice Richard 440 
63. Eric Heiden 437 
64. Lawrence Taylor 418 
65. Jean-Claude Killy 416 
66. Edwin Moses 415 
67. Nolan Ryan 403 
68. *Steffi Graf *392 
69. Paavo Nurmi 386 
70. Bobby Hull 378 

71. Bob Mathias 376 
72. Christy Mathewson (tie) 371 
72. Bronco Nagurski 371 
74. Elgin Baylor 353 
75. Sam Snead 345 
76. Sonja Henie (tie) 344 
76. Wilma Rudolph 344 
78. Dick Butkus 340 
79. Bob Cousy 326 
80. Willlie Shoemaker 325 

81. Secretariat 311 
82. Cal Ripken Jr. 308 
83. Althea Gibson 302 
84. Mark McGwire 301 
85. John McEnroe 300 
86. Otto Graham 298 
87. O.J. Simpson 294 
88. Pete Rose 290 
89. Roger Staubach 289 
90. Don Budge 266 

91. Eddie Arcaro (tie) 262 
91. Juan Manuel Fangio 262 
93. Henry Armstrong 259 
94. Mario Lemieux 250 
95. Sugar Ray Leonard 246 
96. Mario Andretti 233 
97. Emil Zatopek 232 
98. Josh Gibson 223 
99. Warren Spahn 220 
100. Roberto Clemente (tie) 215 
100. Bob Gibson 215


----------



## OKTexas

You know it's bs when they list Woods and not Palmer, when Woods is chasing Palmers records.


----------



## bobcollum

There's a freaking horse on the list.


----------



## ginscpy

ALi is so   ovewrrateed is ts  pathetic .................................

Hid behind rope-a-dope.

(and to think  I was rooting forhim in Ali-Fazirer 1  on March 1971)


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Secretariat is ranked at 81. I would rank Secretariat in the top 25, easily.

Golfers are FRINGE athletes, at best. Tennis players aren't far behind.

At least they didn't list any BOWLERS.


----------



## Star

Romney can't even get "great athletes" right, and the person that moved this thread from "Politics" to "Sports" ain't payin' attention.


*Mitt Romney: Jack Nicklaus is the 20th century's greatest athlete - Sporting News* 


Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential candidate for the upcoming 2012 election, made waves by dipping his toes into the world of sports earlier this week during a campaign stop in Westerville, Ohio. 

Romney, according to CNN.com, called golf legend Jack Nicklaus "the greatest athlete of the 20th century." 





Mitt Romney and Jack Nicklaus meet the crowd at a campaign stop in Ohio. At the stop, Romney called Nicklaus the greatest athlete of the 20th century. (AP Photo)​ 
Later, Romney poked fun at his personal athleticism -- or lack thereof. 

"When I got the job to help organize the Olympic Winter Games in 2002, I knew that it was a bit ironic for a guy with such little athletic ability as myself to be able to be responsible for the largest athletic event in the world," Romney said. "My boys also saw the irony in it." 

Nicklaus is a native of Upper Arlington, Ohio and attended Ohio State University, hence his appearance on the campaign trail in his birth state. Romney's campaign had signs that said "The Golden Bear for Romney/Ryan," according to the Associated Press.


----------



## Saigon

Well, maybe my Top 10 would be:

1) Pele

2) Muhammed Ali

3) Maradona

4) Federer

5) George Best

6) Tiger Woods

7) Manny Pacquiao

8) Serena Williams

9) Jonah Lomu

10) Beckham


----------



## Rocko

Michael Jordan is the greatest athlete ever! No way you put a fat guy ahead of him!


----------



## Papageorgio

Rocko said:


> Michael Jordan is the greatest athlete ever! No way you put a fat guy ahead of him!



The poll is stupid, but Ruth #1, a horse on the list, a golfer in the top 10? Crazy.


----------



## Vituperative

Where's Anderson Silva on this list?????


----------



## Synthaholic

OKTexas said:


> You know it's bs when they list Woods and not Palmer, when Woods is chasing Palmers records.


#33.

Damn, you wingnuts are dumb.


----------



## Synthaholic

They got Babe Ruth correct.  He was worlds ahead of every other athlete in his time.

Jackie Robinson should be higher.

Roberto Clemente should be higher.

Henry Aaron should be higher.

Rickey Henderson should be on the list.

Mark McGwire should not.

All golfers, race car drivers, jockeys, quarterbacks and linemen, and boxers should be much lower.

Baseball (except pitchers), soccer, Olympic sports should be the highest.

Basketball, football, tennis fall in the middle.


----------



## Paulie

ginscpy said:


> ALi is so   ovewrrateed is ts  pathetic .................................
> 
> Hid behind rope-a-dope.
> 
> (and to think  I was rooting forhim in Ali-Fazirer 1  on March 1971)



That's your edited version of the post??


----------



## Synthaholic

Paulie said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALi is so   ovewrrateed is ts  pathetic .................................
> 
> Hid behind rope-a-dope.
> 
> (and to think  I was rooting forhim in Ali-Fazirer 1  on March 1971)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your edited version of the post??
Click to expand...


----------



## Mad Scientist

Jim Thorpe could have gone pro in *every sport he played*, and he played them all. All the others listed were one or *maybe* two sport heroes.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Best baseball player of all-time: Babe Ruth
Best basketball player of all-time: Larry Bird
Best football player of all-time: Barry Sanders
Best hockey player of all-time: Wayne Gretzky
Best swimmer of all-time: Michael Phelps
Best track athlete of all-time: Carl Lewis (We all know Bolt is roided up)
Best boxer of all-time: Wladimir Klitschko
Best soccer player of all-time: Lionel Messi
Best golfer of all-time: Jack Nicklaus (Tiger roided too)
Best tennis player of all-time: Roger Federer


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Best baseball player of all-time: Babe Ruth
> Best basketball player of all-time: Larry Bird
> Best football player of all-time: Barry Sanders
> Best hockey player of all-time: Wayne Gretzky
> Best swimmer of all-time: Michael Phelps
> Best track athlete of all-time: Carl Lewis (We all know Bolt is roided up)
> Best boxer of all-time: Wladimir Klitschko
> Best soccer player of all-time: Lionel Messi
> Best golfer of all-time: Jack Nicklaus (Tiger roided too)
> Best tennis player of all-time: Roger Federer




Not with you on Bird, I'd go with Jordan.
Boxer, not sure.
Soccer, Pele.


----------



## alan1

Michael Phelps?
The most decorated Olympian ever didn't make the list?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best baseball player of all-time: Babe Ruth
> Best basketball player of all-time: Larry Bird
> Best football player of all-time: Barry Sanders
> Best hockey player of all-time: Wayne Gretzky
> Best swimmer of all-time: Michael Phelps
> Best track athlete of all-time: Carl Lewis (We all know Bolt is roided up)
> Best boxer of all-time: Wladimir Klitschko
> Best soccer player of all-time: Lionel Messi
> Best golfer of all-time: Jack Nicklaus (Tiger roided too)
> Best tennis player of all-time: Roger Federer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not with you on Bird, I'd go with Jordan.
> Boxer, not sure.
> Soccer, Pele.
Click to expand...


Bird could dominate any aspect of the game and he made every team he was ever on, great. Jordan was the third best player on his college team. He came into the league and they let him go wild and put up stats for ticket sales. But he has losing seasons all 3 years before Pippen (probably the real most athletic player in the league) came to town. What did Bird do in the meantime? Won a couple championships, beat Jordan 14 straight times (including 2 playoff sweeps). And Bird had to win against dynasty level teams like the Lakers, Sixers, Rockets, and Pistons. All's Jordan ever did was beat watered down teams led by the 80s A minus stars with David Stern's help.

You want to compare Bird and Jordan when they were at the end of their careers. Coming off two acl tears and a back condition that would have had every other player retiring, Bird led his team to 50 wins and he was still on verge to take out the Bulls if his back hadn't flared so bad that he was missing playoff games. Jordan in his last two years; two more losing seasons and no playoffs on 41 percent shooting. Bird never had one season like that. Jordan had freaking 5 of them. Sound great to you? He's a corporate illusion for obvious reasons; and like everything it comes down to money; not the truth.

As for boxing, I was considering Lennox Lewis and then I remembered Vlad Klit. LL actually beat VK; but that was b/c of a fluke cut that got worse throughout the fight. VK was actually ahead on the score card and in fact he's never finished a fight not ahead on the scorecard. Lewis didn't want any part of a rematch with that beast. He retired after that.


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best baseball player of all-time: Babe Ruth
> Best basketball player of all-time: Larry Bird
> Best football player of all-time: Barry Sanders
> Best hockey player of all-time: Wayne Gretzky
> Best swimmer of all-time: Michael Phelps
> Best track athlete of all-time: Carl Lewis (We all know Bolt is roided up)
> Best boxer of all-time: Wladimir Klitschko
> Best soccer player of all-time: Lionel Messi
> Best golfer of all-time: Jack Nicklaus (Tiger roided too)
> Best tennis player of all-time: Roger Federer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not with you on Bird, I'd go with Jordan.
> Boxer, not sure.
> Soccer, Pele.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bird could dominate any aspect of the game and he made every team he was ever on, great. Jordan was the third best player on his college team. He came into the league and they let him go wild and put up stats for ticket sales. But he has losing seasons all 3 years before Pippen (probably the real most athletic player in the league) came to town. What did Bird do in the meantime? Won a couple championships, beat Jordan 14 straight times (including 2 playoff sweeps). And Bird had to win against dynasty level teams like the Lakers, Sixers, Rockets, and Pistons. All's Jordan ever did was beat watered down teams led by the 80s A minus stars with David Stern's help.
> 
> You want to compare Bird and Jordan when they were at the end of their careers. Coming off two acl tears and a back condition that would have had every other player retiring, Bird led his team to 50 wins and he was still on verge to take out the Bulls if his back hadn't flared so bad that he was missing playoff games. Jordan in his last two years; two more losing seasons and no playoffs on 41 percent shooting. Bird never had one season like that. Jordan had freaking 5 of them. Sound great to you? He's a corporate illusion for obvious reasons; and like everything it comes down to money; not the truth.
> 
> As for boxing, I was considering Lennox Lewis and then I remembered Vlad Klit. LL actually beat VK; but that was b/c of a fluke cut that got worse throughout the fight. VK was actually ahead on the score card and in fact he's never finished a fight not ahead on the scorecard. Lewis didn't want any part of a rematch with that beast. He retired after that.
Click to expand...


If you take out Jordan, then I go with Magic, Bird was sheer desire.


----------



## Vituperative

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Best baseball player of all-time: Babe Ruth
> Best basketball player of all-time: Larry Bird
> Best football player of all-time: Barry Sanders
> Best hockey player of all-time: Wayne Gretzky
> Best swimmer of all-time: Michael Phelps
> Best track athlete of all-time: Carl Lewis (We all know Bolt is roided up)
> Best boxer of all-time: Wladimir Klitschko
> Best soccer player of all-time: Lionel Messi
> Best golfer of all-time: Jack Nicklaus (Tiger roided too)
> Best tennis player of all-time: Roger Federer



Best football player: Jim Brown
Best Fighter: Anderson Silva
Best Boxer: not klitschko.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not with you on Bird, I'd go with Jordan.
> Boxer, not sure.
> Soccer, Pele.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bird could dominate any aspect of the game and he made every team he was ever on, great. Jordan was the third best player on his college team. He came into the league and they let him go wild and put up stats for ticket sales. But he has losing seasons all 3 years before Pippen (probably the real most athletic player in the league) came to town. What did Bird do in the meantime? Won a couple championships, beat Jordan 14 straight times (including 2 playoff sweeps). And Bird had to win against dynasty level teams like the Lakers, Sixers, Rockets, and Pistons. All's Jordan ever did was beat watered down teams led by the 80s A minus stars with David Stern's help.
> 
> You want to compare Bird and Jordan when they were at the end of their careers. Coming off two acl tears and a back condition that would have had every other player retiring, Bird led his team to 50 wins and he was still on verge to take out the Bulls if his back hadn't flared so bad that he was missing playoff games. Jordan in his last two years; two more losing seasons and no playoffs on 41 percent shooting. Bird never had one season like that. Jordan had freaking 5 of them. Sound great to you? He's a corporate illusion for obvious reasons; and like everything it comes down to money; not the truth.
> 
> As for boxing, I was considering Lennox Lewis and then I remembered Vlad Klit. LL actually beat VK; but that was b/c of a fluke cut that got worse throughout the fight. VK was actually ahead on the score card and in fact he's never finished a fight not ahead on the scorecard. Lewis didn't want any part of a rematch with that beast. He retired after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you take out Jordan, then I go with Magic, Bird was sheer desire.
Click to expand...


Magic was at Bird's level from 87 on. Before that the Bird/Magic thing was mostly marketing. Kareem and Worthy were probably better players to that point.

And it wasn't simply sheer desire for Bird. He simply could do things nobody else could do.. Bob Knight said he had the best eye hand coordination ever.


----------



## Rocko

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bird could dominate any aspect of the game and he made every team he was ever on, great. Jordan was the third best player on his college team. He came into the league and they let him go wild and put up stats for ticket sales. But he has losing seasons all 3 years before Pippen (probably the real most athletic player in the league) came to town. What did Bird do in the meantime? Won a couple championships, beat Jordan 14 straight times (including 2 playoff sweeps). And Bird had to win against dynasty level teams like the Lakers, Sixers, Rockets, and Pistons. All's Jordan ever did was beat watered down teams led by the 80s A minus stars with David Stern's help.
> 
> You want to compare Bird and Jordan when they were at the end of their careers. Coming off two acl tears and a back condition that would have had every other player retiring, Bird led his team to 50 wins and he was still on verge to take out the Bulls if his back hadn't flared so bad that he was missing playoff games. Jordan in his last two years; two more losing seasons and no playoffs on 41 percent shooting. Bird never had one season like that. Jordan had freaking 5 of them. Sound great to you? He's a corporate illusion for obvious reasons; and like everything it comes down to money; not the truth.
> 
> As for boxing, I was considering Lennox Lewis and then I remembered Vlad Klit. LL actually beat VK; but that was b/c of a fluke cut that got worse throughout the fight. VK was actually ahead on the score card and in fact he's never finished a fight not ahead on the scorecard. Lewis didn't want any part of a rematch with that beast. He retired after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you take out Jordan, then I go with Magic, Bird was sheer desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magic was at Bird's level from 87 on. Before that the Bird/Magic thing was mostly marketing. Kareem and Worthy were probably better players to that point.
> 
> And it wasn't simply sheer desire for Bird. He simply could do things nobody else could do.. Bob Knight said he had the best eye hand coordination ever.
Click to expand...


Dude, Bird doesn't even sniff Top 10 NBA players of all time.


----------



## Rocko

Vituperative said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best baseball player of all-time: Babe Ruth
> Best basketball player of all-time: Larry Bird
> Best football player of all-time: Barry Sanders
> Best hockey player of all-time: Wayne Gretzky
> Best swimmer of all-time: Michael Phelps
> Best track athlete of all-time: Carl Lewis (We all know Bolt is roided up)
> Best boxer of all-time: Wladimir Klitschko
> Best soccer player of all-time: Lionel Messi
> Best golfer of all-time: Jack Nicklaus (Tiger roided too)
> Best tennis player of all-time: Roger Federer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best football player: Jim Brown
> Best Fighter: Anderson Silva
> Best Boxer: not klitschko.
Click to expand...


Best football player: Jim Brown/Walter Payton
Best Fighter: I have no clue
Best Boxter: definitely not Klitschko LMAO, I'll go with Tyson.


----------



## Rocko

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Best baseball player of all-time: Babe Ruth
> Best basketball player of all-time: Larry Bird
> Best football player of all-time: Barry Sanders
> Best hockey player of all-time: Wayne Gretzky
> Best swimmer of all-time: Michael Phelps
> Best track athlete of all-time: Carl Lewis (We all know Bolt is roided up)
> Best boxer of all-time: Wladimir Klitschko
> Best soccer player of all-time: Lionel Messi
> Best golfer of all-time: Jack Nicklaus (Tiger roided too)
> Best tennis player of all-time: Roger Federer



lol at Tiger roided .


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Rocko said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you take out Jordan, then I go with Magic, Bird was sheer desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magic was at Bird's level from 87 on. Before that the Bird/Magic thing was mostly marketing. Kareem and Worthy were probably better players to that point.
> 
> And it wasn't simply sheer desire for Bird. He simply could do things nobody else could do.. Bob Knight said he had the best eye hand coordination ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, Bird doesn't even sniff Top 10 NBA players of all time.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot if you believe that.


----------



## Rocko

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Magic was at Bird's level from 87 on. Before that the Bird/Magic thing was mostly marketing. Kareem and Worthy were probably better players to that point.
> 
> And it wasn't simply sheer desire for Bird. He simply could do things nobody else could do.. Bob Knight said he had the best eye hand coordination ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, Bird doesn't even sniff Top 10 NBA players of all time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you believe that.
Click to expand...


I have nothing against Bird, he was great, but I think there's alot of players that were better. You a C's fan?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Rocko said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, Bird doesn't even sniff Top 10 NBA players of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have nothing against Bird, he was great, but I think there's alot of players that were better. You a C's fan?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter if I'm a C's fan. I know basketball. And I know it's insane to say Bird wasn't top ten of all-time; epecially in lieu of the fact that he was simply the best ever.


----------



## Rocko

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against Bird, he was great, but I think there's alot of players that were better. You a C's fan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I'm a C's fan. I know basketball. And I know it's insane to say Bird wasn't top ten of all-time; epecially in lieu of the fact that he was simply the best ever.
Click to expand...


Ok buddie.


----------



## GWV5903

Rocko said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you take out Jordan, then I go with Magic, Bird was sheer desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magic was at Bird's level from 87 on. Before that the Bird/Magic thing was mostly marketing. Kareem and Worthy were probably better players to that point.
> 
> And it wasn't simply sheer desire for Bird. He simply could do things nobody else could do.. Bob Knight said he had the best eye hand coordination ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, Bird doesn't even sniff Top 10 NBA players of all time.
Click to expand...


You're dead wrong, Bird was the best...

Olajuwon, pure talent, would have dominated had he been in LA or Boston...

Jordan, great player, all heart, SP made him unstopable...


----------



## Rocko

GWV5903 said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Magic was at Bird's level from 87 on. Before that the Bird/Magic thing was mostly marketing. Kareem and Worthy were probably better players to that point.
> 
> And it wasn't simply sheer desire for Bird. He simply could do things nobody else could do.. Bob Knight said he had the best eye hand coordination ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, Bird doesn't even sniff Top 10 NBA players of all time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're dead wrong, Bird was the best...
> 
> Olajuwon, pure talent, would have dominated had he been in LA or Boston...
> 
> Jordan, great player, all heart, SP made him unstopable...
Click to expand...


Jordan, Kobe, Jabbar, Russell, Chamberland, Oscar Robinson, Jerry West, Lebron James Olajuwon, Karl Malone/Kevin Garnet


----------



## Synthaholic

Rocko said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you take out Jordan, then I go with Magic, Bird was sheer desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magic was at Bird's level from 87 on. Before that the Bird/Magic thing was mostly marketing. Kareem and Worthy were probably better players to that point.
> 
> And it wasn't simply sheer desire for Bird. He simply could do things nobody else could do.. Bob Knight said he had the best eye hand coordination ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, Bird doesn't even sniff Top 10 NBA players of all time.
Click to expand...

Yes he does, but he's not one of basketball's greatest _athletes_.  I would put Karl Malone and Dominique Wilkins and Jordon and prolly 10 others ahead of Larry Legend, athlete-wise.  

Now, basketball players?  Shot makers?  Game smarts?  Larry is definitely top 5.


----------



## Rocko

Synthaholic said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Magic was at Bird's level from 87 on. Before that the Bird/Magic thing was mostly marketing. Kareem and Worthy were probably better players to that point.
> 
> And it wasn't simply sheer desire for Bird. He simply could do things nobody else could do.. Bob Knight said he had the best eye hand coordination ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, Bird doesn't even sniff Top 10 NBA players of all time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he does, but he's not one of basketball's greatest _athletes_.  I would put Karl Malone and Dominique Wilkins and Jordon and prolly 10 others ahead of Larry Legend, athlete-wise.
> 
> Now, basketball players?  Shot makers?  Game smarts?  Larry is definitely top 5.
Click to expand...


One can make an argument for top 5, 10. I personally don't think so, but still, hard to find many people who think he was better than Jordan.


----------



## Synthaholic

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against Bird, he was great, but I think there's alot of players that were better. You a C's fan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I'm a C's fan. I know basketball. And I know it's insane to say Bird wasn't top ten of all-time; epecially in lieu of the fact that he was simply the best ever.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.  Bill Russell was better.  Jordon was better.  Kareem was better, and is my #1 pick.  Bird follows them.  Then Oscar, Wilt, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, Malone, Hakeem.


----------



## Papageorgio

I'd rank them:

1. Jordan
2. Jabbar
3. Magic
4. Chamberlin
5. Bird 

I was never a fan of any Laker, I can't stand them. Nor did I ever like Jordan because I hated the Bulls, but facts are facts. 

Jordan made his team better once he figured out what he could do and control. Jabbar and Magic made everyone that played on that team better. Wilt took over games and changed the game. Bird also willed the teams to win and made everyone on his team better.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Rocko said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, Bird doesn't even sniff Top 10 NBA players of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he does, but he's not one of basketball's greatest _athletes_.  I would put Karl Malone and Dominique Wilkins and Jordon and prolly 10 others ahead of Larry Legend, athlete-wise.
> 
> Now, basketball players?  Shot makers?  Game smarts?  Larry is definitely top 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One can make an argument for top 5, 10. I personally don't think so, but still, hard to find many people who think he was better than Jordan.
Click to expand...


That's b/c most people are idiots who buy the hype. Again, Bird beat Jordan 14 straight times.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> I'd rank them:
> 
> 1. Jordan
> 2. Jabbar
> 3. Magic
> 4. Chamberlin
> 5. Bird
> 
> I was never a fan of any Laker, I can't stand them. Nor did I ever like Jordan because I hated the Bulls, but facts are facts.
> 
> Jordan made his team better once he figured out what he could do and control. Jabbar and Magic made everyone that played on that team better. Wilt took over games and changed the game. Bird also willed the teams to win and made everyone on his team better.



The Bulls were one bad call from returning to the finals the year after Jordan retired. He was 0-5 in getting a winning season w/o Pippen and 3 of those years he was in his prime.


----------



## Oddball

Now way Mark McGwire belongs on the OP list.

He not only 'roided, he was only a middle-of-the-road 1B defensively.


----------



## rightwinger

OKTexas said:


> You know it's bs when they list Woods and not Palmer, when Woods is chasing Palmers records.



Woods has beaten every Palmer record


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

rightwinger said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know it's bs when they list Woods and not Palmer, when Woods is chasing Palmers records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woods has beaten every Palmer record
Click to expand...


But Palmer wasn't a doper.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Oddball said:


> Now way Mark McGwire belongs on the OP list.
> 
> He not only 'roided, he was only a middle-of-the-road 1B defensively.



I'm an Angels fan and I've enjoyed the defensive exploits of Trout, Hunter and Vlad in recent years. But defense never matters in baseball listology lol. A-Rod was a below averaged defender for most of his career.


----------



## Synthaholic

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he does, but he's not one of basketball's greatest _athletes_.  I would put Karl Malone and Dominique Wilkins and Jordon and prolly 10 others ahead of Larry Legend, athlete-wise.
> 
> Now, basketball players?  Shot makers?  Game smarts?  Larry is definitely top 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One can make an argument for top 5, 10. I personally don't think so, but still, hard to find many people who think he was better than Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's b/c most people are idiots who buy the hype. Again, Bird beat Jordan 14 straight times.
Click to expand...

In what?  Blackjack?


----------



## Synthaholic

Oddball said:


> Now way Mark McGwire belongs on the OP list.
> 
> He not only 'roided, he was only a middle-of-the-road 1B defensively.



I agree that he was no athlete, and he cheated with steroids.  And I always considered him a middle of the pack 1st baseman.  But I happened to have a conversation with ex-Athletic ace Dave Stewart when he was scouting for the Blue Jays, and we were talking about the Bash Brothers.  He had nothing good to say about Conseco, but he said that McGwire was a vastly underrated defensive first baseman.  He rated him one of the best in the league, only behind Mattingly.  I figured he knew what's what.  And when you look it up, the only break in Mattingly's streak of 9 Gold Gloves is McGwire, in 1990.


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know it's bs when they list Woods and not Palmer, when Woods is chasing Palmers records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woods has beaten every Palmer record
Click to expand...


_In baseball, the equipment is normal and the players are juiced.
In golf, the players are normal and the equipment is juiced._

I would like to see how well Tiger would do playing on Arnie's, Jack's, or especially Bobby Jones' equipment.  Balls didn't go as far, were not as perfectly manufactured, irons weren't for shit (I have some of those out in the garage), and drivers were about 1/3 the head size, with a tiny sweet spot.  Drivers today are cantaloupes on a stick and very forgiving.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

I just like that Palmer shows up to the Masters and he's like f it. I don't care if I'm old. I'm going to shoot my 95. I earned it. LOL


----------



## GWV5903

Synthaholic said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can make an argument for top 5, 10. I personally don't think so, but still, hard to find many people who think he was better than Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's b/c most people are idiots who buy the hype. Again, Bird beat Jordan 14 straight times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In what?  Blackjack?
Click to expand...


You forgot SP wasn't around when he was first drafted, Scotty made Jordon unstoppable...

Now Olajuwon out played all of the big men, he didn't have the support as early in his career...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

GWV5903 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's b/c most people are idiots who buy the hype. Again, Bird beat Jordan 14 straight times.
> 
> 
> 
> In what?  Blackjack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot SP wasn't around when he was first drafted, Scotty made Jordon unstoppable...
> 
> Now Olajuwon out played all of the big men, he didn't have the support as early in his career...
Click to expand...


The Bulls were very beatable. Had they played in the 80's they'd be lucky to have come away with one championship.


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what?  Blackjack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot SP wasn't around when he was first drafted, Scotty made Jordon unstoppable...
> 
> Now Olajuwon out played all of the big men, he didn't have the support as early in his career...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bulls were very beatable. Had they played in the 80's they'd be lucky to have come away with one championship.
Click to expand...


Jordan had Pippen, 

Magic had Jabbar and Worthy.

Bird had McHale and Parrish.

The Celtics and the Lakers had a better supporting cast than Bird or Magic. 

If you we're Bird, I would think he would have taken the Celtics or the Lakers supporting casts over the Bulls. The Bulls lacked depth many of their runs. The .celtics and Lakers had talent dying to play for them.


----------



## rightwinger

Nice to see Josh Gibson on the list at 98. But if Gibson is on the list, Satchell Paige should be in there. He is arguably the greatest pitcher of all time


----------



## rightwinger

Nolan Ryan is way too high at 67. He was not even the best pitcher of his era and never even won a Cy Young. Seaver, Carleton, Spahn, Gibson, Marichal all pitched in his era and dominated more than Ryan did


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> Nolan Ryan is way too high at 67. He was not even the best pitcher of his era and never even won a Cy Young. Seaver, Carleton, Spahn, Gibson, Marichal all pitched in his era and dominated more than Ryan did



Yeah, I saw that.  Ryan the pitcher is almost as overrated as Ryan the politician.

You could make the case for Maddux being on the list.  You don't become the all-time leader in Gold Gloves (18) without great reflexes and athletic ability.  Of course, where you end up after you've thrown a pitch also has a lot to do with that, so I may be overstating the importance.  But you still have to catch the ball.

My all-time R/L pitchers are both Braves:  Maddux and Spahn.  Most people today are familiar with Greg's brilliance, but don't realize that Spahn had 13 20-win seasons for a mediocre franchise.  Spahn is the answer I give when people excuse Ryan's poor record due to the mediocre clubs he played for.


----------



## Oddball

No Bo Jackson?

The guy who could've made the HoF in two sports, were it not for a career-ending hip injury?


----------



## rightwinger

Synthaholic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nolan Ryan is way too high at 67. He was not even the best pitcher of his era and never even won a Cy Young. Seaver, Carleton, Spahn, Gibson, Marichal all pitched in his era and dominated more than Ryan did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I saw that.  Ryan the pitcher is almost as overrated as Ryan the politician.
> 
> You could make the case for Maddux being on the list.  You don't become the all-time leader in Gold Gloves (18) without great reflexes and athletic ability.  Of course, where you end up after you've thrown a pitch also has a lot to do with that, so I may be overstating the importance.  But you still have to catch the ball.
> 
> My all-time R/L pitchers are both Braves:  Maddux and Spahn.  Most people today are familiar with Greg's brilliance, but don't realize that Spahn had 13 20-win seasons for a mediocre franchise.  Spahn is the answer I give when people excuse Ryan's poor record due to the mediocre clubs he played for.
Click to expand...


Warren Spahn in 1963, 42 years old

23-7 , 2.60 ERA, 22 CG, 7 Shutouts

Better than any year Nolan Ryan ever had


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot SP wasn't around when he was first drafted, Scotty made Jordon unstoppable...
> 
> Now Olajuwon out played all of the big men, he didn't have the support as early in his career...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bulls were very beatable. Had they played in the 80's they'd be lucky to have come away with one championship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jordan had Pippen,
> 
> Magic had Jabbar and Worthy.
> 
> Bird had McHale and Parrish.
> 
> The Celtics and the Lakers had a better supporting cast than Bird or Magic.
> 
> If you we're Bird, I would think he would have taken the Celtics or the Lakers supporting casts over the Bulls. The Bulls lacked depth many of their runs. The .celtics and Lakers had talent dying to play for them.
Click to expand...


Yea__ when Horace Horse Grant and Bill Cartwright are your 3rd and 4th best players.....Even the little two guards Scott and Ainge would have shredded Paxson.

And even the Pistons only lost to the Bulls as age and injury set-in. 

You have to be a real BB guy to know this; but teams like the 86 Rockets went 12 freaking deep. IMO - the best team to not win a championship. The early 80s Sixers went 10 deep. Their back 5 could've kept up with the Bulls. It's no wonder that the great C's only went 2 of 4 against them in and 1 of 3 early on. The Sixers even swept the Lakers in 83.

Then you get to the end of the 80's, even teams like the Jazz and Mavericks were better than those Bulls teams. 

Unfortunately, we live in a nit wit culture (and for those that didn't see it, you can't exactly blame them full on); that just count rings and think that's the be all and end all.


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bulls were very beatable. Had they played in the 80's they'd be lucky to have come away with one championship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan had Pippen,
> 
> Magic had Jabbar and Worthy.
> 
> Bird had McHale and Parrish.
> 
> The Celtics and the Lakers had a better supporting cast than Bird or Magic.
> 
> If you we're Bird, I would think he would have taken the Celtics or the Lakers supporting casts over the Bulls. The Bulls lacked depth many of their runs. The .celtics and Lakers had talent dying to play for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea__ when Horace Horse Grant and Bill Cartwright are your 3rd and 4th best players.....Even the little two guards Scott and Ainge would have shredded Paxson.
> 
> And even the Pistons only lost to the Bulls as age and injury set-in.
> 
> You have to be a real BB guy to know this; but teams like the 86 Rockets went 12 freaking deep. IMO - the best team to not win a championship. The early 80s Sixers went 10 deep. Their back 5 could've kept up with the Bulls. It's no wonder that the great C's only went 2 of 4 against them in and 1 of 3 early on. The Sixers even swept the Lakers in 83.
> 
> Then you get to the end of the 80's, even teams like the Jazz and Mavericks were better than those Bulls teams.
> 
> Unfortunately, we live in a nit wit culture (and for those that didn't see it, you can't exactly blame them full on); that just count rings and think that's the be all and end all.
Click to expand...


Right, I forgot I was talking to a Celtics fan, they think they know basketball. 

I am a real "BB" fan and I still disagree with your biased assessment of Bird. He had a great supporting cast. I never thought Chicago was ever that deep. The Celtics and Lakers had some great role players.


----------



## Papageorgio

Oddball said:


> No Bo Jackson?
> 
> The guy who could've made the HoF in two sports, were it not for a career-ending hip injury?



His career might be to short to consider him one of the best 100.


----------



## NoNukes

ginscpy said:


> ALi is so   ovewrrateed is ts  pathetic .................................
> 
> Hid behind rope-a-dope.
> 
> (and to think  I was rooting forhim in Ali-Fazirer 1  on March 1971)



Rope a dope was brilliant, as was Ali.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

rightwinger said:


> Nolan Ryan is way too high at 67. He was not even the best pitcher of his era and never even won a Cy Young. Seaver, Carleton, Spahn, Gibson, Marichal all pitched in his era and dominated more than Ryan did



First off, throw Marichal out of the equation. He had a good 7 year span. That's it.

And his 2.89 ERA to Ryan's 3.19 overlooks that Ryan played against the higher scoring AL for much of his career. And Ryan was that close despite pitching for 11 more years! Plus, don't forget that Ryan was a power pitcher. If he wasn't feeling that well, he was going to pay a price on a given day b/c he didn't rely as much on the second and third option. But when Ryan was on; he was fucking on. That's why the guy had 7 no-hitters and like a million 1 and 2 hitters. It's also why the 5,719 people he struck out, obliterates the record.

As for not winning a Cy Young - Who the f cares. He's the same pitcher as Roger Clemens who won like 7 of them.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan had Pippen,
> 
> Magic had Jabbar and Worthy.
> 
> Bird had McHale and Parrish.
> 
> The Celtics and the Lakers had a better supporting cast than Bird or Magic.
> 
> If you we're Bird, I would think he would have taken the Celtics or the Lakers supporting casts over the Bulls. The Bulls lacked depth many of their runs. The .celtics and Lakers had talent dying to play for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea__ when Horace Horse Grant and Bill Cartwright are your 3rd and 4th best players.....Even the little two guards Scott and Ainge would have shredded Paxson.
> 
> And even the Pistons only lost to the Bulls as age and injury set-in.
> 
> You have to be a real BB guy to know this; but teams like the 86 Rockets went 12 freaking deep. IMO - the best team to not win a championship. The early 80s Sixers went 10 deep. Their back 5 could've kept up with the Bulls. It's no wonder that the great C's only went 2 of 4 against them in and 1 of 3 early on. The Sixers even swept the Lakers in 83.
> 
> Then you get to the end of the 80's, even teams like the Jazz and Mavericks were better than those Bulls teams.
> 
> Unfortunately, we live in a nit wit culture (and for those that didn't see it, you can't exactly blame them full on); that just count rings and think that's the be all and end all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, I forgot I was talking to a Celtics fan, they think they know basketball.
> 
> I am a real "BB" fan and I still disagree with your biased assessment of Bird. He had a great supporting cast. I never thought Chicago was ever that deep. The Celtics and Lakers had some great role players.
Click to expand...


That's a copout. Everyone has biases dude. If I let my bias rule me, I would have claimed that Brett Favre (my favorite football player) was the greatest football player of all-time. 


The truth of the matter is, that most people that say Jordan was the greatest are his "biggest fan" btw. You think they aren't biased? They idolize him. And some day, Jordan won't be the so-called consensus greatest b/c some other guy will have a group of "biggest fans" and the media will be all too happy to sell the latest and greatest.


----------



## NoNukes

I would have put Roberto Clemente higher than many of the other baseball players. Warren Spaun is listed higher than Clemente!!!!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

NoNukes said:


> I would have put Roberto Clemente higher than many of the other baseball players. Warren Spaun is listed higher than Clemente!!!!



240 career home runs and .359 OBP. Hardly great numbers.


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea__ when Horace Horse Grant and Bill Cartwright are your 3rd and 4th best players.....Even the little two guards Scott and Ainge would have shredded Paxson.
> 
> And even the Pistons only lost to the Bulls as age and injury set-in.
> 
> You have to be a real BB guy to know this; but teams like the 86 Rockets went 12 freaking deep. IMO - the best team to not win a championship. The early 80s Sixers went 10 deep. Their back 5 could've kept up with the Bulls. It's no wonder that the great C's only went 2 of 4 against them in and 1 of 3 early on. The Sixers even swept the Lakers in 83.
> 
> Then you get to the end of the 80's, even teams like the Jazz and Mavericks were better than those Bulls teams.
> 
> Unfortunately, we live in a nit wit culture (and for those that didn't see it, you can't exactly blame them full on); that just count rings and think that's the be all and end all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I forgot I was talking to a Celtics fan, they think they know basketball.
> 
> I am a real "BB" fan and I still disagree with your biased assessment of Bird. He had a great supporting cast. I never thought Chicago was ever that deep. The Celtics and Lakers had some great role players.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a copout. Everyone has biases dude. If I let my bias rule me, I would have claimed that Brett Favre (my favorite football player) was the greatest football player of all-time.
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is, that most people that say Jordan was the greatest are his "biggest fan" btw. You think they aren't biased? They idolize him. And some day, Jordan won't be the so-called consensus greatest b/c some other guy will have a group of "biggest fans" and the media will be all too happy to sell the latest and greatest.
Click to expand...


I'm not a Jordan, Bird, Magic, Laker, Bulls or Celtic fan, none of the three were my favorite when they played. Dr. J was a great player but not a top 5 or 10, but fun to watch. Kiki Vandeweghe had one of the prettiest shots and I remember watching him score 30 a game and think, where did they come from. Kobe I'd rate higher but I find him to selfish, the same as Lebron. I also wonder how great Walton would have been without all the injuries, he could have been one of the greatest.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I forgot I was talking to a Celtics fan, they think they know basketball.
> 
> I am a real "BB" fan and I still disagree with your biased assessment of Bird. He had a great supporting cast. I never thought Chicago was ever that deep. The Celtics and Lakers had some great role players.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a copout. Everyone has biases dude. If I let my bias rule me, I would have claimed that Brett Favre (my favorite football player) was the greatest football player of all-time.
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is, that most people that say Jordan was the greatest are his "biggest fan" btw. You think they aren't biased? They idolize him. And some day, Jordan won't be the so-called consensus greatest b/c some other guy will have a group of "biggest fans" and the media will be all too happy to sell the latest and greatest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Jordan, Bird, Magic, Laker, Bulls or Celtic fan, none of the three were my favorite when they played. Dr. J was a great player but not a top 5 or 10, but fun to watch. Kiki Vandeweghe had one of the prettiest shots and I remember watching him score 30 a game and think, where did they come from. Kobe I'd rate higher but I find him to selfish, the same as Lebron. I also wonder how great Walton would have been without all the injuries, he could have been one of the greatest.
Click to expand...


When Shaq/Gasol weren't there; Kobe jacked up shots and padded his stats and had losing seasons. And as the wheels came off against the Thunder, he tried to be a hero and he shot them out of games. Bird would never have done that. Kobe is nothing more than Jordan Lite and he has a shooting percentage which reflects that.


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nolan Ryan is way too high at 67. He was not even the best pitcher of his era and never even won a Cy Young. Seaver, Carleton, Spahn, Gibson, Marichal all pitched in his era and dominated more than Ryan did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I saw that.  Ryan the pitcher is almost as overrated as Ryan the politician.
> 
> You could make the case for Maddux being on the list.  You don't become the all-time leader in Gold Gloves (18) without great reflexes and athletic ability.  Of course, where you end up after you've thrown a pitch also has a lot to do with that, so I may be overstating the importance.  But you still have to catch the ball.
> 
> My all-time R/L pitchers are both Braves:  Maddux and Spahn.  Most people today are familiar with Greg's brilliance, but don't realize that Spahn had 13 20-win seasons for a mediocre franchise.  Spahn is the answer I give when people excuse Ryan's poor record due to the mediocre clubs he played for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Warren Spahn in 1963, 42 years old
> 
> 23-7 , 2.60 ERA, 22 CG, 7 Shutouts
> 
> Better than any year Nolan Ryan ever had
Click to expand...

Against a golden age of NL batters, too, like Mays, Cepeda, Santo, McCovey, Pinson, Davis, Billy Williams, Frank Robinson, Clemente, Mazeroski...

At least he didn't have to pitch against Aaron and Matthews.  

ETA:  the Braves ended the 1963 season in 6th place, with only the Cubs, Pirates, Colt 45's, and lowly Mets worse than them.


----------



## Synthaholic

TheGreatGatsby said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nolan Ryan is way too high at 67. He was not even the best pitcher of his era and never even won a Cy Young. Seaver, Carleton, Spahn, Gibson, Marichal all pitched in his era and dominated more than Ryan did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, throw Marichal out of the equation. He had a good 7 year span. That's it.
> 
> And his 2.89 ERA to Ryan's 3.19 overlooks that Ryan played against the higher scoring AL for much of his career. And Ryan was that close despite pitching for 11 more years! Plus, don't forget that Ryan was a power pitcher. If he wasn't feeling that well, he was going to pay a price on a given day b/c he didn't rely as much on the second and third option. But when Ryan was on; he was fucking on. That's why the guy had 7 no-hitters and like a million 1 and 2 hitters. It's also why the 5,719 people he struck out, obliterates the record.
> 
> As for not winning a Cy Young - Who the f cares. He's the same pitcher as Roger Clemens who won like 7 of them.
Click to expand...

Ryan LOST 300 games.

And he did have a good curve ball, so he wasn't just a fastball pitcher.

His main problem was control and playing for mediocre teams.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a copout. Everyone has biases dude. If I let my bias rule me, I would have claimed that Brett Favre (my favorite football player) was the greatest football player of all-time.
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is, that most people that say Jordan was the greatest are his "biggest fan" btw. You think they aren't biased? They idolize him. And some day, Jordan won't be the so-called consensus greatest b/c some other guy will have a group of "biggest fans" and the media will be all too happy to sell the latest and greatest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Jordan, Bird, Magic, Laker, Bulls or Celtic fan, none of the three were my favorite when they played. Dr. J was a great player but not a top 5 or 10, but fun to watch. Kiki Vandeweghe had one of the prettiest shots and I remember watching him score 30 a game and think, where did they come from. Kobe I'd rate higher but I find him to selfish, the same as Lebron. I also wonder how great Walton would have been without all the injuries, he could have been one of the greatest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Shaq/Gasol weren't there; Kobe jacked up shots and padded his stats and had losing seasons. And as the wheels came off against the Thunder, he tried to be a hero and he shot them out of games. Bird would never have done that. Kobe is nothing more than Jordan Lite and he has a shooting percentage which reflects that.
Click to expand...


BTW - How many times has Kobe been blown out by 30 plus in close-out games? About 6 or 7 times. That's why I laugh when I hear people pretend that Kobe deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Bird.


----------



## Synthaholic

NoNukes said:


> I would have put Roberto Clemente higher than many of the other baseball players. Warren Spaun is listed higher than Clemente!!!!



Warren Spahn is the best LHP in MLB history.



TheGreatGatsby said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have put Roberto Clemente higher than many of the other baseball players. Warren Spaun is listed higher than Clemente!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 240 career home runs and .359 OBP. Hardly great numbers.
Click to expand...



Clemente is *perhaps* the best rightfielder in MLB history.  He not only had one of the best outfield arms in history, he turned 42 double plays from RF.

He hit over .300 in 12 of his final 13 seasons, and had 3000 hits.  I'd say those are great numbers.


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a copout. Everyone has biases dude. If I let my bias rule me, I would have claimed that Brett Favre (my favorite football player) was the greatest football player of all-time.
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is, that most people that say Jordan was the greatest are his "biggest fan" btw. You think they aren't biased? They idolize him. And some day, Jordan won't be the so-called consensus greatest b/c some other guy will have a group of "biggest fans" and the media will be all too happy to sell the latest and greatest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Jordan, Bird, Magic, Laker, Bulls or Celtic fan, none of the three were my favorite when they played. Dr. J was a great player but not a top 5 or 10, but fun to watch. Kiki Vandeweghe had one of the prettiest shots and I remember watching him score 30 a game and think, where did they come from. Kobe I'd rate higher but I find him to selfish, the same as Lebron. I also wonder how great Walton would have been without all the injuries, he could have been one of the greatest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Shaq/Gasol weren't there; Kobe jacked up shots and padded his stats and had losing seasons. And as the wheels came off against the Thunder, he tried to be a hero and he shot them out of games. Bird would never have done that. Kobe is nothing more than Jordan Lite and he has a shooting percentage which reflects that.
Click to expand...


No one person can carry an NBA team, without talent surrounding you, you are done in today's NBA. The Lakers were a poor cast this year. Kobe doesn't make others that much better. That's why he isn't in my top ten.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Jordan, Bird, Magic, Laker, Bulls or Celtic fan, none of the three were my favorite when they played. Dr. J was a great player but not a top 5 or 10, but fun to watch. Kiki Vandeweghe had one of the prettiest shots and I remember watching him score 30 a game and think, where did they come from. Kobe I'd rate higher but I find him to selfish, the same as Lebron. I also wonder how great Walton would have been without all the injuries, he could have been one of the greatest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Shaq/Gasol weren't there; Kobe jacked up shots and padded his stats and had losing seasons. And as the wheels came off against the Thunder, he tried to be a hero and he shot them out of games. Bird would never have done that. Kobe is nothing more than Jordan Lite and he has a shooting percentage which reflects that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one person can carry an NBA team, without talent surrounding you, you are done in today's NBA. The Lakers were a poor cast this year. Kobe doesn't make others that much better. That's why he isn't in my top ten.
Click to expand...


No one person can carry a team. But one person can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness. And that was always true in the case of Bird and not Jordan/Kobe.

Bird took nobodies to an undefeated season in college basketball. He took a last place team with 28 wins and he turned them into a 60 win team his rookie year and champions the next year. 

Contrast that with Jordan who came in the league and ball hogged and he took a 27 win team to 38 wins and three straight losing seasons.


----------



## ginscpy

Kareem won 4 college NC - if you include his freshman season.

PERFECTO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And he was under pressure to do so being highly touted out of HS - and deleived.

Won theNBA title with Milwaukee in 2nd season.

Should be rated above Wilt C. or Jordan in basketball.  (Jordan was crappy in HS and college) 

Niclklaus should be in thetop 5.

Clay/Ali couldnt punch.


----------



## rightwinger

TheGreatGatsby said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nolan Ryan is way too high at 67. He was not even the best pitcher of his era and never even won a Cy Young. Seaver, Carleton, Spahn, Gibson, Marichal all pitched in his era and dominated more than Ryan did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, throw Marichal out of the equation. He had a good 7 year span. That's it.
> 
> And his 2.89 ERA to Ryan's 3.19 overlooks that Ryan played against the higher scoring AL for much of his career. And Ryan was that close despite pitching for 11 more years! Plus, don't forget that Ryan was a power pitcher. If he wasn't feeling that well, he was going to pay a price on a given day b/c he didn't rely as much on the second and third option. But when Ryan was on; he was fucking on. That's why the guy had 7 no-hitters and like a million 1 and 2 hitters. It's also why the 5,719 people he struck out, obliterates the record.
> 
> As for not winning a Cy Young - Who the f cares. He's the same pitcher as Roger Clemens who won like 7 of them.
Click to expand...


A good 7 year span?

The point is that Ryan did not have a good seven year span. Marichal had seasons of 25-8, 26-9, 25-6 while Ryan only cracked 20 wins once pitching in the same era. Ryan pitched in the "higher scoring AL"?  The AL sucked in the 60-70s, the NL had all the stars on both sides. Look at the Hall of Famers from that era, most played in the NL

Ryan had seven no-hitters which equates to seven great games that you compare to Marichals seven great seasons

Ryan was not a great pitcher because he lacked control for most of his career. Leading the league in walks negates leading the league in strikeouts


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Shaq/Gasol weren't there; Kobe jacked up shots and padded his stats and had losing seasons. And as the wheels came off against the Thunder, he tried to be a hero and he shot them out of games. Bird would never have done that. Kobe is nothing more than Jordan Lite and he has a shooting percentage which reflects that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one person can carry an NBA team, without talent surrounding you, you are done in today's NBA. The Lakers were a poor cast this year. Kobe doesn't make others that much better. That's why he isn't in my top ten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one person can carry a team. But one person can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness. And that was always true in the case of Bird and not Jordan/Kobe.
> 
> Bird took nobodies to an undefeated season in college basketball. He took a last place team with 28 wins and he turned them into a 60 win team his rookie year and champions the next year.
> 
> Contrast that with Jordan who came in the league and ball hogged and he took a 27 win team to 38 wins and three straight losing seasons.
Click to expand...


The year before was the team swap with Buffalo, it was a mess from day one. The year Bird came to Boston, the team had 8 players averaging double figures and was a very deep team.


----------



## Papageorgio

ginscpy said:


> Kareem won 4 college NC - if you include his freshman season.
> 
> PERFECTO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> And he was under pressure to do so being highly touted out of HS - and deleived.
> 
> Won theNBA title with Milwaukee in 2nd season.
> 
> Should be rated above Wilt C. or Jordan in basketball.  (Jordan was crappy in HS and college)
> 
> Niclklaus should be in thetop 5.
> 
> Clay/Ali couldnt punch.



I have Jabbar right behind Jordan, the guy was unstoppable with that skyhook.


----------



## NoNukes

TheGreatGatsby said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have put Roberto Clemente higher than many of the other baseball players. Warren Spaun is listed higher than Clemente!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 240 career home runs and .359 OBP. Hardly great numbers.
Click to expand...


Clemente did not swing for the fences, and he was the best clutch hitter that I ever saw. He was one of the best fielders ever.


----------



## Synthaholic

NoNukes said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have put Roberto Clemente higher than many of the other baseball players. Warren Spaun is listed higher than Clemente!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 240 career home runs and .359 OBP. Hardly great numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clemente did not swing for the fences, and he was the best clutch hitter that I ever saw. He was one of the best fielders ever.
Click to expand...

Imaging where he would have ended up had he not died in that plane crash.  He was 38, but in great shape, and prolly could have played 4 more years.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.

How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.

Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.

1. Equipment
2. Playing conditions
3. Quality and quantity of competition
4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
5. Rules changes
6. The "color barrier"
7. Coaching
8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.  

Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".

This sort of topic is a popularity contest.

My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:

Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.

Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.

Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays.  Pitcher- Roger Clemens

Golf: Jack Nicklaus

Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.


----------



## rightwinger

TruthSeeker56 said:


> These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.
> 
> How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.
> 
> Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.
> 
> 1. Equipment
> 2. Playing conditions
> 3. Quality and quantity of competition
> 4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
> 5. Rules changes
> 6. The "color barrier"
> 7. Coaching
> 8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.
> 
> Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".
> 
> This sort of topic is a popularity contest.
> 
> My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:
> 
> Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.
> 
> Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.
> 
> Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays.  Pitcher- Roger Clemens
> 
> Golf: Jack Nicklaus
> 
> Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.



I agree mostly

You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players

In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today


----------



## auditor0007

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Secretariat is ranked at 81. I would rank Secretariat in the top 25, easily.
> 
> Golfers are FRINGE athletes, at best. Tennis players aren't far behind.
> 
> At least they didn't list any BOWLERS.



I can understand the argument against golfers, but tennis players?  Have you ever even watched a match?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one person can carry an NBA team, without talent surrounding you, you are done in today's NBA. The Lakers were a poor cast this year. Kobe doesn't make others that much better. That's why he isn't in my top ten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one person can carry a team. But one person can be the difference between mediocrity and greatness. And that was always true in the case of Bird and not Jordan/Kobe.
> 
> Bird took nobodies to an undefeated season in college basketball. He took a last place team with 28 wins and he turned them into a 60 win team his rookie year and champions the next year.
> 
> Contrast that with Jordan who came in the league and ball hogged and he took a 27 win team to 38 wins and three straight losing seasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The year before was the team swap with Buffalo, it was a mess from day one. The year Bird came to Boston, the team had 8 players averaging double figures and was a very deep team.
Click to expand...


It was the same exact team though__ minus McAdoo who was a HOFer. And they didn't have major injury problems the year before either. That's just how great Bird was for team chemistry.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kareem won 4 college NC - if you include his freshman season.
> 
> PERFECTO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> And he was under pressure to do so being highly touted out of HS - and deleived.
> 
> Won theNBA title with Milwaukee in 2nd season.
> 
> Should be rated above Wilt C. or Jordan in basketball.  (Jordan was crappy in HS and college)
> 
> Niclklaus should be in thetop 5.
> 
> Clay/Ali couldnt punch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have Jabbar right behind Jordan, the guy was unstoppable with that skyhook.
Click to expand...


Really depends on what NBA we'd be talking about. The 60/70's in which small touches aren't called fouls or David Stern's jury rigged NBA where a good day is putting Jordan on the line 18 times. If we're playing Man Ball; I'll take Kareem; and I'll take Russsell over him probably; b/c he did all the little things.


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kareem won 4 college NC - if you include his freshman season.
> 
> PERFECTO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> And he was under pressure to do so being highly touted out of HS - and deleived.
> 
> Won theNBA title with Milwaukee in 2nd season.
> 
> Should be rated above Wilt C. or Jordan in basketball.  (Jordan was crappy in HS and college)
> 
> Niclklaus should be in thetop 5.
> 
> Clay/Ali couldnt punch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have Jabbar right behind Jordan, the guy was unstoppable with that skyhook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really depends on what NBA we'd be talking about. The 60/70's in which small touches aren't called fouls or David Stern's jury rigged NBA where a good day is putting Jordan on the line 18 times. If we're playing Man Ball; I'll take Kareem; and I'll take Russsell over him probably; b/c he did all the little things.
Click to expand...


You'd take Russell a Celtic over Jabbar a Laker. I AM SHOCKED! 



Believe all the BS you want. You are so biased it isn't funny.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have Jabbar right behind Jordan, the guy was unstoppable with that skyhook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really depends on what NBA we'd be talking about. The 60/70's in which small touches aren't called fouls or David Stern's jury rigged NBA where a good day is putting Jordan on the line 18 times. If we're playing Man Ball; I'll take Kareem; and I'll take Russsell over him probably; b/c he did all the little things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd take Russell a Celtic over Jabbar a Laker. I AM SHOCKED!
> 
> 
> 
> Believe all the BS you want. You are so biased it isn't funny.
Click to expand...


Believe it or not, I've always questioned whether Russell was over hyped. But then I studied his numbers head to head versus players like Chamberlain and I watched video of how he conducted himself on both ends of the court.

If I were to give you a 5 minute highlight film of Russell; you'd think, oh that's nothing special. But the reality is the guy had skills and he busted hump and fundamentally executed on each and every play at both ends of the court. If you wanted a timely rebound, block, steal, screen, dunk even assist; Russell did it. 

I was watching a series finale game vs Cincy the other day. The C's were up 92-91 in the final minute. Havilicek just missed a 20 footer. Russell chased it down and he saw Havilicek in the same spot. He did not hesitate to get him the ball, saying 'hey you're gonna get us the win.' 

I'm not sure why you're overly concerned with my 'bias.' We all have biases, it's like saying of course I'd support a Mitt Romney initiative instead of an Obama plan. So f'ing what? We all have biases. You think that I can't contain my biases?


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really depends on what NBA we'd be talking about. The 60/70's in which small touches aren't called fouls or David Stern's jury rigged NBA where a good day is putting Jordan on the line 18 times. If we're playing Man Ball; I'll take Kareem; and I'll take Russsell over him probably; b/c he did all the little things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd take Russell a Celtic over Jabbar a Laker. I AM SHOCKED!
> 
> 
> 
> Believe all the BS you want. You are so biased it isn't funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, I've always questioned whether Russell was over hyped. But then I studied his numbers head to head versus players like Chamberlain and I watched video of how he conducted himself on both ends of the court.
> 
> If I were to give you a 5 minute highlight film of Russell; you'd think, oh that's nothing special. But the reality is the guy had skills and he busted hump and fundamentally executed on each and every play at both ends of the court. If you wanted a timely rebound, block, steal, screen, dunk even assist; Russell did it.
> 
> I was watching a series finale game vs Cincy the other day. The C's were up 92-91 in the final minute. Havilicek just missed a 20 footer. Russell chased it down and he saw Havilicek in the same spot. He did not hesitate to get him the ball, saying 'hey you're gonna get us the win.'
> 
> I'm not sure why you're overly concerned with my 'bias.' We all have biases, it's like saying of course I'd support a Mitt Romney initiative instead of an Obama plan. So f'ing what? We all have biases. You think that I can't contain my biases?
Click to expand...


I don't believe it.

I never said Russell was hyped, I am saying Jabbar was better center. I have seen games with Russell and he was good, I saw Jabbar play. He was better.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd take Russell a Celtic over Jabbar a Laker. I AM SHOCKED!
> 
> 
> 
> Believe all the BS you want. You are so biased it isn't funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, I've always questioned whether Russell was over hyped. But then I studied his numbers head to head versus players like Chamberlain and I watched video of how he conducted himself on both ends of the court.
> 
> If I were to give you a 5 minute highlight film of Russell; you'd think, oh that's nothing special. But the reality is the guy had skills and he busted hump and fundamentally executed on each and every play at both ends of the court. If you wanted a timely rebound, block, steal, screen, dunk even assist; Russell did it.
> 
> I was watching a series finale game vs Cincy the other day. The C's were up 92-91 in the final minute. Havilicek just missed a 20 footer. Russell chased it down and he saw Havilicek in the same spot. He did not hesitate to get him the ball, saying 'hey you're gonna get us the win.'
> 
> I'm not sure why you're overly concerned with my 'bias.' We all have biases, it's like saying of course I'd support a Mitt Romney initiative instead of an Obama plan. So f'ing what? We all have biases. You think that I can't contain my biases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe it.
> 
> I never said Russell was hyped, I am saying Jabbar was better center. I have seen games with Russell and he was good, I saw Jabbar play. He was better.
Click to expand...


You're just in love with Kareem's sky hook (which made him a unique player). But what you don't want to concede is that he was nothing special at the defensive end of the court. They even joked about that on Airplane; about how he had such a hard time containing Wilt Chamberlain.

But anyways, you want to blame it on my bias; but actually basketball reference currently has five centers ranked ahead of Kareem:

1. Olajuwon
2. Duncan
3. Russell
4. Robinson
5. Malone (Moses)

I would tend to agree with that list.


----------



## Papageorgio

Seen all sorts of polls and Russell, Chamberlin and Jabbar on the top, I have never seen one with Olajuwon as number one or Jabbar not in a top 5, but considering they use the Elo system, then you get what you get. As much as I loved Dr. J's game, I wouldn't rate him 7, all-time. 

I hated the patented sky hook, I disliked the Lakers and Jabbar and took great pleasure when the lost. The facts speak for themselves and you are going to pick Celtics because that is your team and aren't objective, which is your right. I don't have to agree with your insanity.


----------



## Synthaholic

I think a "Least Athletic" list would be more interesting.  

Charles Barkley
Harmon Killebrew
Boog Powell
Cecil Fielder
John Daly
Craig Stadler
Kurt Rambis
William 'Refrigerator' Perry


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> Seen all sorts of polls and Russell, Chamberlin and Jabbar on the top, I have never seen one with Olajuwon as number one or Jabbar not in a top 5, but considering they use the Elo system, then you get what you get. As much as I loved Dr. J's game, I wouldn't rate him 7, all-time.
> 
> I hated the patented sky hook, I disliked the Lakers and Jabbar and took great pleasure when the lost. The facts speak for themselves and you are going to pick Celtics because that is your team and aren't objective, which is your right. I don't have to agree with your insanity.



No__ It's not a fact that I pick anything based upon my biases and that's a sorry insinuation to make. I give you well defined and acceptable reasons for my sound logic. And your determination to the contrary is just rancor on your part.

And I would also submit that it is even possible that your rooting against Kareem has created a reverse bias in which you could have overvalued his talent.

Again, you could not give an argument againt my logic that Kareem was not an especially great defensive player relative to many centers, so you had to use a fallacy of an alleged bias absolutely dictating my analysis. And to make up for your own lacking supposition, you tried to support it with the idea that you don't have a dog in the fight; and that somehow makes you more objective or better reasoned. It does not though.

And to the Olajuwon point__ as time passes, more and more people are coming to the opinion that he is the greatest center of all-time; so that poll, I wouldn't blame it on the system. Though it is an interactive ranking and he'll most certainly slide in the rankings from time to time as he is not a consensus greatest center of all-time.

When you consider centers__ you have to consider defense (and rebounding); much more for that position than any other position. Kareem would not make anybody's top twenty list on defense. So you're basically saying, his offense was just that great. And there's a case for that! But you shouldn't be so dismissive and pretend that you have a superior opinion under the guise of my bias. Because I'm telling you right now. You're full of shit dude.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Synthaholic said:


> I think a "Least Athletic" list would be more interesting.
> 
> Charles Barkley
> Harmon Killebrew
> Boog Powell
> Cecil Fielder
> John Daly
> Craig Stadler
> Kurt Rambis
> William 'Refrigerator' Perry



Barkley was a hell of an athlete.

Killebrew__ I don't know; but it seems like he was an athlete.

Rambis, most definitely was an athlete. I go back and watch the old games and I see that. Though, at the time, I thought he was a dork who didn't belong out there.


----------



## Montrovant

rightwinger said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.
> 
> How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.
> 
> Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.
> 
> 1. Equipment
> 2. Playing conditions
> 3. Quality and quantity of competition
> 4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
> 5. Rules changes
> 6. The "color barrier"
> 7. Coaching
> 8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.
> 
> Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".
> 
> This sort of topic is a popularity contest.
> 
> My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:
> 
> Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.
> 
> Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.
> 
> Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays.  Pitcher- Roger Clemens
> 
> Golf: Jack Nicklaus
> 
> Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree mostly
> 
> You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players
> 
> In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today
Click to expand...


I've always gotten annoyed at people who just dismiss athletes from too far in the past because they wouldn't be able to perform in today's game.  It's how they were able to perform against the competition available at the time I find impressive.

I also wonder what the criteria for this list was, as many of the names may have been exceptional at their particular sport but not especially athletic compared to their peers.

And just a little minor bitching : Rice should be ahead of Montana and Peyton, he's the best WR that ever played by far.  Otto Graham should be much higher, perhaps the top football player.  He went to the championship every year of his professional career, winning 7 or 10 football titles, as well as 1 basketball.  That is an astonishing level of success.


----------



## NoNukes

Montrovant said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.
> 
> How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.
> 
> Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.
> 
> 1. Equipment
> 2. Playing conditions
> 3. Quality and quantity of competition
> 4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
> 5. Rules changes
> 6. The "color barrier"
> 7. Coaching
> 8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.
> 
> Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".
> 
> This sort of topic is a popularity contest.
> 
> My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:
> 
> Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.
> 
> Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.
> 
> Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays.  Pitcher- Roger Clemens
> 
> Golf: Jack Nicklaus
> 
> Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree mostly
> 
> You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players
> 
> In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always gotten annoyed at people who just dismiss athletes from too far in the past because they wouldn't be able to perform in today's game.  It's how they were able to perform against the competition available at the time I find impressive.
> 
> I also wonder what the criteria for this list was, as many of the names may have been exceptional at their particular sport but not especially athletic compared to their peers.
> 
> And just a little minor bitching : Rice should be ahead of Montana and Peyton, he's the best WR that ever played by far.  Otto Graham should be much higher, perhaps the top football player.  He went to the championship every year of his professional career, winning 7 or 10 football titles, as well as 1 basketball.  That is an astonishing level of success.
Click to expand...


There are some Pittsburgh Steeler fans and defensive backs who might disagree with you about Rice being the best wide receiver.


----------



## rightwinger

Montrovant said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.
> 
> How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.
> 
> Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.
> 
> 1. Equipment
> 2. Playing conditions
> 3. Quality and quantity of competition
> 4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
> 5. Rules changes
> 6. The "color barrier"
> 7. Coaching
> 8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.
> 
> Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".
> 
> This sort of topic is a popularity contest.
> 
> My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:
> 
> Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.
> 
> Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.
> 
> Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays.  Pitcher- Roger Clemens
> 
> Golf: Jack Nicklaus
> 
> Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree mostly
> 
> You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players
> 
> In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always gotten annoyed at people who just dismiss athletes from too far in the past because they wouldn't be able to perform in today's game.  It's how they were able to perform against the competition available at the time I find impressive.
> 
> I also wonder what the criteria for this list was, as many of the names may have been exceptional at their particular sport but not especially athletic compared to their peers.
> 
> And just a little minor bitching : Rice should be ahead of Montana and Peyton, he's the best WR that ever played by far.  Otto Graham should be much higher, perhaps the top football player.  He went to the championship every year of his professional career, winning 7 or 10 football titles, as well as 1 basketball.  That is an astonishing level of success.
Click to expand...


In terms of comparing old school athletes to present day athletes, I have to put an asterisk next to their names when it comes to talking about number of championships won. Vince Lombardi, Bill Russell, Otto Graham, Yogi Berra all get credit for the large number of championships they won.
You have to remember that the leagues were much smaller back then. Usually twelve teams. Leagues were divided into two divisions and you needed to win your division and then play for the championship. Today, there are 32 teams in most leagues, you have to qualify for the playoffs and then beat three opponents to win a championshp.


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seen all sorts of polls and Russell, Chamberlin and Jabbar on the top, I have never seen one with Olajuwon as number one or Jabbar not in a top 5, but considering they use the Elo system, then you get what you get. As much as I loved Dr. J's game, I wouldn't rate him 7, all-time.
> 
> I hated the patented sky hook, I disliked the Lakers and Jabbar and took great pleasure when the lost. The facts speak for themselves and you are going to pick Celtics because that is your team and aren't objective, which is your right. I don't have to agree with your insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No__ It's not a fact that I pick anything based upon my biases and that's a sorry insinuation to make. I give you well defined and acceptable reasons for my sound logic. And your determination to the contrary is just rancor on your part.
> 
> And I would also submit that it is even possible that your rooting against Kareem has created a reverse bias in which you could have overvalued his talent.
> 
> Again, you could not give an argument againt my logic that Kareem was not an especially great defensive player relative to many centers, so you had to use a fallacy of an alleged bias absolutely dictating my analysis. And to make up for your own lacking supposition, you tried to support it with the idea that you don't have a dog in the fight; and that somehow makes you more objective or better reasoned. It does not though.
> 
> And to the Olajuwon point__ as time passes, more and more people are coming to the opinion that he is the greatest center of all-time; so that poll, I wouldn't blame it on the system. Though it is an interactive ranking and he'll most certainly slide in the rankings from time to time as he is not a consensus greatest center of all-time.
> 
> When you consider centers__ you have to consider defense (and rebounding); much more for that position than any other position. Kareem would not make anybody's top twenty list on defense. So you're basically saying, his offense was just that great. And there's a case for that! But you shouldn't be so dismissive and pretend that you have a superior opinion under the guise of my bias. Because I'm telling you right now. You're full of shit dude.
Click to expand...


It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking. 

Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team. 

Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.


----------



## rightwinger

We are 12 years into the new century.

Why are we still discussing the top athletes from the last century?

If you include the first 12 years of this century you would have to include:

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Albert Puhols
ARod
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Roger Federer
Serena Williams
Michael Phelps


----------



## Montrovant

rightwinger said:


> In terms of comparing old school athletes to present day athletes, I have to put an asterisk next to their names when it comes to talking about number of championships won. Vince Lombardi, Bill Russell, Otto Graham, Yogi Berra all get credit for the large number of championships they won.
> You have to remember that the leagues were much smaller back then. Usually twelve teams. Leagues were divided into two divisions and you needed to win your division and then play for the championship. Today, there are 32 teams in most leagues, you have to qualify for the playoffs and then beat three opponents to win a championshp.



While that is certainly true, and needs to be taken into account, Graham went to the championship game in every year he played.  Small leagues or not, that's very impressive, especially when you add in the season of basketball he also played and went to a championship.

Between his level of success and his multi-sport abilities, Graham was exceptional.


----------



## rightwinger

I've always been a fan of Otto Graham. Best QB of the 40s-50s.  No question he had a Joe Montana like drive to win no matter where he was.

Football was a different game back then and QB was a different position. I think Paul Brown invented the pocket passing around Graham. Graham won four championships in the AAFC and three in the NFL. Is that better than Terry Bradshaw or Joe Montana winning four in a much tougher playoff structure?


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.
> 
> How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.
> 
> Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.
> 
> 1. Equipment
> 2. Playing conditions
> 3. Quality and quantity of competition
> 4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
> 5. Rules changes
> 6. The "color barrier"
> 7. Coaching
> 8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.
> 
> Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".
> 
> This sort of topic is a popularity contest.
> 
> My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:
> 
> Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.
> 
> Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.
> 
> Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays.  Pitcher- Roger Clemens
> 
> Golf: Jack Nicklaus
> 
> Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree mostly
> 
> You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day.* Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players
> *
> In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today
Click to expand...


I definitely believe he would.  Pitchers didn't throw any slower in the 1920s than today.  There were fastballs, curveballs, changeups, and forkballs (sliders) back then.  Prolly not knuckleballs, and the variations of the slider (split-finger, etc.).  So eye-hand hasn't changed.  Dimensions haven't changed other than the mounds being lowered, making it easier on the hitter, not harder.  And modern manufacturing of baseballs would ensure Ruth's balls going farther, and a lot of his outfield flyouts becoming home runs.  And the intimidation factor of brush-back pitches has all but been eliminated.

I think he would be even better today.


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> We are 12 years into the new century.
> 
> Why are we still discussing the top athletes from the last century?
> 
> If you include the first 12 years of this century you would have to include:
> 
> Lebron James
> Kobe Bryant
> Albert Puhols
> ARod
> Tom Brady
> Peyton Manning
> Roger Federer
> Serena Williams
> Michael Phelps



Jeter
Andruw Jones (before he let himself go)
Rafael Nidal


----------



## rightwinger

Synthaholic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are 12 years into the new century.
> 
> Why are we still discussing the top athletes from the last century?
> 
> If you include the first 12 years of this century you would have to include:
> 
> Lebron James
> Kobe Bryant
> Albert Puhols
> ARod
> Tom Brady
> Peyton Manning
> Roger Federer
> Serena Williams
> Michael Phelps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeter
> Andruw Jones (before he let himself go)
> Rafael Nidal
Click to expand...


Jeter and Jones?  I don't think top 100

If anything, I would have to go Griffey Jr and Bonds before he turned all Darth Vader on us


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seen all sorts of polls and Russell, Chamberlin and Jabbar on the top, I have never seen one with Olajuwon as number one or Jabbar not in a top 5, but considering they use the Elo system, then you get what you get. As much as I loved Dr. J's game, I wouldn't rate him 7, all-time.
> 
> I hated the patented sky hook, I disliked the Lakers and Jabbar and took great pleasure when the lost. The facts speak for themselves and you are going to pick Celtics because that is your team and aren't objective, which is your right. I don't have to agree with your insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No__ It's not a fact that I pick anything based upon my biases and that's a sorry insinuation to make. I give you well defined and acceptable reasons for my sound logic. And your determination to the contrary is just rancor on your part.
> 
> And I would also submit that it is even possible that your rooting against Kareem has created a reverse bias in which you could have overvalued his talent.
> 
> Again, you could not give an argument againt my logic that Kareem was not an especially great defensive player relative to many centers, so you had to use a fallacy of an alleged bias absolutely dictating my analysis. And to make up for your own lacking supposition, you tried to support it with the idea that you don't have a dog in the fight; and that somehow makes you more objective or better reasoned. It does not though.
> 
> And to the Olajuwon point__ as time passes, more and more people are coming to the opinion that he is the greatest center of all-time; so that poll, I wouldn't blame it on the system. Though it is an interactive ranking and he'll most certainly slide in the rankings from time to time as he is not a consensus greatest center of all-time.
> 
> When you consider centers__ you have to consider defense (and rebounding); much more for that position than any other position. Kareem would not make anybody's top twenty list on defense. So you're basically saying, his offense was just that great. And there's a case for that! But you shouldn't be so dismissive and pretend that you have a superior opinion under the guise of my bias. Because I'm telling you right now. You're full of shit dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking.
> 
> Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team.
> 
> Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.
Click to expand...


My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis. 

And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> No__ It's not a fact that I pick anything based upon my biases and that's a sorry insinuation to make. I give you well defined and acceptable reasons for my sound logic. And your determination to the contrary is just rancor on your part.
> 
> And I would also submit that it is even possible that your rooting against Kareem has created a reverse bias in which you could have overvalued his talent.
> 
> Again, you could not give an argument againt my logic that Kareem was not an especially great defensive player relative to many centers, so you had to use a fallacy of an alleged bias absolutely dictating my analysis. And to make up for your own lacking supposition, you tried to support it with the idea that you don't have a dog in the fight; and that somehow makes you more objective or better reasoned. It does not though.
> 
> And to the Olajuwon point__ as time passes, more and more people are coming to the opinion that he is the greatest center of all-time; so that poll, I wouldn't blame it on the system. Though it is an interactive ranking and he'll most certainly slide in the rankings from time to time as he is not a consensus greatest center of all-time.
> 
> When you consider centers__ you have to consider defense (and rebounding); much more for that position than any other position. Kareem would not make anybody's top twenty list on defense. So you're basically saying, his offense was just that great. And there's a case for that! But you shouldn't be so dismissive and pretend that you have a superior opinion under the guise of my bias. Because I'm telling you right now. You're full of shit dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking.
> 
> Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team.
> 
> Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis.
> 
> And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.
Click to expand...


I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time. 

But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.

Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.


----------



## ginscpy

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking.
> 
> Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team.
> 
> Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis.
> 
> And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time.
> 
> But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.
> 
> Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.
Click to expand...


Alcindor's UCLA freshman team would have beaten the NCAA champ Texas Western Miners - probably easily.

The stuff about his defense in Airplane!!!   good natured ribbing.

Had sharp elbows.


----------



## Montrovant

rightwinger said:


> I've always been a fan of Otto Graham. Best QB of the 40s-50s.  No question he had a Joe Montana like drive to win no matter where he was.
> 
> Football was a different game back then and QB was a different position. I think Paul Brown invented the pocket passing around Graham. Graham won four championships in the AAFC and three in the NFL. Is that better than Terry Bradshaw or Joe Montana winning four in a much tougher playoff structure?



Of course it's all subjective, but I think that, when you take into account the fact that his 7 wins were in 10 seasons, and that he was in the championship game in the other 3 seasons, yes, it's better.

But as you said, and I agree with, it's damn hard to compare the different eras.  Which, of course, makes a list covering 100 years pretty ridiculous.   There's plenty of argument to be had about the best athletes of a particular decade, let alone an entire century!


----------



## rightwinger

Synthaholic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.
> 
> How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.
> 
> Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.
> 
> 1. Equipment
> 2. Playing conditions
> 3. Quality and quantity of competition
> 4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
> 5. Rules changes
> 6. The "color barrier"
> 7. Coaching
> 8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.
> 
> Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".
> 
> This sort of topic is a popularity contest.
> 
> My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:
> 
> Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.
> 
> Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.
> 
> Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays.  Pitcher- Roger Clemens
> 
> Golf: Jack Nicklaus
> 
> Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree mostly
> 
> You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day.* Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players
> *
> In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely believe he would.  Pitchers didn't throw any slower in the 1920s than today.  There were fastballs, curveballs, changeups, and forkballs (sliders) back then.  Prolly not knuckleballs, and the variations of the slider (split-finger, etc.).  So eye-hand hasn't changed.  Dimensions haven't changed other than the mounds being lowered, making it easier on the hitter, not harder.  And modern manufacturing of baseballs would ensure Ruth's balls going farther, and a lot of his outfield flyouts becoming home runs.  And the intimidation factor of brush-back pitches has all but been eliminated.
> 
> I think he would be even better today.
Click to expand...


It was a different game when Ruth played

Pitchers were mostly fastball/curveball, today you need three or four pitches. Relievers have more impact and you face a fresh pitcher every few innings. Pitchers are faster than they were thirty years ago, I think they are faster than in the 20s
Defensively, players are better. Faster, better range, better athletes. Also, gloves are much better. They get to balls that they couldn't in Ruths day


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are 12 years into the new century.
> 
> Why are we still discussing the top athletes from the last century?
> 
> If you include the first 12 years of this century you would have to include:
> 
> Lebron James
> Kobe Bryant
> Albert Puhols
> ARod
> Tom Brady
> Peyton Manning
> Roger Federer
> Serena Williams
> Michael Phelps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeter
> Andruw Jones (before he let himself go)
> Rafael Nidal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeter and Jones?  I don't think top 100
> 
> If anything, I would have to go Griffey Jr and Bonds before he turned all Darth Vader on us
Click to expand...

N.L Gold Gloves:








Centerfield is the hardest of the three outfield positions and the toughest defensive position after shortstop, and Andruw Jones is tied for 2nd all-time in OF Gold Gloves.  I think he deserves consideration.


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree mostly
> 
> You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day.* Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players
> *
> In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely believe he would.  Pitchers didn't throw any slower in the 1920s than today.  There were fastballs, curveballs, changeups, and forkballs (sliders) back then.  Prolly not knuckleballs, and the variations of the slider (split-finger, etc.).  So eye-hand hasn't changed.  Dimensions haven't changed other than the mounds being lowered, making it easier on the hitter, not harder.  And modern manufacturing of baseballs would ensure Ruth's balls going farther, and a lot of his outfield flyouts becoming home runs.  And the intimidation factor of brush-back pitches has all but been eliminated.
> 
> I think he would be even better today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a different game when Ruth played
> 
> Pitchers were mostly fastball/curveball, today you need three or four pitches. Relievers have more impact and you face a fresh pitcher every few innings. Pitchers are faster than they were thirty years ago, I think they are faster than in the 20s
> Defensively, players are better. Faster, better range, better athletes. Also, gloves are much better. They get to balls that they couldn't in Ruths day
Click to expand...


I think that if you can learn to hit a curve, you can learn to hit a slider or a sinker, too.  Ruth had superior eye/hand coordination.

Nolan Ryan threw over 100 mph in the 1970s
Steve Dalkowski threw over 100 mph in the 1960s
Bob Feller threw over 100 mph in the 1940s (and claimed to be clocked at 107 mph)

Unless there was a huge evolutionary jump from the 1920s-1940s, I have to believe that pitchers like Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Vic Aldridge, Grover Alexander all threw pretty hard.  The 1920s was also the first decade of the live ball, so there is no dead ball excuse.

As for fielders being better, I agree 100%.  And Ty Cobb or Rogers Hornsby or Tris Speaker would most likely suffer today.  But fielders don't stop home runs, or balls banging off the outfield wall.

I just push back against this incorrect stereotype of Ruth being an overweight, out of shape boob who was only successful because he was strong enough to swing a huge, fat-barreled bat.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Synthaholic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.
> 
> How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.
> 
> Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.
> 
> 1. Equipment
> 2. Playing conditions
> 3. Quality and quantity of competition
> 4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
> 5. Rules changes
> 6. The "color barrier"
> 7. Coaching
> 8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.
> 
> Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".
> 
> This sort of topic is a popularity contest.
> 
> My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:
> 
> Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.
> 
> Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.
> 
> Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays.  Pitcher- Roger Clemens
> 
> Golf: Jack Nicklaus
> 
> Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree mostly
> 
> You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day.* Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players
> *
> In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely believe he would.  Pitchers didn't throw any slower in the 1920s than today.  There were fastballs, curveballs, changeups, and forkballs (sliders) back then.  Prolly not knuckleballs, and the variations of the slider (split-finger, etc.).  So eye-hand hasn't changed.  Dimensions haven't changed other than the mounds being lowered, making it easier on the hitter, not harder.  And modern manufacturing of baseballs would ensure Ruth's balls going farther, and a lot of his outfield flyouts becoming home runs.  And the intimidation factor of brush-back pitches has all but been eliminated.
> 
> I think he would be even better today.
Click to expand...


It's quite likely that pre 1919; pitchers threw slower. But that is because the ball was much heavier and homeruns were way down.

However, after that; yea pitchers generally pitched pretty fast like today.

And in fact, many people believe that Bob Feller who played in the 40's and 50's threw faster than anyone ever.

Some people believe that in his prime he could throw as high as 110 to 120 mph. They measured his speed against a motorcycle and estimated it at 104 mph. And allegedly when radar guns came out, he hit 107.9 mph.

Ted Williams also stated, "the fastest and best pitcher I ever saw during my career...He had the best fastball and curve I've ever seen."

How fast did Bob Feller throw


----------



## rightwinger

Synthaholic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeter
> Andruw Jones (before he let himself go)
> Rafael Nidal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeter and Jones?  I don't think top 100
> 
> If anything, I would have to go Griffey Jr and Bonds before he turned all Darth Vader on us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> N.L Gold Gloves:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centerfield is the hardest of the three outfield positions and the toughest defensive position after shortstop, and Andruw Jones is tied for 2nd all-time in OF Gold Gloves.  I think he deserves consideration.
Click to expand...


Andruw Jones is not even a Hall of Famer.

You think he was better than Griffey Jr?


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking.
> 
> Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team.
> 
> Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis.
> 
> And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time.
> 
> But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.
> 
> Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.
Click to expand...


Walton had more potential than any center, his injuries ruined what could have been a great career. His floor sense and passing abilities were the best I have seen in a center. The first 48 games of the next season some of the best team basketball I have ever seen. Then he went down with his injury and the team collapsed. In Boston the Blazers won 118-87, in Atlanta 132-92. They put on clinics.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis.
> 
> And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time.
> 
> But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.
> 
> Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walton had more potential than any center, his injuries ruined what could have been a great career. His floor sense and passing abilities were the best I have seen in a center. The first 48 games of the next season some of the best team basketball I have ever seen. Then he went down with his injury and the team collapsed. In Boston the Blazers won 118-87, in Atlanta 132-92. They put on clinics.
Click to expand...


He had that great college game (think it was a Final Four game) in which he was 21-22. That may still be a record. I don't know how great a shooter he was. He wasn't a great shooter by his C's days; but the injuries may have had something to do with that. He was the best passing center I've ever seen by far though. I know that's why Bird loved playing with him.


----------



## Synthaholic

rightwinger said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeter and Jones?  I don't think top 100
> 
> If anything, I would have to go Griffey Jr and Bonds before he turned all Darth Vader on us
> 
> 
> 
> N.L Gold Gloves:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centerfield is the hardest of the three outfield positions and the toughest defensive position after shortstop, and Andruw Jones is tied for 2nd all-time in OF Gold Gloves.  I think he deserves consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andruw Jones is not even a Hall of Famer.
> 
> You think he was better than Griffey Jr?
Click to expand...

Better player?  Hell, no.

Better athlete?  Maybe.  Maybe Junior needs to be on the list also.  Maybe Rickey, too.  It's kind of a bullshit list, with golfers, jockeys, and a horse.

But I do believe that George Herman is #1.


----------



## Papageorgio

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time.
> 
> But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.
> 
> Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walton had more potential than any center, his injuries ruined what could have been a great career. His floor sense and passing abilities were the best I have seen in a center. The first 48 games of the next season some of the best team basketball I have ever seen. Then he went down with his injury and the team collapsed. In Boston the Blazers won 118-87, in Atlanta 132-92. They put on clinics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had that great college game (think it was a Final Four game) in which he was 21-22. That may still be a record. I don't know how great a shooter he was. He wasn't a great shooter by his C's days; but the injuries may have had something to do with that. He was the best passing center I've ever seen by far though. I know that's why Bird loved playing with him.
Click to expand...


Did you know the power forward job came down to Maurice Lucas and Moses Malone and Portland traded Malone to Buffalo for a 78 first round draft choice. Who Portland traded with Indiana for the top spot in the draft, that resulted in Mychal Thompson. Wonder how good Portland would have been if they kept Malone.


----------

