Sportspeople who were / are the greatest ever [Archive]

vl_mungo

07-24-2004, 02:16 PM

Unquestioningly the "Greatest Ever" is pretty impossible to say for any sport that has been around any length of time.
Is Ruth better than Bonds? Maybe, but a lot has changed since Ruth played. Both are unquestioninly in the top 10 of the thousands of men to have played baseball in the last 130 years. And then there are the pitchers too. A whole other ball of wax.

Even with Ice Hockey (a sport that hasn't existed in it's modern form for as long as many of the others mentioned) would have several contenders for "the greatest". Gretzky was pretty fantastic, but he came along during an era of very high scoring (which he also contributed to)... some people would argue for Howe, Orr, Lemieux or even Hasek.

Greatest of a generation (20-30 year period) is somewhat easier to assess. But that wasn't the OP. :D

Trillionaire

07-24-2004, 05:56 PM

I'm looking for the catch that excludes baseball from this list.

"Babe Ruth" is the clearest answer, the defining answer, the no-brainer answer to this question, and i would have bet anything he was part of the OP, if not the first response.

OP here. I didn't include baseball mainly because I know very little about it. I do however remember reading an article by someone who concluded that Mickey Mantle was the greatest ever. If there are experts disagreeing then by definition that person is not unquestionably the greatest ever.

I thought the examples I gave were pretty clear-cut, although there seems to be some dispute over all of them (even Bradman). Basically I only wanted the list to include only those who there was no debate about.

Maybe there aren't any.

Jimmy Chitwood

07-24-2004, 07:01 PM

There aren't. There are only degrees of debatability. For one thing, everybody has some kind of bias towards athletes- bias against certain generations, certain teams, certain people, whatever. You also have to consider that "greatness" is in itself a subjective term. Somebody might point to Wilt's scoring and rebounding records and argue that he was statistically the greatest, while someone else could bring up Jordan's championships as proof of that player's greatness.

That's what makes discussions like this timeless, and makes them so much fun, but ultimately fruitless. Don't get me wrong, I'll argue Lawrence Taylor vs. Jerry Rice all day long, but there will never be anything approaching indisputability. If you could prove greatness objectively, there'd be no debate. If you were to accept that greatness is wholly subjective, there'd still be no debate, because everybody decides for themselves. So what most sports fans do is ignore that part of it, and pretend our personal definition of greatness is the only real one. We subjectively determine the objective meaning of "great." Which is why I know for a fact that Ruth, Jordan, and Gretzky were the greatest ever in their sports, and why I think it's my job to convince everybody else of that. Good times.

Caprese

07-24-2004, 07:28 PM

THE Greatest -- Muhammad Ali.

Agreed.
The greatest ever.
Watch the movie "When We Were Kings" and you truly realize why Ali is the greatest.

Duke

07-24-2004, 07:44 PM

Cricket (batting) - Bradman; Bowling - Dennis Lillee; All Rounder - Ian Botham. Bradman sure, Lillee maybe (though myself I would pick Richard Hadlee), but Botham couldn't touch Sir Gary Sobers.

Marley23

07-24-2004, 08:37 PM

Trillionaire, baseball is probably the sport most prone to arguments - there are so many statistics and it is, compared to the other North American major sports, very old, and your average fan is probably a bit geekier. ;) The consensus far and away is on Ruth.

You can argue that other players had more physical talent (like Willie Mays), or would have been comparable had they had better luck with health (like Mantle), but I don't think anybody in a North American professional sport ever stood head and shoulders beyond everyone else in his time the way Ruth did. He was the first and greatest giant of his sport. Jordan was the best basketball player, but at least there were people who could compete with him. In 1919, Ruth became the first guy in baseball to hit 28 home runs in a season (he finished with 29). Doesn't sound so impressive? The next year, he became the first guy to hit 30, 40, and 50 in a season (ended up with 54). In 1927, he was the first guy to hit 60 - more home runs than any other team in the league.

Early in his career, was the best pitcher in the game (I think he still holds the record for wins in the World Series), and he became the best slugger. He took over the all-time career home run record in 1921 with his 139th. When he retired, he'd pushed it to 714 - and the next closest guy had 378.

Granted, these days the average athlete is much better, so excelling is that much harder. But Babe Ruth is synonymous with his sport for a reason.

I'm not sure what sport you'd associate Babe Diedriksen Zaharias with (she was a champion golfer among other things). Jim Thorpe is among the all-around greats. I'd take Navratilova in women's tennis, in men's I'm less sure. You can make a case for Pete Sampras, and probably a better one for Rod Laver.

Laughing Lagomorph

07-24-2004, 08:46 PM

...

BTW, Mike Schmidt is the greatest third baseman of all time, beyond argument to anyone who understands baseball. Not exactly the question you asked, but the best I could do.

I agree, no rational baseball fan could argue this. The next best would probably be George Brett.

mike1dog

07-24-2004, 08:55 PM

In auto racing, It is very hard to compare drivers from the past to current drivers because the vehicles are so different. There's also the fact that rallying, for example is a totally different sport from Formula one, and currently you almost never see a driver from one area of motorsports make a change to another kind successfully. It used to be that Formula one drivers would compete in sports cars, at Indianapolis, and in many other kinds of racing. There was also a lot more turnover, due to the ridiculous death rate in the early sixties. Formula one has become almost static to me, since the drivers all seem to have been there for years, and Ferrari wins every race. Choosing one driver for the whole of motorsports history would be impossible to me anyway.

Loopus

07-24-2004, 09:25 PM

Fencing: Aldo Nadi.

rexnervous

07-24-2004, 09:36 PM

Cycling: Lance Armstrong

I'm not a long-time cycling fan, and Lance is no doubt great - probably the second-greatest cyclist ever - but any cycling fan would say that Eddie Merckx is the greatest cyclist ever.

Hockey: Wayne Gretzky

Without a doubt. Perhaps the easiest decision in any single sport.

Ellis Dee

07-24-2004, 09:37 PM

Even with Ice Hockey (a sport that hasn't existed in it's modern form for as long as many of the others mentioned) would have several contenders for "the greatest". Gretzky was pretty fantastic, but he came along during an era of very high scoring (which he also contributed to)... some people would argue for Howe, Orr, Lemieux or even Hasek.I seriously doubt anyone would argue against Gretzky. Lemieux? Please. Hasek? Are you kidding, or serious with that one? The Dominator wasn't even the best player on his team last year. Hell, he wasn't even the best goalie on his team. There is almost universal agreement that Wayne Gretsky is the greatest player ever to lace up the skates. That guy was a freak. His nickname says it all.

Wayne Gretzky and Babe Ruth are the only undisputed greatest of all time.

I would add Jack Nicklaus to the discussion.

KarlGauss

07-24-2004, 11:00 PM

I don't agree that Wayne Gretzky is as "obviously" the greatest hockey player ever as so many of you seem to think.

Have you forgotten one Robert Orr? Perhaps you know him better as Bobby?

His career was cut short due to injury, so his lifetime stats (http://www.bobbyorr.com/statistics.aspx) appear less impressive than they might have otherwise. But remember, he was a defenceman, yet even so twice led the league in scoring (out of six or seven healthy years).

He changed the game completely - the end-to-end rush as never before, the high scoring defenceman, the playoff hero, the first hockey superstar ...

Who knows what he could have done if he'd had better knees. If nothing else, he would have given The Other Great One a run for his money for the appellation.

JThunder

07-25-2004, 12:35 AM

Skiing: That "thrill of victory" guy

JThunder

07-25-2004, 12:38 AM

Oops. I guess I should have said "the agony of defeat guy."

Sam Stone

07-25-2004, 01:03 AM

I would agree that Orr could have given Gretzky a run for his money had his career continued. But in fact, it didn't. Gretzky simple put up numbers unheard of since. And yes, it's true that the game in general was higher scoring then, that is somewhat offset by the shorter seasons that were played.

Most of Gretzky's records are so far ahead of the field that there are only a couple that anyone even reasonably thinks a currently living player could have a shot at.

I had the privilege of living in Edmonton during Gretzky's heyday, and I got to see quite a few games in person. The guy was simply amazing. The tenor of the game changed every time he skated on the ice. Even when he wasn't scoring he was rocking the other team back on its heals. He could make a play from anywhere on the ice that would would set up a scoring opportunity. He had eyes in the back of his head and always seemed to know when someone was open, or a defencemen was caught out of position. Fifty goals in 39 games.

vl_mungo

07-25-2004, 05:49 AM

I seriously doubt anyone would argue against Gretzky. Lemieux? Please. Hasek? Are you kidding, or serious with that one? The Dominator wasn't even the best player on his team last year. Hell, he wasn't even the best goalie on his team. There is almost universal agreement that Wayne Gretsky is the greatest player ever to lace up the skates. That guy was a freak. His nickname says it all.

Wayne Gretzky and Babe Ruth are the only undisputed greatest of all time.

I would add Jack Nicklaus to the discussion.

I saw Gretzky and Hasek play at their peaks. Gretzky wasn't better than Hasek (and visa versa)

Zsofia

07-25-2004, 11:06 AM

Stretching the "sportspeople" title past the breaking point:

Thoroughbred racing -- Secretariat

In the last one of these threads we had, somebody mentioned a female long-distance bicycle racing athlete who broke the men's record. A cursory Google dosen't turn it up, but then thats not a sport I know anything about.

Silocke

07-25-2004, 01:13 PM

Autosport is a pretty pointless one to do. Are you going to go for the guy who's achieved multiple things in one form of driver-racing (e.g. M. Schumacher) or someone who has achieved globally (in more than one forum) but not so many (e.g. J. Villeneuve)? Are you going to give points to those that had the talent to achieve great things but didn't (Villeneuve Sr.) or those that had the greatest of talent but died before they got a chance to put things out of reach (A. Senna)?

Not to mention the many different types of cars/eras/technological driver aids/electronics etc. that set all these different forms of racing apart (e.g. Rallying, F1, KART, NASCAR - oval or street-track) both within the individual categories and between them.

Sam Stone

07-25-2004, 02:56 PM

I saw Gretzky and Hasek play at their peaks. Gretzky wasn't better than Hasek (and visa versa)

I'm not sure how you compare goalies to centers and conclude that one was better than the other just by watching them on the ice for a game or two. Gretzky's stats are simply unreal. Hasek was pretty dominant for a few years, but I'm not even sure he's the greatest goalie of all time, let alone greatest hockey player. I'd have to do a serious comparison between him and Patrick Roy, Grant Fuhr, Bernie Parent, Vladislav Tretiak, Ken Dryden, and Jacques Plante.

But when you ask hockey fans who the greatest player ever was, I'd guess about 95% would say Gretzky. He's as close to a lock as anyone in any sport, given that there is some subjectivity involved.

Telemark

07-25-2004, 05:01 PM

But when you ask hockey fans who the greatest player ever was, I'd guess about 95% would say Gretzky. He's as close to a lock as anyone in any sport, given that there is some subjectivity involved.
I think you could make the case for Hull, Howe, and Orr. With players careers spanning such different eras, I don't think statistics are the only way to go.

vl_mungo

07-25-2004, 08:15 PM

I'm not sure how you compare goalies to centers and conclude that one was better than the other just by watching them on the ice for a game or two. Gretzky's stats are simply unreal. Hasek was pretty dominant for a few years, but I'm not even sure he's the greatest goalie of all time, let alone greatest hockey player. I'd have to do a serious comparison between him and Patrick Roy, Grant Fuhr, Bernie Parent, Vladislav Tretiak, Ken Dryden, and Jacques Plante.

But when you ask hockey fans who the greatest player ever was, I'd guess about 95% would say Gretzky. He's as close to a lock as anyone in any sport, given that there is some subjectivity involved.

I didn't say one was better than the other.
When I saw Gretzky and Hasek play their best, they both were like the only two guys on the ice who mattered. Like they came down from a higher league.
For all the Roy's and Tretiaks you can fairly compare Hasek to, there are also Orrs and Howe's that can fairly be compared to Gretzky
I agree with you, though... it's impossible to compare goalies and skaters.

A different question (not related to the Gretzky/Hasek debate)... would you back someone who was friggin' amazing for a shortwhile... or someone who was slightly less so for a longer period of time? Was Jim Brown greater than Walter Payton... was Sandy Koufax greater than Cy Young?

owlstretchingtime

07-26-2004, 05:18 AM

I really think that Bradman has the greatest claim to be the greatest ever - he is so far in front of his competitors.

His batting average is 99.94.

To put this in perspective: A good batsman would be in the mid 30s, a really good one in the 40s and one or two "all time greats" would get to the 50s. Bradman's is double that.

He was so dominant that the England team had to pretty much re-write the rules of cricket to play him (the "bodyline" series - which the Aussies STILL haven't stopped whining about).

Another possibility is:

Pole Vault - Sergei Bubka

RumMunkey

07-26-2004, 07:28 AM

Pound for pound, Mike Bossy (http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=487) was a better player than Wayne Gretzky, but his career was shortened by injury.

duffer

07-26-2004, 08:03 AM

FWIW:

Baseball : Ty Cobb

Football: Brett Favre (Ray Nitchke close second)

Soccer: Pele

Basketball: Wilt Chamberlain or Jordan

Drivers: Jeff Gordon (close seconds are Richard Petty and Mike Schumaker)

Hockey: Mario Lemieux (with a nod to Gretzky)

*all subject to change as athletes keep improving over the years.

DKW

07-26-2004, 01:41 PM

Diving: Greg Louganis

Off-road trucks: "Ironman" Ivan Stewart

Sumo: Asashoryu if he can keep it up. Otherwise, Taiho and Chiyonofuji.

NASCAR: Richard Petty

Decathlon: Dan O'Brien

F1: The rotten bastards who order Michael Schumacher's teammates to let him win.

Football kicker: Jason Elam (Hey, I'm from Hawaii, whaddya expect me to put?)

Some really light weightlifting class: Naim "Pocket Hercules" Suleymagnolu

Beach volleyball: Randy Stoklos

Football franchise quarterback: John Elway (The miraculous 11th-hour victory drives, the terrorized defenses, the crushing Super Bowl calamaties...and finally, finally getting a decent line and a running back who can actually get a first down, and triumphing twice. He had it all.)

Grass court tennis: Pete Sampras

Golf (short-term legend): Tiger Woods

Golf (career legend): Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer

Golf (groundbreaker): Annika Sorenstam

Horse that accomplished absolutely nothing other than preventing a Triple Crown: War Emblem (especially since he was orignally a favorite to win it)

Ultimate Fighting Championship: Tito Ortiz

NBA multiple champion who will never get his due because of that damn shooting guard: 4-way tie between Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman, and Phil Jackson. :D

Neurotik

07-26-2004, 01:49 PM

FWIW:

Baseball : Ty Cobb
You misspelled Babe Ruth.

Marley23

07-26-2004, 01:59 PM

NBA multiple champion who will never get his due because of that damn shooting guard: 4-way tie between Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman, and Phil Jackson. :D
Much as I love the Bulls, Phil's the only one who really belongs on that list. Rodman was the ultimate one-dimensional player, not to mention the freakshow publicity whore he turned himself into. I'd rather have Ben Wallace. Grant was a very good third option, and Scottie had some great years but his attitude and injuries got in the way.

For Phil, meanwhile, people will go to any length to deny him credit. Michael, Scottie won a grand total of zero championships without him. Shaq had none, and I don't think the Heat will go all the way this year. Kobe had none, and the Lakers aren't going anywhere this year either (although I can't go as far as to predict he'll never win another one). Oh well. I guess he can deal with getting undercredit - he's got the millions of dollars and nine NBA championships after all.

Neurotik

07-26-2004, 02:21 PM

For Phil, meanwhile, people will go to any length to deny him credit. Michael, Scottie won a grand total of zero championships without him. Shaq had none, and I don't think the Heat will go all the way this year. Kobe had none, and the Lakers aren't going anywhere this year either (although I can't go as far as to predict he'll never win another one). Oh well. I guess he can deal with getting undercredit - he's got the millions of dollars and nine NBA championships after all.
Sorry, but this last year should have disspelled the notion that Phil is anything but a one trick pony. All he knows is the triangle - and he doesn't even know that very well. Tex Winter does all the teaching. He doesn't know how to alter his lineup to exploit his opponents weaknesses and if the triangle doesn't work, he doesn't have the ability to go outside his system and come up with an alternative.

The triangle is a great system that has worked well with the personnel he's had, but when the personnel is better suited to a different style of offense, he can't adjust.

For my money, Larry Brown is a better coach. Hell, the man took the Clippers to the playoffs.

VarlosZ

07-26-2004, 03:55 PM

(American) Football:

You don't have to go by statistics, but if you do, the greatest player ever is unquestionably Jerry Rice. The only comparable players at other positions (i.e., the players who hold the most important career records) are Dan Marino (QB) and Emmit Smith (RB). Let's see how far beyond the pack each is.

Passing:
Completions:
Marino -- 4,967 (20.5% greater than #2 on the list)
Elway -- 4,123

Yards:
Marino -- 61,361 (+19.2%)
Elway -- 51,475

TDs:
Marino -- 420 (+21.4%)
Favre -- 346

Rushing:
Yards:
Smith -- 17, 418 (+4.1%)
Payton -- 16726

TDs:
Smith -- 155 (+17.9%)
Marcus Allen -- 123

Notice that Marino and Smith outdid their closest competitors by, at best, about 20%. Now look at how Jerry Rice stacks up against other receivers.

Receiving:
Receptions:
Rice -- 1,519 (+38%)
Chris Carter -- 1,101

TDs:
Rice -- 194 (+49%)
Carter -- 130

Yards:
Rice -- 22,466 (+52.5%)!
Tim Brown -- 14,734

Rice is also the all-time leader in total TDs by 23.5% (205 to 166 for Emmit Smith). Also note that Jerry Rice is still productive at age 41, so his margins will only increase for the forseeable future.

RickJay

07-26-2004, 08:07 PM

OP here. I didn't include baseball mainly because I know very little about it. I do however remember reading an article by someone who concluded that Mickey Mantle was the greatest ever. If there are experts disagreeing then by definition that person is not unquestionably the greatest ever.
I have never heard of a reputable expert who would say Mantle was greater than Ruth. Ruth was the greatest beyond any doubt or question.

Cicero

07-27-2004, 05:03 AM

Walter Lindrum at Billiards?

And Fischer for chess must be one of the most contentious- what about Alekhine or Capablanca?

Beauty Personified

07-27-2004, 05:05 AM

Skateboarding - Tony Hawk

It's always interesting to ask this question to people who don't really follow sports. The names they would come up with can be telling. Sometimes an athlete's career and life off the field has a great impact on their notoriety, but I'd have to say that most of the names a relatively uninformed bystander would come up with are warranted by the fact that those athletes made headlines for years because of their skill.

That said, I'm only really familiar with hockey. IMO, Wayne Gretzky is the greatest player ever. Not for the great numbers he put up, however; but for how he affected the play of everyone else on the teams he played for. There have been a number of players who played one season on his wing, and put up numbers they never came close to achieving again. Despite never playing organized hockey, I could score at least 20 goals a season playing on a line with Gretzky in his prime.

Now, what about professional wrestling? :) I suspect the average uninformed bystander would mention Hulk Hogan when asked to name a great wrestler. The Rock would get a good number of votes from younger folk. However, for long-time fans and newer fanatics, Hogan would only be considered great when it comes to charisma and helping make wrestling a more mainstream product. As an actual wrestler, he was not very good.

Of course, being how professional wrestling is a amalgam of athletic skill, entertainment and storytelling, there are many different categories that different wrestlers past and present would fall into with regards to greatness. Just trying to define "greatest" as being the best "all-around" pro wrestler would have people up in arms. Charisma, mic work, athletism, look - are they all of equal importance? Hogan made up for his shortcomings athletically with his showmanship. Chris Benoit makes up for low charisma with amazing wrestling skill.

And then there's the fact that pro wrestling today is a lot different than pro wrestling even ten years ago, and pro wrestling then was a lot different than pro wrestling ten years before that. Forget about how different the sport was before Hogan came along, or even how different the sport was before Gorgeous George stepped into the ring.

Anyhoo...

jovan

07-27-2004, 05:43 AM

Sumo: Asashoryu if he can keep it up. Otherwise, Taiho and Chiyonofuji.
As much as I like the feisty Mongol's style, there's no freekin' way Asashoryu is anywhere near the top of all time. Frankly, the only reason he's having his winning streak is because the opposition is so weak. Put Asashoryu against Takanohana or Akebono at their best (to pick recent examples) and he might not have made it to Yokozuna so soon. I can't imagine him getting anywhere near his current results in the mid 80s, either, with Chiyonofuji and Kitanoumi around.

Since we're talking of all time, however, the answer for sumo is certainly Raiden with his 254-10 lifetime record. It's hard to gauge just how good an athlete of 200 years ago really was, but in terms of numbers and simply ruling over his opponents, Raiden was the man.

Burnt Sugar

07-27-2004, 06:32 AM

I guess we'll find out tomorrow whether to add Lance Armstrong to the list.

With track and swimming it's kind of hard to say. Mark Spitz was dominant in swimming in his day, but I don't think his times would compare to world class swimmers today. Michael Phelps may well dethrone him anyway.

Maybe but not very likely. This is one of my peeves. See here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5106964&postcount=7).

On topic, Grant Hackett hasn't been beaten over 1500m freestyle since 1997. That's very dominant.

Ike Witt

07-27-2004, 10:35 AM

I would agree that Orr could have given Gretzky a run for his money had his career continued. But in fact, it didn't. Gretzky simple put up numbers unheard of since. And yes, it's true that the game in general was higher scoring then, that is somewhat offset by the shorter seasons that were played.

Not counting the strike shortened season of 94-95 the majority of seasons that Gretzky played were 80 game seasons. 92-92 was an 84 game season and the league has had an 82 game schedule since 95-96.

Orr started in 66-67 when there was a 70 game schedule. The next season it was 74 games and the year after that it was 76 games. In 70-71 the league went to a 78 game season and to the 80 game season in 74-75.

When both Orr and Gretzky were putting up their insane monster numbers the difference in the length of the season was 2 games.

I don't think that the 50 in 39 record will ever be touched. 50 in 50 may now be too difficult to achieve again as well.

Oh, and Ellis Dee what is with the please comment about Lemieux? A very strong case could be made for him.

Saintly Loser

07-27-2004, 11:43 AM

In auto racing, It is very hard to compare drivers from the past to current drivers because the vehicles are so different. There's also the fact that rallying, for example is a totally different sport from Formula one, and currently you almost never see a driver from one area of motorsports make a change to another kind successfully.

Don't know much abut auto racing, but I do know a bit about motorcycle racing. Back in the day, a Grand National champion had to win on dirt and in road racing to take the championship. Entirely different technique on entirely different bikes. And that's why Kenny Roberts is probably the greatest motorcycle racer there ever was.

Shodan

07-27-2004, 12:30 PM

Sport judo: Yasuhiro Yamashita.

Powerlifting: Mike Bridges

Tennis: Bill Tilden.

Boxing (by division):

Flyweight: Jimmy Wilde

Bantamweight: Terry McGovern

Featherweight: Salvador Sanchez

Lightweight: Roberto Duran

Welterweight: Sugar Ray Robinson

Middleweight: Carlos Monzon

Lightheavyweight: Archie Moore

Heavyweight: Joe Louis

Good players can be compared against each other, but the greats cannot. They are part of destiny. Outside their time and their context, they aren't the same.

Regards,
Shodan

Ellis Dee

07-27-2004, 08:49 PM

Oh, and Ellis Dee what is with the please comment about Lemieux? A very strong case could be made for him.Nothing personal against Mario. Returning from Hodgkins (sp?) disease is no small feat, and worthy of the highest respect. I give Lemieux all the credit in the world. That guy is one of the all-time greats.

However, the complete dominance of Gretzky is so completely vast and untouchable, it is almost as if he were a professional player in a world of pop warner. So much better for so much longer than anyone ever has been or ever could hope to be. Wayne Gretzky is, quite simply, The Great One, and his mark on the game will not only never be touched, but no player will ever even approach the same league, much less get a whiff of the rarified air he lived in every game.

If all of Gretzky's numbers were just in the top 3 of all time, you could still make an argument that he was the greatest ever for a variety of reasons. One poster mentioned the great impact he had on his teammates. A friend of mine appreciates his unselfish love of the sport in his efforts to bring the NHL to Los Angeles. But returning from cancer rates up there, to name just one of the possible contenders in that case. In this hypothetical, it would be a great barroom debate.

However, the numbers alone are so overwhelming as to crush any doubt. One poster discussed Jerry Rice's % dominance over 2nd place in alltime records being in the 40s, over double the margin of other guys, who only owned their records by % in the 20s.

Let's look at Gretzky and #2:

Goals
--------
The Great One: 894
Second Place: 801 (Gordie Howe)
Margin: 11%

Assists
---------
The Great One: 1963
Second Place: 1247 (Ron Francis; Gordie Howe had "only" 1049)
Margin: 57%

Points
--------
The Great One: 2830
Second Place: 1869 (Mark Messier)
Margin: 51%
Third Place: 1850 (Gordie Howe)

You might notice, at this point, that Gretzky has more assists, by a decent margin, than any other player has points. Adding in the fact that he also holds the record, by a decent margin, for goals, it becomes surreal.

Some people might point out that Lemieux had higher per game averages. These are the same people who will tend to start sentences with "if he had played as long..." and "if he never got cancer". That's the whole point. Nobody needs a single if to make the case for Gretzky.

One of the many great aspects of Gretzky's career was the sheer length of his greatness. (The general "you") greatly devalue that by assuming Mario (or anybody else) could have maintained his averages for as many years. You may as well argue that Ricky Williams was clearly the greatest ever, because if you multiply his average season total by the number of seasons Emmitt Smith played, he crushes Emmitt. That may be true, but that's an insult. There is a reason we hold endurance streaks (ala Brett Favre and Cal Ripken Jr.) in such high regard.

owlstretchingtime

07-28-2004, 07:21 AM

A small point - mainly for the Americans.

Look chaps, I don't want to break it to you too badly - but if a game doesn't have a World Cup (with other nations who stand a chance) not just a "World Series" them it's just that a game - a passtime; a bagatelle.

Sorry - but that's the truth.

gouda

07-28-2004, 07:51 AM

I started a thread way back when on this very topic... here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=134678&highlight=sport).

Neurotik

07-28-2004, 07:55 AM

Look chaps, I don't want to break it to you too badly - but if a game doesn't have a World Cup (with other nations who stand a chance) not just a "World Series" them it's just that a game - a passtime; a bagatelle.

:rolleyes: One wonders if Toronto, Canada, feels surprised that a non-US team doesn't have a chance at winning.

Hate to break it to you Euro types, but if a large part of the game involves grown men writhing on the ground pretending to be hurt, it's really just a game. Mostly for little pansy-ass whiners.

jovan

07-28-2004, 08:06 AM

Look chaps, I don't want to break it to you too badly - but if a game doesn't have a World Cup (with other nations who stand a chance) not just a "World Series" them it's just that a game - a passtime; a bagatelle.
WTF? Are you talking about baseball? The sport that's hugely popular throughout the Caribbean and Mexico? The #1 sport in Japan? Popular in Taiwan and Korea? The Philippines too. The names Larry Walker, Ferguson Jenkins, Jose Canseco, Juan Marichal, Sammy Sosa, Ichiro Suzuki, Sadaharu Oh, Andres Galarraga, Roberto Clemente or Felipe Alou probably don't ring a bell, do they? (And that's just off the top of my head.)

gouda

07-28-2004, 08:13 AM

I think he's talking about american football and ice hockey in particular. I could be wrong though - I don't know whether these two have a 'World Series' or not.

Neurotik, which sport are you whining about? Not pro wrestling, I'm sure :p

jovan

07-28-2004, 08:26 AM

Ice Hockey has a world championship but it's a bit overshadowed by the quest for the holy grail that is THE STANLEY CUP *cue Molson Hockey Night in Canada music*

It's most definitely an international sport, though obviously its popularity is mostly concentrated in northern countries.

gouda

07-28-2004, 08:31 AM

Telemark

07-28-2004, 08:43 AM

I didn't know ice hockey was played outside of Canada and the US. Which other countries play it then? And why is the Stanley Cup bigger than the world championship? Do all ice hockey playing countries play for the Stanley Cup?
Most of northern and eastern Europe. The Swedes, Finns, Norwegians, Russians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Sloveniansand Czechs, plus many others, have excellent teams.

The Stanley Cup is the NHL Championship trophey. Since the NHL is the most popular hockey league, it also pays the most money. That's why the best players in the world come to the NHL teams. But in recent years those players have come from all over the world, rather than just the US and Canada. It's professional teams, just like the Premier League in soccer/football.

jovan

07-28-2004, 08:50 AM

Canada, the U.S., Russia and the former soviet states, Sweden, Czech Republic, and Finland among others are very strong and produce many good players. In the 1998 Olympics, when pro players were allowed to play, the Czech Republic won the gold.

The biggest league, the NHL, however has teams in the U.S. and Canada and is where pretty much all the top players play. The makeup of the teams is very international, though.

The Stanley Cup is awarded every year. It's special in that whereas several sports have long traditions, and strong cultures tied to them, ice hockey has an actual object that becomes the focus of the fans' "worship". I don't think there's an equivalent in any major sport I'm aware of.

Ike Witt

07-28-2004, 09:18 AM

Nothing personal against Mario. Returning from Hodgkins (sp?) disease is no small feat, and worthy of the highest respect. I give Lemieux all the credit in the world. That guy is one of the all-time greats.

However, the complete dominance of Gretzky is so completely vast and untouchable, it is almost as if he were a professional player in a world of pop warner. So much better for so much longer than anyone ever has been or ever could hope to be. Wayne Gretzky is, quite simply, The Great One, and his mark on the game will not only never be touched, but no player will ever even approach the same league, much less get a whiff of the rarified air he lived in every game.

If all of Gretzky's numbers were just in the top 3 of all time, you could still make an argument that he was the greatest ever for a variety of reasons. One poster mentioned the great impact he had on his teammates. A friend of mine appreciates his unselfish love of the sport in his efforts to bring the NHL to Los Angeles. But returning from cancer rates up there, to name just one of the possible contenders in that case. In this hypothetical, it would be a great barroom debate.

When it comes to naming the best hockey player ever I go with Gretzky as well, but like I said, a case can be made for Lemieux. I would even go so far as to say Lemieux accomplished more with less. Not less personal talent because Lemieux maybe the most talente individual to ever play the game, but less surrounding talent. Lemieux didn't have a Messier, Anderson or Kurri for much of his career like Gretzky did.

Anyway, here are some numbers that I crunched for a thread back in April of 2000 that show how close they really were (I really need to update the stats but I don't have the time right now):

Seasons: Gretzky-20 Lemieux-12
Games played: Gretzky-1487 Lemieux-745
Points: Gretzky-2857 Lemieux-1494
PPG: Gretzky-1.921 Lemieux-2.005
Art Ross: Gretzky-11 Lemieux-6
Stanley Cups: Gretzky-4 Lemieux-2

Beauty Personified

07-28-2004, 05:44 PM

Of the subject of ice hockey as an international sport, it might be interesting to note that the Japan Ice Hockey Federation (http://www.jihf.or.jp/jihl/index-e.htm) has been around since 1965. Go Bunnies! :D (Whoa! That emoticon does look like a bunny. If it only had ears...) And I just found out that they've been playing ice hockey in Australia for a century now.

Anyhoo...

owlstretchingtime

07-29-2004, 07:06 AM

Ice hockey is a real sport - it's played all over Eastern Europe.

American football however is rugby for rough girls.

Johnny Bravo

07-29-2004, 07:23 AM

I don't know about pro wrestling, but Dan Gable is a legend as far as the sport goes.

wmulax93

07-29-2004, 07:38 AM

Neurotik

07-29-2004, 08:05 AM

American football however is rugby for rough girls.
*snicker*

*pats owlstretchingtime on the head*

Keep thinking that.

RickJay

07-29-2004, 08:36 AM

When it comes to naming the best hockey player ever I go with Gretzky as well, but like I said, a case can be made for Lemieux. I would even go so far as to say Lemieux accomplished more with less. Not less personal talent because Lemieux maybe the most talente individual to ever play the game, but less surrounding talent. Lemieux didn't have a Messier, Anderson or Kurri for much of his career like Gretzky did.
Messier, Kurri and Anderson's numbers with and without Gretzky would suggest he impacted them more than the reverse. Of course it's true he had many great reammates, but it's not as if Mario Lemieux lacked for amazing teammates: Jaromir Jagr, Paul Coffey, Kevin Stevens, and others had fine years with Lemieux.

Anyway, here are some numbers that I crunched for a thread back in April of 2000 that show how close they really were (I really need to update the stats but I don't have the time right now):

Seasons: Gretzky-20 Lemieux-12
Games played: Gretzky-1487 Lemieux-745
Points: Gretzky-2857 Lemieux-1494
PPG: Gretzky-1.921 Lemieux-2.005
Art Ross: Gretzky-11 Lemieux-6
Stanley Cups: Gretzky-4 Lemieux-2
The thing is, these really aren't that close. Per game they're dead even, but the length of career just can't be ignored - it's monstrous.

Imagine if you had Gretzky and Lemieux on the same team for a season. Gretzky plays all 82 games and scored 159 points. Lemieux plays 41 games and scores 82 points. Which player helped the team more? It's pretty obvious that Gretzky would be vastly more valuable; it's the marginal difference of having a player who plays 41 games and scores 77 points.

The difference, when you get right down to it, is that Gretzky kept playing after 1989. Up to that season Gretzky had played 774 games - more or less the same length as Mario's career - and had scored 1,837 points, 2.37 points per game. So after playing more or less the same number of games as Mario, Gretzky had done MORE, not less.

Then, AFTER 1989, Gretzky played an additional 713 games and scored an additional 1,020 points. So that's the difference between the Great One and The Magnificent One. Imagine having a Mario Lemieux who actually score a few more points, and then having another player who plays 713 games and scores 1,020 points - in other words, nine seasons of 100+ points a year. That's how much more Gretzky did.

Harborwolf

07-29-2004, 09:05 AM

Sam Stone

07-29-2004, 10:04 AM

Then, AFTER 1989, Gretzky played an additional 713 games and scored an additional 1,020 points. So that's the difference between the Great One and The Magnificent One. Imagine having a Mario Lemieux who actually score a few more points, and then having another player who plays 713 games and scores 1,020 points - in other words, nine seasons of 100+ points a year. That's how much more Gretzky did.

Or looking at it another way - Wayne Gretzky maintained pretty much the same average number of points per game over his entire career than Mario did during his years of peak ability. Since all players slow down significantly in their last few years (including Gretzky), for him to maintain a 2 point per game average throughout his career means he was doing significantly better than that during his peak years.

If you want to compare raw skill, compare the two at the same stage of their careers. Take the last eight years of Gretzky's career and chuck them out, and then compare stats between the two. I think you'll find that Gretzky racked up significantly better numbers.

RickJay

07-29-2004, 01:38 PM

I'm a bit disappointed at the outright dismissal of Howe. The guy was the complete hockey player. He could score, pass, play defense, and crush anybody on the ice.

You can have your Gretzky. I'll take Howe simply because Howe would crush Lemieux, Greztky, etc. on the way to the net.
That sounds good until you try it. I've spoken with NHL players and ex-players who tried to stop Gretzky and/or Lemieux, and the comment about was always that

1. They seemed to be impossible to hit squarely no matter how hard you tried, and
2. If by some chance you did get one of 'em, their way of getting revenge was to get up and score a few more goals.

I mean, not to point out the obvious here, but these guys played a long time. If you could just nail them and put a stop to them, then people would have done it.

I am reminded of the story about one of the Sutter brothers - I think it was Daryl - whose father kept telling him, "hit Gretzky, son! Ya gotta HIT him! You can stop him if you just hit him! Hit him! Why aren't you hitting him?" Finally Sutter screamed back at him, "Dad, I'm TRYING!"

Howe was super-great, of course, but I'd rank him behind Gretzky in career value and behind Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr in peak value.

As for the goalies, you really have to make that separate. It's takes an entirely different set of skills to play the position. On that I would have to go for Sawchuck with nods to Roy, Hasek, and Brodeur.
I think it's harder to rate goalies because it's hard to divine the effect their teams have on them without a lot of statistical analysis. For instance, Ken Dryden's accomplishments look amazing on paper, but given the 1970's Montreal Canadiens, you could put Guinastasia between the pipes and she'd probably win 45, 50 games a year. It's not hard to win games when 50 minutes a game it's a swarm of red shirts at the other end of the ice. Similarly, it seems to be the choking trap defense Marty Brodeur has played behind suggests his numbers aren't as good, in context, as a Sawchuck or a Roy. Objectively speaking, it seems clear that Patrick Roy won a huge number of games behind teams that on average were vastly inferior.

I'd pick Patrick Roy, but your picks are pretty good too.

MaxTheVool

07-29-2004, 07:22 PM

OK, here's one completely and totally inarguable one (as long as we accept intellectual sports):

The greatest Checkers player ever, by a truly ridiculous amount, was Marion Tinsley. From 1950 to his death in 1994 he WON EVERY TOURNAMENT HE PLAYED IN!!!! I think he may be the greatest single competitor in the history of mankind.

I can't comment too meaningfully on the topic, but the greatest mountain climber of all time seems to be Reinhold Messner

drm

07-29-2004, 08:39 PM

I'm gonna give a few sports a try.

Golf
Men: Jack Nicklaus then Jones then Woods.
Woman: Annika Sorenstam

Baseball: Babe Ruth

Tennis
Mens: Rod Laver ahead of Sampras
Womans: Martina Navratilova

Hockey: The Great One, not even close

American Football: Jerry Rice ahead of Jim Brown ahead of Barry Sanders. I want to put Larry Allen on the list but it's kind of hard to back him up with stats. He belongs on a most dominating list I think, for sure.

Football: Maradona ahead of Pele

Basketball: Michael Jordan (hate him but I can't very well in good concience put anyone else up there) ahead of Wilt Chamberlain ahead of Tim Duncan.

Harborwolf

07-29-2004, 09:29 PM

Checking defense shmecking defense. I put Brodeur in due to his skill and consistency. Right now the easiest job in the NHL is to be Brodeurs backup. You'll play maybe ten games a season. Not to mention the Devils insane commitment to defense really hinders their offense. Martin Brodeur has to be great because the Devils expect to win every game 1-0 or 2-1 as opposed to Roy who played for Montreal in their prime and then for the lowly Avs.

I placed Sawchuck at the top because the dude set the records without benefit of modern pads or a helmet. You can say that there weren't as many hard shots in his day, but there were a few that could really launch the biscuit. Let's put Roy in Sawchucks pads for a season and see how many records he can rack up then. ;)

As for Howe, I simply think he embodies nearly every aspect of hockey better than Greztky or Lemieux. They were likely more talented than Howe, but not by much. With Howe, he could either outskate you, deke you, or simply run you down. He was/is/always will be one of the most feared fighters in the NHL. When has anybody ever said "OH SH*T GRETZKY DROPPED THE GLOVES!!" Add to that Howes penchant for switching hands on his stick (ambidextrous baby) to fool goalies and defenseman alike and you have one hell of a hockey player.

Like it or not, Gretzky and Lemieux are just too danged pretty. ;)

RickJay

07-29-2004, 09:45 PM

(Shrug) It's not about who's tough or pretty. It's about who has more goals after sixty minutes.

Gretzky was so great I don't think his greatness is being fully grasped. I guess he was more appreciated at the time; I remember that people in pools often set No-Gretzky rules, because allowing Gretzky to be drafted meant drafting #1 automatically gave you the win.

Gretzky was exactly equivalent to a baseball player who could hit 90 home runs a year, or a running back who could rush for 3,000 yards and score 35 touchdowns. Nobody who has ever played the game DOMINATED the way he did. Howe could check and fight? Fine. Gretzky just kept scoring. At the end of the game they add up how many goals you have. A one-dimensional player can be better than an all-around player.

In 1980-1981Gretzky scored 29 points more than any other player.
In 1981-1982, 65 points more.
1982-1983: 72 points more.
1983-1984: 79 points more.
1984-1985: 73 points more.
1985-1986: 70 points more. 163 points; nobody else had more than 93. Think about that.
1986-1987: 75 points more.

Best player in hockey history? Gretzky is the greatest athlete in the history of North American professional sport, hands down, by a mile. Greater than Ruth, greater than Jordan, greater than Rice, Mays, greater than any of them. You show me ANYONE who was that far above his league for seven straight years.

Sam Stone

07-30-2004, 12:07 AM

They were likely more talented than Howe, but not by much. With Howe, he could either outskate you, deke you, or simply run you down. He was/is/always will be one of the most feared fighters in the NHL. When has anybody ever said "OH SH*T GRETZKY DROPPED THE GLOVES!!" Add to that Howes penchant for switching hands on his stick (ambidextrous baby) to fool goalies and defenseman alike and you have one hell of a hockey player.

You just described Mark Messier. And if we're going to list the all-time greats, he has to be right up there. In fact, I believe I'd put him ahead of Howe. Messier is now second in all-time points behind Gretzky. And believe me, no one was more feared than Messier when he was on the ice. He was one of the top goal scorers in the game, and there really wasn't any weakness in his game. And as for longevity, Messier is still playing, and he's 43 years old. And there was never a better leader in the NHL than Messier. When the Rangers were trailing in the 1991 cup race, Mark Messier held a press conference and promised the media that they were going to win. He guaranteed it. Then the next night his team came out flat, and Messier just about crushed the other team by his own damned self. Played like an animal. And they won the cup.

To me, that was one of the greatest moments in sports. Gotta give Messier a few places higher on the list just for that.

VarlosZ

07-30-2004, 01:26 AM

You don't have to go by statistics, but if you do, the greatest player ever is unquestionably Jerry Rice. The only comparable players at other positions (i.e., the players who hold the most important career records) are Dan Marino (QB) and Emmit Smith (RB).
BULLSHIT!

Emmitt Smith was a good RB behind a great O-Line. He doesn't even belong in the top 5 all time running backs.
Talent-wise I agree, but I was speaking statistically. The best RB I've even seen is Barry Sanders, but Gale Sayers and Jim Brown were before my time.

Can you argue with Jerry Rice as the greatest ever, though?

American football however is rugby for rough girls.
What, because of the pads and helmets? Piffle. Those are just there so the players can hit harder. You'll get more bumps and bruises in rugby, but you'll get more concussions, fractures, and outright paralysis in football.

If it doesn't leave you drooling and mumbling incoherently in your wheelchair by the age of 32, it's not a real man's sport.

Marley23

07-30-2004, 02:06 AM

You just described Mark Messier. [...]
To me, that was one of the greatest moments in sports. Gotta give Messier a few places higher on the list just for that.
Couldn't agree more. The Rangers won the Cup in '94, but you nailed it. Whether or not he's one of the most gifted athletes, Mess is one of the greatest leaders in the history of sports. He will forever be a New York hero for that guarantee and the hat trick he scored that night, even if nobody cares about hockey anymore. By the way, he's also second all-time in playoff goals and points (both to Gretzky, of course), and seventh all-time in goals.

And as a further measure of Gretzky's greatness, look how far ahead he is of the competition in those categories!

Career Points
1) Gretzky, 2857
2) Messier, 1887

Career Playoff Points
1) Gretzky, 382
2) Messier, 295

Career Goals
1) Gretzky, 894
2) Howe, 801

Career Playoff Goals
1) Gretzky, 122
2) Messier, 109

Sam Stone

07-30-2004, 02:40 AM

The Rangers won the Cup in '94, but you nailed it.

Right. I was thinking earlier because Messier won the cup with the Oilers in 1990, after Gretzky was gone.

Being in Edmonton, I've heard lots of first-hand and second-hand accounts of Messier's exploits (and of course in our local newspaper). The man was almost as feared on his own team sometimes. There was a night after a particularly lackadaisical performance by (I think) Petr Klima that Messier picked him up, pinned him to the lockers, put his nose about an inch from Klima's, and told him that if he put in a piss-poor performance like that again, they were going to have to have a 'talk'.

Marley23

07-30-2004, 02:56 AM

Looking back I see that Ellis Dee posted several of the stats I also posted. Oops.

A small point - mainly for the Americans.

Look chaps, I don't want to break it to you too badly - but if a game doesn't have a World Cup (with other nations who stand a chance) not just a "World Series" them it's just that a game - a passtime; a bagatelle.

Sorry - but that's the truth.
In what sense is this true other than 'we have one, you don't, so ours is better?' What complete nonsense. So golf (Ryder Cup) is a sport and baseball isn't? Right. Hell, chess is international. It's still not a sport. Major League Baseball doesn't have teams anywhere except the US and Canada, but we're seeing more and more foreign players than ever.

Sorry, but this last year should have disspelled the notion that Phil is anything but a one trick pony.
Yeah, losing in the Finals really chucks those 9 titles out the window. :rolleyes: My personal opinion is that he did as much as you could with a team that was, in two words, absolutely uncoachable. The two main stars wanted to kill each other, they both insisted they were #1. Kobe didn't like him. Payton claimed he came to win a championship, then refused to try and be a team player even though he's over the hill and couldn't take a team that far on his own. So he was trying to do the same thing as Kobe only without the ability. The Lakers had the talent to win and didn't, no question. But Jackson has had unparalleled success dealing with talent and getting players to work together to win. This year, he had a team that was too full of itself even for him. And like I said, they still won the conference.

owlstretchingtime

07-30-2004, 07:22 AM

[QUOTE=Marley23].

In what sense is this true other than 'we have one, you don't, so ours is better?' What complete nonsense. So golf (Ryder Cup) is a sport and baseball isn't? Right. Hell, chess is international. It's still not a sport. Major League Baseball doesn't have teams anywhere except the US and Canada, but we're seeing more and more foreign players than ever.

QUOTE]

What I am trying to get at is that for someone to be the "greatest ever" there has to be meaningful competition and if a game is only played in one place, that competition doesn't exist. My point about world cups is that the games in which these exist (or world titles eg boxing) then there is a wold participation in them - so the achievement of winning them is that much greater.

So American Football is not a world game (and is the dullest thing imaginable - Janet Jackson's tits notwithstanding).

RickJay

07-30-2004, 08:03 AM

What I am trying to get at is that for someone to be the "greatest ever" there has to be meaningful competition and if a game is only played in one place, that competition doesn't exist.
The population of all the countries thatr take rugby seriously is probably no more than the population of countries that take football seriously. So is rugby a sport just because New Zealand is further from France than California is from Alberta?

You're just engaging in petty little "my sport is better than your sport" nonsense, and you're cluttering the thread with off topic whining. Silly nonsense like "American football is for rough girls" - I have played both football and rugby, and I know firsthand that football is MUCH tougher and more dangerous - just make you look like an ethnocentric ass. Now, do you have any input into the subject of this thread? I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the world's best rugby player, as I don't know much about the sport's history at that level.

owlstretchingtime

07-30-2004, 11:05 AM

The population of all the countries thatr take rugby seriously is probably no more than the population of countries that take football seriously. So is rugby a sport just because New Zealand is further from France than California is from Alberta?

You're just engaging in petty little "my sport is better than your sport" nonsense, and you're cluttering the thread with off topic whining. Silly nonsense like "American football is for rough girls" - I have played both football and rugby, and I know firsthand that football is MUCH tougher and more dangerous - just make you look like an ethnocentric ass. Now, do you have any input into the subject of this thread? I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the world's best rugby player, as I don't know much about the sport's history at that level.

There are loads of sports that are country specific and damned hard to play. So I suppose that someone could be a "great" American Football player. However to then compare someone who has achieved that level of "greatness" with someone who has achieved that level in a world sport is silly.

In world sports different sporting traditions produce different ways of playing the game (think Brazil v Germany at football or England V Australia at rugby). True greateness is about tackling and overcoming those differences.

And I will admit to a complete blind-spot about US football - it really is very dull (which I suspect is the reason no one else plays it).

As to the best rugby player (And I am not an expert on this) it is really hard to say as there are so many different roles within the team, so you can't really compare like-with like. But if I had to plump for one player it would probably be either Barry John or David Campese.

Neurotik

07-30-2004, 11:58 AM

Yeah, losing in the Finals really chucks those 9 titles out the window. :rolleyes:
In other words, your response is "9 titles! LALALALALALALALALALALALA!"

Understood.
My personal opinion is that he did as much as you could with a team that was, in two words, absolutely uncoachable. The two main stars wanted to kill each other, they both insisted they were #1. Kobe didn't like him. Payton claimed he came to win a championship, then refused to try and be a team player even though he's over the hill and couldn't take a team that far on his own. So he was trying to do the same thing as Kobe only without the ability. The Lakers had the talent to win and didn't, no question. But Jackson has had unparalleled success dealing with talent and getting players to work together to win. This year, he had a team that was too full of itself even for him. And like I said, they still won the conference.
Here's what he could have fucking done. Get out of the goddam triangle. But he can't, because that's the only system he knows and that's the only "coaching" he knows how to do.

Phil Jackson is the greatest relationship counselor ever. He's not a very good coach. He can't teach. He can't invent plays off the fly. He can't exploit mismatches.

He kept giving significant minutes to Karl Malone throughout the playoffs, even though Karl couldn't jump, couldn't run and couldn't shoot since his knees hurt too much. Gary Payton was worse than useless out there, but he kept getting significant minutes, too.

He has nine rings because he had arguably the greatest player in basketball history on his side, surrounded by veteran teammates who already knew how to play. His only achievement in Chicago was getting MJ to buy into a system that one of his assistants invented. That's not coaching, that's counseling.

Same thing in LA. He had the two best players in the league on his roster, stocked with veteran talent that knew how to play. He just got them to buy into a system that his one of his assistants invented. Again, that's not coaching.

The loss in the past Finals wouldn't be a blemish on his record, except for the fact that after Game 2, it was freaking obvious to everyone that Larry Brown had broken the triangle. And did Jackson make any changes? No. He didn't change starting personnel. He didn't tweak the system to take advantage of any mismatches. Know why? Because he can't! He doesn't know how to run any other system besides the triangle.

Besides, he ran off Jerry West and kicked the legs out of the man who built one dynasty in the 80s and had the makings of one in the 00s.

Harborwolf

07-30-2004, 05:02 PM

Don't even get me started on Phil Jackson. This guy is the coach he is because he got handed great teams. As far as I know, he turned down a job with the New Jersey Nets because it was too much work. :mad: I'll say he's a good coach with great teams.

Best coach has to be Scotty Bowman. The guy is so good teams still want him, and will write him carte blanche to trade whoever he wants, star or not. He coached for decades and earned his nine championships.

Marley23

07-30-2004, 05:46 PM

In other words, your response is "9 titles! LALALALALALALALALALALALA!"

Understood.
Nice.

Obviously he's been given good teams. Another thing those teams, and the star players on them, is that they never won a championship without him. I don't think of that as a coincidence. Whether it's counseling or coaching, it's part of his job, and he's very good at it.

Besides, he ran off Jerry West and kicked the legs out of the man who built one dynasty in the 80s and had the makings of one in the 00s.
I've always seen Jerry West's departure blamed on Jerry Buss, not Jackson. What's your reading there?

jsc1953

07-30-2004, 06:12 PM

I have never heard of a reputable expert who would say Mantle was greater than Ruth. Ruth was the greatest beyond any doubt or question.

I think the conventional wisdom on Mantle is that he had the potential to be the greatest ever: hitting for average, for power (from both sides of the plate) and blazing speed. But after stepping on a sprinkler head and blowing out his knee, he was never the same.

If greatness is measured by dominance against your peers, then it's Ruth, hands-down (as noted above). But if I was picking a team today, I'd be hard pressed to choose between Ruth, Mays and Bonds. I think I'd pick Willie.

beergeek279

07-30-2004, 06:30 PM

I agree, no rational baseball fan could argue this. The next best would probably be George Brett.

Well, are you talking offense or defense, because defensively Brooks Robinson would be the greatest 3rd baseman in history.

Anyway, here are some numbers that I crunched for a thread back in April of 2000 that show how close they really were (I really need to update the stats but I don't have the time right now):

Seasons: Gretzky-20 Lemieux-12
Games played: Gretzky-1487 Lemieux-745
Points: Gretzky-2857 Lemieux-1494
PPG: Gretzky-1.921 Lemieux-2.005
Art Ross: Gretzky-11 Lemieux-6
Stanley Cups: Gretzky-4 Lemieux-2

Sorry, RickJay, I might be a homer, but I'm going to have to dispute your idea that Gretzky was that far and above Lemieux. Maybe durability could be a factor, but I think Lemieux absolutely deserves a proration, as he lost a season to CANCER, and even to this day has been suffering with his hip. In addition, I would have loved to have seen what Lemieux would have done if he had linemates (before the Stanley Cup years, and that was half of his career, mind you) the equal of Gretzky's. Jarri Kurri, or Rob Brown?? (who Lemieux made into a 50 goal scorer!!) If Mario had always been on winning teams, and had 2857 games, there would be no debate!

Sam Stone

07-30-2004, 06:59 PM

I would have loved to have seen what Lemieux would have done if he had linemates (before the Stanley Cup years, and that was half of his career, mind you) the equal of Gretzky's.

What was Jaromir Jagr? Chopped liver? When he was playing with Lemieux, he was putting up numbers just about as good as Lemieux's. And didn't Ron Francis also play on that line? As I recall, Mario's most productive years were spent with Jagr at his side, and after Mario retired, Jagr continued to put up stellar numbers, indicating that he wasn't being elevated by Mario. Jari Kurri, on the other hand, never had another season even close to his best years playing wing for Gretzky.

Marley23

07-30-2004, 07:30 PM

I'll add this:

1) Do I really need to say anything else for Jackson aside from the championships? I don't see why. I'm not arguing he's the best coach ever. I'm saying he has to be up there, at least in his sport. If I asked what was great about Red Auerbach, what would you say- the cigars?

2) The most talented teams don't always win, but nobody wins without talent. And nobody wins over an extended period without a lot of it. How many Hall of Famers were on Auerbach's Celtics teams? I count seven - Tom Heinsohn, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Bill Russell, Sam Jones, and K.C. Jones were there for all of their 8 straight titles, and John Havlicek for four of them. (By contrast, in Chicago, Jackson had one, maybe two, and he won six titles in eight years.) Auerbach was a great coach, but you work with what you have, and he had plenty. I don't know as much about Bowman, but there were a large batch of future Hall of Fame players on his Detroit teams, and I bet he's been with others.

Neurotik

07-30-2004, 07:33 PM

I've always seen Jerry West's departure blamed on Jerry Buss, not Jackson. What's your reading there?
Well, indirectly it was Buss's fault.

Jackson and West were constantly clashing behind the scenes on personnel. Jackson had his ideas on who to draft, who to sign, etc. and West obviously had his. Jackson had his little thing with Jeanie Buss and Jackson began to get more and more influence with Dr. Buss.

West eventually had enough and quit.

Buss gets some blame for not automatically siding with the Logo, but Jackson was a jerk playing power games behind the scenes. Jesus, it's Jerry Freaking West! Just trust the man's judgement and shut your yap!

Marley23

07-30-2004, 07:34 PM

Buss gets some blame for not automatically siding with the Logo, but Jackson was a jerk playing power games behind the scenes. Jesus, it's Jerry Freaking West! Just trust the man's judgement and shut your yap!
True enough. Maybe those years of dealing with Jerry and Jerry... (holy crap- in Chicago it was Jerry Reinsdorf and Jerry Krause, in LA it was Jerry Buss and Jerry West? What are the odds of THAT?)... I mean of dealing with Reinsdorf and Krause left him a little uneasy. ;)

imthjckaz

07-30-2004, 07:38 PM

Beach volleyball: Randy Stoklos

Minor nitpick, but you mis-spelled Karch Kiraly.

RickJay

07-30-2004, 09:00 PM

Sorry, RickJay, I might be a homer, but I'm going to have to dispute your idea that Gretzky was that far and above Lemieux. Maybe durability could be a factor, but I think Lemieux absolutely deserves a proration, as he lost a season to CANCER, and even to this day has been suffering with his hip.
I have no doubt Lemieux would have had a much better career had he been healthier.

But if we give players credit for games they never played, then you absolutely cannot dispute that Bobby Orr would have been greater still; Orr, at the time his knees gave out, might well have been the most awesome performer in NHL history. Or Cam Neely might today be the greatest ever. Or Mike Bossy.

Or maybe Mickey Mantle WOULD have been the best ballplayer ever. And Bo Jackson might have been the best running back ever.

Staying healthy is part of an athlete's value. You cannot pretend Lemieux played 700 games that he didn't play. It's not his fault he has a bad hip or got cancer, but it's the simple and unfortunate truth that Gretzky was more durable and healthier, and a healthy player is more valuable than an unhealthy player. It's part of the package.

A player's skill as an athlete in a team sport is measured by how much he helps his team win on the ice (or on the field, court, whatever.) Nothing else matters. You can argue "mystique" or "domination" but what it comes down to is what the man makes happen. As I pointed out, the difference between Wayne Gretzky's contribution to his teams, and Mario Lemieux's, is equivalent to having a player play nine seasons and score about 110 points a season - in other words, Wayne Gretzky is equal to Mario Lemieux PLUS MIKE BOSSY. Think about that.

You can't give Lemieux credit for scoring a thousand points he didn't score - or else you're gonna have to explain why Bobby Orr isn't #1 with a bullet. It sucks, and it's not fair that Lemieux lost all that time, but it's reality.

beergeek279

07-30-2004, 09:36 PM

What was Jaromir Jagr? Chopped liver? When he was playing with Lemieux, he was putting up numbers just about as good as Lemieux's. And didn't Ron Francis also play on that line? As I recall, Mario's most productive years were spent with Jagr at his side, and after Mario retired, Jagr continued to put up stellar numbers, indicating that he wasn't being elevated by Mario. Jari Kurri, on the other hand, never had another season even close to his best years playing wing for Gretzky.

Both Jagr's rookie year and the infamous Ron Francis trade with Hartford (which probably gave Pittsburgh the momentum to the Cup) happened in the first Stanley Cup year, which is why I left that qualifier........certainly Pittsburgh was amongst the most sucessful franchises of the 1990's, making it to the playoffs every year of the decade. But the Pittsburgh Penguins of the 1980's were HORRIBLE, and routinely didn't make the playoffs, back in the days where 16 of 21 did.

Not to mention that the years Mario did end up missing were when Jagr were on the team, not those moments in the 80s..........I stand by my statement.

beergeek279

07-30-2004, 09:56 PM

I have no doubt Lemieux would have had a much better career had he been healthier.

But if we give players credit for games they never played, then you absolutely cannot dispute that Bobby Orr would have been greater still; Orr, at the time his knees gave out, might well have been the most awesome performer in NHL history. Or Cam Neely might today be the greatest ever. Or Mike Bossy.

Or maybe Mickey Mantle WOULD have been the best ballplayer ever. And Bo Jackson might have been the best running back ever.

Staying healthy is part of an athlete's value. You cannot pretend Lemieux played 700 games that he didn't play. It's not his fault he has a bad hip or got cancer, but it's the simple and unfortunate truth that Gretzky was more durable and healthier, and a healthy player is more valuable than an unhealthy player. It's part of the package.

A player's skill as an athlete in a team sport is measured by how much he helps his team win on the ice (or on the field, court, whatever.) Nothing else matters. You can argue "mystique" or "domination" but what it comes down to is what the man makes happen. As I pointed out, the difference between Wayne Gretzky's contribution to his teams, and Mario Lemieux's, is equivalent to having a player play nine seasons and score about 110 points a season - in other words, Wayne Gretzky is equal to Mario Lemieux PLUS MIKE BOSSY. Think about that.

You can't give Lemieux credit for scoring a thousand points he didn't score - or else you're gonna have to explain why Bobby Orr isn't #1 with a bullet. It sucks, and it's not fair that Lemieux lost all that time, but it's reality.

I'm not saying that some kind of "might have been", because I hardly think that Lemieux's career is a wash, considering all the top 10 statistical standings he's in with only 14 years, compared to 18-20 for the rest. I'm just saying it's rather unfair to proclaim Wayne Gretzky far superior to Mario Lemieux because his career stats outnumber Mario's, despite 6 more seasons. If we compare season and game stats, I think the two match up VERY favorably. Incidentally, I don't even want to see Lemieux play anymore......I enjoyed the magic of his un-retirement the same as anybody else, but now he's basically a sideshow. But Lemieux in his prime......I'll put him up with Wayne anytime.

Sam Stone

07-31-2004, 11:43 PM

Here are two sites which have the annual stats for Gretzky and Lemieux:

Gretzky (http://statshockey.homestead.com/waynegretzkystats.html)
Lemieux (http://www.hockey-fans.com/players/lemieux.php)

Let's look at the first five years of both careers, when both of them were healthy.

In Gretzky's first five years in the league, he scored 356 goals, and had 558 assists, for a total of 914 points!

In Lemieux's first five years (injury free, pretty much), he had 300 goals, and 415 assists, for a total of 715 points.

This is probably the closest comparison - both were young and healthy. Gretzky scored 200 points more than Lemieux in the space of five years.

Gretzky won nine Hart trophies for player of the year. Lemieux won three. During the years when both were playing near their peak at the same time, Gretzky won four Harts, and Lemieux one.

Lemieux never cracked a 200 point season (although he got 199 one year). Gretzky had four 200 point or better seasons in five years.

Let's go a little farther, and add up the points in all of Lemiuex's years where he was healthy. Let's take the 12 years from 1984 to 1996, remove his two bad years completely, and come up with a 10 year total.

In his ten best years, Lemieux had 577 goals, and 1112 assists.

In Gretzky's first ten years in the NHL, he had 624 goals, and 1200 assists.

So in their ten best years, compared directly, it's pretty close but Gretzky still comes out ahead by 47 goals and 88 assists.

And of course, Gretzky went on to score another 270 goals and 663 assists before his career was over.

I think it is fair to say that at their peak Mario was as good a hockey player as Gretzky, or very close to it. But Mario's peak was relatively short, and Gretzky's went on for a long time.

It's unfair to claim that had Mario been healthy he would have racked up the same numbers as Gretzky, because there's just no way of knowing. Maybe he would have become unmotivated. Maybe age would have caught up with him faster than Gretzky. We really have no way of knowing. But a direct comparison of their best years seems to indicate that they were close in ability, but Gretzky still comes out ahead.

Both are great hockey players, two of the best to ever lace up a pair of skates.

Marley23

08-01-2004, 02:49 AM

I just wanted to put in a few more words about Martina Navratilova.

She has won every single major title in the sport. Australian, French, Wimbledon, US Open - she has won the singles, doubles and mixed doubles in each at least once, and most of them more than once.

While she's not going to win any singles titles, she's still playing doubles and mixed doubles extremely effectively at age 47. I had the good fortune to see her at the US Open last year. The only comparisons I can think of are Nolan Ryan and Satchel Paige - and you could argue her achievements are more impressive than either. Ryan and Paige both quit in their mid-40s, and the peak age for a baseball player is probably later than for a tennis player. Paige's three-inning shutout of Oakland at age 59 is still remarkable, of course.