Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

colepenhagen

Greatest Players in Each Sport

Recommended Posts

He's right there with Wilt for the clearest-cut GOAT candidates in the four major American sports.

No no no, there is only one true GOAT. As you can readily see, people can argue about Babe Ruth. Wilt is not even generally acknowledged to be #1 in basketball (WTF?).

The real GOAT is Wayne Gretzky. No one disputes it, because, well, no one can. He is a modern player whose records are just plain silly. You can remove all of his goals he ever scored (btw, he is easily #1 all time there) and he still has more points than any player in history.

I wasn't saying I personally thought Wilt was the basketball GOAT. He's not even in my personal top 10. I was trying to say (and I didn't phrase it right, looking back) that if you go based on how much on-court success one individual player had relative to the other players of his time, Chamberlain and Ruth are the clear top 2 ever in the four major sports. 50+ and 20+ and all the records Wilt set. If you want to say Jordan, Russell, Bird, LeBron, Shaq or whoever is the GOAT in basketball, that's fine, and I know most people will say Jordan with ease.

But if we're giving Ruth the nod at #1 overall in baseball, it's a little contradictory to me to call Jordan #1 in basketball, or anyone else not named Wilt for that matter. Greatness-wise they probably did have the most impact and importance within their respective sport, so in that sense of the word "greatness", they are the GOATs. But the word "greatest" is different from the word "best". How can one say that Ruth would dominate today's game of baseball if he had the same training while denying Wilt could do it in the NBA, or vice versa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the true, transcendent, dominant, changed-their-game greats ever?

Babe Ruth

Byron Nelson (11 in a row)

Pele

Jim Brown (led the league 8 out of his 9 years)

I can make an argument for Air Jordan, maybe

Emmitt? Even Walter Johnson? Inner circle due to longevity and greatness. But the above are the only ones I can think of who were truly unstoppable in their time.

Tiger, easily. Federer as well. Those two guys' primes in their respective sports will probably never be topped. Tiger's second all-time in PGA Tour victories, only 3 behind Sam Snead, and has done it in 12 less years and far fewer tournaments played. Tiger from 1999-2009 was the most dominant athlete in any sport at any time IMO. Also, the depth of fields Woods played against is so much greater than players such as Nelson, Hogan, Nicklaus and Palmer. Nicklaus has more majors, but his overall prime wasn't as great as Woods'.

As for Federer, he won 5 straight U.S. Opens and 5 straight Wimbledons, which is flat out absurd. He reached at least the semis of about 80% of the majors over a 10 year period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe not the forum for it, but a thread for top 3 athletes in every sport would be a great one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got to throw out walter ray willams pete webber norm dukeeeee

i consider bowling>>>>tennis golf

LOL come on dude. Bowling isn't close to tennis or golf. Tennis and golf are both extremely difficult sports, especially in tournament settings. Golf in a tournament isn't even remotely the same game as a bunch of fatties hacking it around on the weekend while getting plastered. Tournament golf is brutally difficult. Bowling's a fun activity, but it's more along the lines of darts or horse shoes. The pros are incredible bowlers, but those guys aren't in the same stratosphere as great tennis players or golfers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got to throw out walter ray willams pete webber norm dukeeeee

i consider bowling>>>>tennis golf

LOL come on dude. Bowling isn't close to tennis or golf. Tennis and golf are both extremely difficult sports, especially in tournament settings. Golf in a tournament isn't even remotely the same game as a bunch of fatties hacking it around on the weekend while getting plastered. Tournament golf is brutally difficult. Bowling's a fun activity, but it's more along the lines of darts or horse shoes. The pros are incredible bowlers, but those guys aren't in the same stratosphere as great tennis players or golfers.

have you ever bowled on anything other than a house oil pattern??? even the guys that avg 220's in league will get shreaded on tournament oil patterns like 140-160 area pair that with the tv and everything PBA bowling is legit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got to throw out walter ray willams pete webber norm dukeeeee

i consider bowling>>>>tennis golf

LOL come on dude. Bowling isn't close to tennis or golf. Tennis and golf are both extremely difficult sports, especially in tournament settings. Golf in a tournament isn't even remotely the same game as a bunch of fatties hacking it around on the weekend while getting plastered. Tournament golf is brutally difficult. Bowling's a fun activity, but it's more along the lines of darts or horse shoes. The pros are incredible bowlers, but those guys aren't in the same stratosphere as great tennis players or golfers.

have you ever bowled on anything other than a house oil pattern??? even the guys that avg 220's in league will get shreaded on tournament oil patterns like 140-160 area pair that with the tv and everything PBA bowling is legit

I'm not a big bowler, honestly. I'm sorry if I don't have a deep knowledge of it. Yeah, the pros are sick bowlers who would crush even the best amateur bowlers. I give those guys credit. You know what would happen if a scratch golfer played a US Open setup? He wouldn't break 90. Or if a great amateur tennis player took on Federer? He would be straight setted and wouldn't win a point. So, the pros sh**ting on the best amateurs applies to every sport. But I respect your opinion on the matter, mine just differs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would say a federer taking on a amateur tennis player would probably be more lopsided than bowling or tennis ha could only imagine

just throwing some love out 2 the pro bowlers

basically more oil on lane = less hook

less oil on lane "dry" = more hook

"house" oil pattern are dry on outside oil in the middle creating a larger area for you to throw the ball and still get a good shot

http://bleacherrepor...ssional-bowling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it would literally be impossible to score a single point off Federer. I'm just imagining trying to see his or any other pro serve come in, let alone actually return it. You'd have a better chance of beating Jordan in a winner-takes-it game of 1 on 1 to eleven than you would of getting a single point against someone like Roger Federer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it would literally be impossible to score a single point off Federer. I'm just imagining trying to see his or any other pro serve come in, let alone actually return it. You'd have a better chance of beating Jordan in a winner-takes-it game of 1 on 1 to eleven than you would of getting a single point against someone like Roger Federer.

could a good amateur player return a serve? say like a semi pro or divsion 1 college tennis player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all know that if Trout or Kershaw used a time machine to play vs Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson, that they would probably dominate just like if todays military was used in the first World Wars. With that said, I doubt Trout would hit 60 homeruns and have a ton of 200 ops plus years like Ruth did back then either. I think Kershaw would excel more than Trout but if Kershaw pitched in Lefty Groves era, I doubt he would be putting up sub 2.00 earned run averages either. Just like if Kershaw pitched in Fenway during Pedros peak years.

I think Kershaw has a good chance of being a top 5 pitcher of all time but he needs another 10 strong years. Trout needs 6 to 7 more peak years and 7 or 8 strong decline years to even be mentioned as a top 10. As of right now both of their careers are no where close to guys like Ruth and Cobb or Walter Johnson and Maddux.

The whole integration argument is kind of bull too. When integration was in full circle, the league quality didn't change too much at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonds is probably the best i've seen too. But when it's all said and done would he have hit 762 career homeruns without the juice? I'm guessing he would have gotten around 550 homeruns without the juice. Injuries and age would have taken toll on him a lot sooner. He still would have been the best I ever saw. 1979-current. I would say he's the best player since Ted Williams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bonds is trash

age hrs

35 49

36 73

37 46

38 45

39 45

really that seems logical his best power years from age 35-40 how can you even mention him

gtfo he is nothing more than a cheating bum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats like expecting pujols to have his 5 best power years starting next year when he is 35 ha

PUJOLS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bonds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still take Bonds 1988 to 1998 years over Pujols 2001 to 2011 years anyday..... Bonds over Pujols and it's not even close especially when you factor in that Pujols more than likely was on the juice too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still take Bonds 1988 to 1998 years over Pujols 2001 to 2011 years anyday..... Bonds over Pujols and it's not even close especially when you factor in that Pujols more than likely was on the juice too.

ha no way he was always jacked since 2001

ha pujols numbers dominate bonds over those 10 years and its not even close

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still take Bonds 1988 to 1998 years over Pujols 2001 to 2011 years anyday..... Bonds over Pujols and it's not even close especially when you factor in that Pujols more than likely was on the juice too.

ha no way he was always jacked since 2001

ha pujols numbers dominate bonds over those 10 years and its not even close

He might have better numbers, but i wouldnt say dominate. Now if we take 1994-2004 for bonds that's dominating. Guys was the greatest hitter ever even if he did take the juice imo. You couldnt pitch to him. There was no way to without him jacking one. Over 145 walks in 6/10 of those years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When asking these questions, you gotta look at peak vs. career value. At peak value, I can argue that Pedro was the greatest pitcher of all-time for a seven-year stretch from 1997-2003. That peak is at least in the same stratosphere as the Big Train, the Big Unit, the Professor, Koufax or Kershaw. But for career value, Pedro can't come close to any of those other guys (except Koufax) because he was merely good-not-great outside his peak years.

We have no reasonable idea what Kershaw's career value is going to be. Close to Pedro or closer to Johnson (Walter or Randy)? He needs to keep it up for 4-6 more years if you're going to start putting him in with the all-time greats.

FWIW, there have been six pitching seasons with WAR >= 10.0 since 1990. Pedro, Greinke, and Randy and Roger twice each. Kershaw has yet to break 8.0, although he might this year.

Is he on the right path for all-time great? Sure. But he's maybe 1/4th of the way there.

Agree 100% sometimes Greatest of all time is confused for Greatest Career of all time and sometimes there are some really small sample sizes you wish you got to see more of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it would literally be impossible to score a single point off Federer. I'm just imagining trying to see his or any other pro serve come in, let alone actually return it. You'd have a better chance of beating Jordan in a winner-takes-it game of 1 on 1 to eleven than you would of getting a single point against someone like Roger Federer.

could a good amateur player return a serve? say like a semi pro or divsion 1 college tennis player

Could they return a serve? Yeah. Can they return a Federer serve with insane precision and placement? Federer's serve is right around 120 mph. I'm sure d1 kids see serves at that speed. But it's not nearly as accurate (obviously) as Federer's.

http://assets.usta.com/assets/639/15/National%20tennis%20Rating%20Program.pdf

According to that chart, I'd probably say most d1 tennis players ratings are right around, on average, a 5.5. I'm sure there are some who are closer to a 6.5, but the majority probably aren't. Federer, on that scale, would be like a 15.

Not to mention, Federer's conditioning is light years ahead of any d1 player. 1 set against Federer for a d1 player is probably equivalent of playing 5 sets against another d1 player for obvious reasons (level of play so much higher, Fed's precision, etc.).

It would be 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in about 45 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites