Absolutely agree, and you still kinda have to have respect for what they did, it's not easy to ever be as dominant as Gretzky was. I can't say I knew that, I always assumed he was the greatest because he has pretty much every record.
Everything is advancing all the time. Look at the NFL, the 73 Dolphins or 85 Bears couldn't beat the 08 Lions. I still have to respect that, because they were also working with primitive schemes, etc.
I don't necessarily feel athletes/teams lose points for that.
Originally Posted by Youk Of The Nation
While Gretzky was undoubtedly the best hockey player ever (offensively, at least), he is definitely not the best athlete ever.
Ted Williams was the best Red Sox player ever. Period.
I never said anyone was wrong anyways, just making that clear.
As for your point, being right the wrong way just means that you think you're right. If you can't formulate a good, thoughtful response with support, then while you might not be wrong, that's how it's going to seem.
It is totally subjective, I could argue Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan, but I pickes Bo Jackson because it's obvious by the eye test that he was just natural at everything.
I also used some stats, and that'll be that. I don't seek to change anyone's mind, I'm really just trying to make a case for Jackson. I think Thorpe's case is as good as anyone's, and I've said that like 3 times.
I think Boston has claim to a hockey player who was far better all around than Gretzky.
Don't forget that Bobby Orr was a defenseman. He scored by the ton, and had to play strong defensive hockey too.
I think that considering that hockey asks more of a player than any other sport as an intense anaerobic and aerobic effort, you have to give a hockey defenseman a lot of credit, especially an elite one. It's why I was on here eariler stumping for Chara. I still think Chara is a very good case when talking about today's athletes simply because of how strong he is. He frequently has to hold back physically in the most intensely physical major sports league. You can tell he does hold back too, because of the rare times someone pushes his buttons hard enough that suddenly, he doesn't.
Z's big problem in a discussion like this is that he doesn't have flashy skill. Most of what he does is based on positioning, intelligence, strength, balance and coordination that can be a bit on the subtle side, so compared to the very unsubtle LBJ and other flashy offensive athletes Z is going to get a bit underrated at times.
If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.
Mark Melancon.
"JONNY EFFING GOMES"
The question is about "most athletic" athlete, as in the one with greatest athletic ability. That's a lot more about physical skills than accruing stats. For that reason, a lot of guys like Gretzky and Jordan probably aren't better suited to this discussion than multiple sports players like Bo, Deion and Thorpe, who showed the ability to excel at multiple activities.
We miss you Mike.
I'm not sure that's as relevant as you think it is, because there are athletes that excelled at their own sport that made that sport their own and didn't decide to cross the fence. I'm not going to dismiss the work of those men just because they never took certain career risks.
These men deserve credit for being competent major leaguers in multiple leagues. That's rare. That said let's not let the "hybrid" angle carry more weight than it should. There are football players that were much better football players than Deion Sanders, and much more athletic football players than Deion Sanders. There are baseball players as well that are both more skilled and more athletic.
As for Jim Thorpe, he may have come in during a deadball era, but a career .648 OPS doesn't exactly scream "overwhelming success at baseball." Especially for an outfielder. He had a couple good half seasons. That's pretty much it. A lot of Mauro Gomezes have been as successful in the big leagues as Jim Thorpe. If his big league "success" in other sports is on par, then he's a jack of all trades master of none.
If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.
Or be wrong the right way. Either way, points can be presented while maintaining civility and without ridicule.
We miss you Mike.
^Funny coming from you. :lol:
Sad mess, you should worry about yourself more.
Interesting thing about Gretzky is he's second to Orr in the "who is the best?" ELO Rater "game" at hockeyreference.com. This is where anyone can go on the website and it pulls up two players with their stats and the user selects which is better and it adds/subtracts points from the players' totals.
Priorities:
1. Yankees lose
2. Red Sox win
Some other things to consider: The definition of athlete)
a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill.
We could all have differing opinions on which aspect of athleticism is more important or valid in being a deciding factor of who is the most athletic athlete.
Example:
World's strongest man competitions have these huge guys who out of sheer strength can pull a transport truck with a harness.
Gymnastics pro's use incredible precision and strength/coordination to do crazy flips on the matts, or to do whatever routines in the rings or on the pummel horse etc.
Point being, one person could argue that the sheer strength is the best athlete, the other could say well no he's just a huge beast but dummy with perhaps no coordination otherwise, etc.
So many categories and variables to consider. This is a super interesting topic - just nearly impossible to pick one overall person as a proven winner of the title.
So Send I You By Grace Made Strong
Really now? I'm not the one getting called out left and right on the forum. You should worry about yourself more?
We miss you Mike.
:lol: What?
That doesn't even make sense.
I get "called out" a lot, so I need to worry about myself? How do you figure?
"im rubber ur glu watever u say 2 me bounces off n hits u".
You can have the last word, otherwise you may not be able to sleep at night.
We miss you Mike.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote