I totally pwned you both by getting my post in first! Your records have been ruined by *this *all-time great! Mwa-ha-ha!
'Kay, I’m done now. 
[QUOTE=Critter42]
Ernie Els? He was already on the downslope when Tiger came around - heck his first Major came two full years before Tiger turned pro, one came the same year TW won his first Masters (1997) and several years before the “Tiger Slam”. Ernie turned pro in '89 while Tiger turned pro in '96 - 7 years difference. He had plenty of time to be as dominant a player as Tiger before Tiger showed up and didn’t do it.
[/QUOTE]
Ernie Else had three runner ups in 2000, The Masters, the US Open and the Open. Tiger won the last 2. If he had not, Else would have won.
You are forgetting how Tiger’s career took off, he won the Masters in his first full year as a pro. Else’s career trajectory was a lot more conventional, several years on the tour before success.
If any of the great mens tennis players from the 1980’s; Becker, Lendl. Edberg and Walinder had not existed; the other threes Grand Slam record would improve considerably.
Without Becker, Lendl would win three more Grand slams, without Edberg, Becker two more Wimbedons.
Another player I can think of and perhaps the epitome; Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, lost 5 grand slam finals to Steffi Graf.
From this year’s Wimbledon thread:
I think there might’ve only been one QF loss, but that’s four finals losses and three semifinal losses. More significantly, perhaps, is that almost every single time Roddick got that far in a tournament, he lost to Federer. That’s seven losses to Federer out of his 10 best major results, with one win and two other semifinal losses (one in crazy circumstances).
Nadal was #2 by some time in 2005, after he won the French Open for the first time.
Pipp did, however, go to Cincinnati and immediately became their starting first baseman. However, he only had a few years left in him.
Pipp was a pretty good player. He was about as good as, say, Kent Hrbek. He got a clear and full chance at a major league career and made the most of it he could, but he wasn’t a truly great player by any measure. Babe Ruth certainly did not hurt Pipp’s career; in fact, Ruth HELPED it. Without Ruth Pipp wouldn’t have had those 100-RBI seasons - it was frequently Ruth that he was driving in - and he might never have had the chance to play in the World Series.
Jimmy White reached the final of the world snooker championship six times, and lost them all. Four of the defeats were inflicted by Stephen Hendry (the greatest snooker player of all time); one of his other two losses came against Steve Davis, the greatest of all time before Hendry came along.
In baseball, Jeff Kent wasn’t appreciated nearly as much as he should have been during his peak years because he played on the same team as Barry Bonds. Also, had Bonds not existed, Albert Pujols would currently have 5 MVP awards - no player other than Bonds has won more than 3.
That’s a good one. Petty won seven championships while Pearson “only” won three. But the schedule was a lot longer in those days (sometimes 50+ races) and Pearson only competed full time for four. Petty was a lot more obsessed with racing and stayed in racing a lot longer too, going his last 8 years without winning. Plus Petty was a lot more fan-friendly. Not that Pearson was a bad guy, it’s just that after winning a race, he get the trophy, kiss the race queen and go home. Petty would stay around and sign autographs for three hours. In those circumstances, who is going to get the ,most fans?
Petty got elected to the NASCAR Hall of Fame in the first ballot, Pearson the second.
I would nominate Elston Howard. Howard had his career delayed by military service during the Korean war, the Yankees were later than most teams in playing blacks, he was initially an outfielder but slow foot speed. The Yankees felt they needed in an outfielder in a big ballpark like Yankee stadium so they converted him to a catcher. But the problem was that at catcher was Yogi Berra, already a great player, very durable and only four years older than Howard. Both men, incidentally were from St Louis. Howard was 29 by the time that he could get as many as 400 at bats in a season. He won an MVP when he was 33 and was third the following year. He was also hurt by being a right handed hitter in old Yankee “Death Valley in left” Stadium, hitting 54 home runs at home by 113 on the road. He also had some bad luck in never getting to manage the Yankees (although with Steinbrenner owning the team, that may have been a blessing) and died young at age 51. He got his number 32 retired and is remembered fondly by his teammates and fans but he might have had a really great career.
I am not that big on tennis but could you say that Chris Evert was overshadowed by Martina Navratilova? She was well known but I’m guessing that if Evert came along 10 years after Navratilova, she would have dominated women’s tennis.
Again, another sport I don’t know a great deal about but was Jake LaMotta in his career overshadowed by Sugar Ray Robinson. I guess LaMotta is more famous now because of the Scorcese film “Raging Bull” where DeNiro gained 60 pounds and used about 684 swear words. But I know people used to say, and maybe still do, that Robinson was “pound for pound the best boxer ever”.
Mark Messier.
The 2000 NL MVP was arguably quite a bit more appreciation than Kent deserved.
Personally, I always felt the Washington Generals were held back by their habit of only ever playing against the Harlem Globetrotters.
A study on how much Roddick has suffered,
How about Chris Evert vs. Martina Navratilova?
Ernie Els would have dominated golf if it wasn’t for Ernie Else messing up all the records.
Tony Dorsett was an incredible runner and would have ended his career with the most rushing yardage ever, but just happened to play almost exactly the same years as Walter Payton.
I assume you mean he was overshadowed by Gretzky. Well, considering he won two championships without the Great One, the second right smack dab in a major media market where he basically willed his team to the title, I’m not really buying it.
I addressed OP by saying it was Gehrig who replaced Pipp in the lineup.
I did not say that Ruth hurt Pipp’s career, only that Ruth took away any chance
Pipp might have had for more HR titles. I agree batting behind Ruth must
have enabled Pipp’s 100-RBI performances.
Going into his fight with GSP he had won 16 straight fights, 8 of those in the UFC. He was completely outmatched and dominated by GSP the whole fight. He won 5 more straight fights before his draw with BJ Penn. He has a rep as a boring fighter which limits his chances at another title shot. Even if he got another title shot he has no realistic shot at winning.
Had Ruth never been born Pipp would still have not won any more HR titles. From 1918 on there were always a number of players with more homers, not just Babe Ruth.
Anyway, my point is just that Pipp’s career wasn’t hurt by playing with a great player. Gehrig’s arrival merely moved Pipp to Cincinnati, where he continued to play regularly. Pipp would probably have played more in 1925 despite Gehrig’s arrival, but a few weeks after Gehrig got the starting job, Pipp was very badly hurt by a beanball.
Peter Statsny and Mike Bossy are two of the more notable NHL players stuck in the long shadow of the Great One.
If Ali hadn’t been around, then wouldn’t Joe Frazier be the guy who got pounded into hamburger by heavyweight champ George Foreman, who would’ve put aside Olympic gold to go undefeated from the '60s straight on through to '77 by repeatedly beating Frazier worse than Ali ever did?
Messier, Statsny, and Bossy all were great players and all were overshadowed by the guy most consider to be the best hockey player ever. I think a very good case could be made that Messier was a better overall player than Gretzky and one of the greatest leaders to lace on the skates, but people don’t speak of him in quite the reverential tones they reserve for The Great One.