Sportspeople who were / are the greatest ever

In My Humble Opinion
81

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.

82

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.

83

In other words, your response is “9 titles! LALALALALALALALALALALALA!”

Understood.

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.

84

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.

85

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.

I’ve always seen Jerry West’s departure blamed on Jerry Buss, not Jackson. What’s your reading there?

86

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.

87

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

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!

88

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.

89

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.

90

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!

91

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. :wink:

92

Minor nitpick, but you mis-spelled Karch Kiraly.

93

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.

94

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.

95

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.

96

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

Gretzky
Lemieux

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.

97

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.