wayne gretzky vs michael jordan vs tiger woods vs babe ruth( vs ali?)

[riseagainst]

who is the most dominant/impactful athlete in their respective sport.

most to least or least to most

GO!!!

[SugarHill]

Gretzky of those listed. His statistical domination is quite ludicrous.

[IncarceratedBob]

babe ruth didnt play against blacks. his stats dont mean shit

[Hey Yo]

It's Gretzky and it's not even close.

[kells333]

John cena without a doubt. His has unarguably been the best person at his sport for 10 years running. Everyone else in history maybe had a 5 year run at the undisputed top and a few extra years where its an arguement.

[oarabbus]

Gretzky of those listed. His statistical domination is quite ludicrous.


It's Gretzky and it's not even close.

Donald Bradman and Sachin Tendulkar make Gretzky look like a chump if you want to go down that route. So let's not go down that route.

Plus Ice Hockey is a completely esoteric sport on a global level. Cricket, which I know shit about (aside from the fact that Bradman takes huge dumps on Gretzsky in terms of statistical domination at their sport) is still far more widely known and widely played than Ice Hockey. Even swimming is more participated in and Phelps too takes a huge dump on everyone mentioned. He has more gold medals than the majority of countries have worldwide.

In terms of impact, MJ and Ali had true cultural impact on a global scale.

[Budadiiii]

Tiger and it isn't close.

What he did for golf is on another level than what any of those other guys did for their sport.

[riseagainst]

Donald Bradman and Sachin Tendulkar make Gretzky look like a ****ing chump if you want to go down that route. So let's not go down that route.

Plus Ice Hockey is a completely esoteric sport on a global level. Cricket, which I know shit about (aside from the fact that Bradman takes huge dumps on Gretzsky in terms of statistical domination at their sport) is still far more widely known and widely played than Ice Hockey.

In terms of impact, MJ and Ali had true cultural impact on a global scale.

what the fck...

[oarabbus]

what the fck...

[quote]Wisden hailed Bradman as, "the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games".[2] Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport.[242] The top performers in his selected sports are:[243]
Athlete Sport Statistic Standard
deviations
Bradman Cricket Batting average 4.4
Pel

[IncarceratedBob]

John cena without a doubt. His has unarguably been the best person at his sport for 10 years running. Everyone else in history maybe had a 5 year run at the undisputed top and a few extra years where its an arguement.
You're joking...right?

Cena has an average match time of 18:23, and an overall win loss record of 211-89. With a belt on the line his record is 28-13, sounds good..right? Bret Hart average match time is 21:19, nearly 3 minutes better than Cena. Overall 319-59 record while going 44-15 in matches with belts on the line.

Then we can get into some deeper stats...

SGC (Special Grapple Completion)

Cena 4.6 / match
Hart 8.1 / match
Rock 6.2 / match
Flair 9.4 / match
Taker 7.1 / match

MCvF (Match Completion via Finisher)

Cena 81.4%
Hart 90.3%
Rock 94.7%
Flair 88.1%
Taker 98.2%

Also look at one key stat... Finishers that a superstar kicked out of..

Cena 12
Hart 14
Rock 19
Flair 11
Taker 29

Cena isn't the greatest, you're a joke.

[oarabbus]

John cena without a doubt. His has unarguably been the best person at his sport for 10 years running. Everyone else in history maybe had a 5 year run at the undisputed top and a few extra years where its an arguement.

I think this might be sarcasm but anyway...


The longest recorded winning streak in any professional sports is Pakistani Jahangir Khan's 555 consecutive wins in squash from 1981 to 1986. In the same sports, the Australian Heather McKay may hold a claim to an even longer winning streak, as she went unbeaten for 19 years, from 1962 to 1981. However, an official tally of her wins may not exist. In 2013, the Dutch wheelchair tennis player Esther Vergeer retired with an active 10-year-long winning streak of 470 matches, including a streak of 250 consecutive sets won

Not just the BEST at their sport, UNDEFEATED for that time.

[SugarHill]

Gretzsky really isn't all that impressive. Phelps >>>>>> Gretzsky anyway.

fvcking wow :coleman:

You're disrespecting Gretzky. Look at what he did and compare him to what his peers did and then come back and say that isn't impressive.

[riseagainst]

You're joking...right?

Cena has an average match time of 18:23, and an overall win loss record of 211-89. With a belt on the line his record is 28-13, sounds good..right? Bret Hart average match time is 21:19, nearly 3 minutes better than Cena. Overall 319-59 record while going 44-15 in matches with belts on the line.

Then we can get into some deeper stats...

SGC (Special Grapple Completion)

Cena 4.6 / match
Hart 8.1 / match
Rock 6.2 / match
Flair 9.4 / match
Taker 7.1 / match

MCvF (Match Completion via Finisher)

Cena 81.4%
Hart 90.3%
Rock 94.7%
Flair 88.1%
Taker 98.2%

Also look at one key stat... Finishers that a superstar kicked out of..

Cena 12
Hart 14
Rock 19
Flair 11
Taker 29

Cena isn't the greatest, you're a joke.


:roll:

[Budadiiii]

fvcking wow :coleman:

You're disrespecting Gretzky. Look at what he did and compare him to what his peers did and then come back and say that isn't impressive.
I'd still rather have Bobby Orr on my squad though. Orr is a better hockey player than Gretzky. Shame his career was cut short

[CavaliersFTW]

The answer is Wilt Chamberlain.

[riseagainst]

The answer is Wilt Chamberlain.

I'd even take John Cena before Wilt. and he aint even on the list.

[oarabbus]

fvcking wow :coleman:

You're disrespecting Gretzky. Look at what he did and compare him to what his peers did and then come back and say that isn't impressive.


And how about the Pakistani Squash player I posted about above who was undefeated for 15 years straight? Shits on Gretzsky. And I never heard of that guy until I googled it. One could say we're all disrespecting Khan, having never heard of him but compare him to his peers... 555 matches won without a loss... all challengers over 15 years. Sorry I don't care about Ice Hockey all that much.

Achievements in Basketball, Track and Field, Soccer, Boxing/Fighting, are what is truly impressive on a global level. Personally, I hold Football and Baseball achievements in high regard but could understand international folks not caring about it.

But Ice hockey... nah.

And still, Phelps >>> Gretzsky if we're going to talk about sports like Ice Hockey and Swimming, which not everyone (Africa, Asia) has access to. No one has dominated the Olympics like Phelps has.
he most decorated Olympian of all time, with a total of 22 medals. Phelps also holds the all-time records for Olympic gold medals (18, double the second highest record holders), Olympic gold medals in individual events (11), and Olympic medals in individual events for a male (13).

The answer is Wilt Chamberlain.

Bradman still better relative to his sport, Wilt would have needed to average ~40ppg to statistically equal Bradman relative to his sport.

[Milbuck]

It's clearly Roger Federer you guys. Who else between these GOATs can say they had a 30% record against their biggest rival?

[Budadiiii]

You're joking...right?

Cena has an average match time of 18:23, and an overall win loss record of 211-89. With a belt on the line his record is 28-13, sounds good..right? Bret Hart average match time is 21:19, nearly 3 minutes better than Cena. Overall 319-59 record while going 44-15 in matches with belts on the line.

Then we can get into some deeper stats...

SGC (Special Grapple Completion)

Cena 4.6 / match
Hart 8.1 / match
Rock 6.2 / match
Flair 9.4 / match
Taker 7.1 / match

MCvF (Match Completion via Finisher)

Cena 81.4%
Hart 90.3%
Rock 94.7%
Flair 88.1%
Taker 98.2%

Also look at one key stat... Finishers that a superstar kicked out of..

Cena 12
Hart 14
Rock 19
Flair 11
Taker 29

Cena isn't the greatest, you're a joke.
Look at the ****ing stat nerds coming out of the woodwork. :oldlol:

Cena is the best ever, period.

Cena has more "hart" than Hart. He's gonna easily surpass Hart when you consider this guys longevity at the top.

I wouldn't be surprised if the dude remains a mainevent-er for 20 more years. Hell, possibly 30.

[IncarceratedBob]

The answer is Wilt Chamberlain.
http://i.4cdn.org/b/1414009557313.gif

[SugarHill]

And how about the Pakistani Squash player I posted about above who was undefeated for 15 years straight? Shits on Gretzsky. And I never heard of that guy until I googled it. One could say we're all disrespecting Khan, having never heard of him but compare him to his peers... 555 matches won without a loss... Sorry I don't care about Ice Hockey all that much.

Achievements in Basketball, Track and Field, Soccer, Boxing/Fighting, are what is truly impressive. Personally, I hold Football and Baseball achievements in high regard but could understand international folks not caring about it.

But Ice hockey... nah.

And still, Phelps >>> Gretzsky. No one has dominated the Olympics like Phelps has.


Bradman still better relative to his sport, Wilt would have needed to average ~40ppg to statistically equal Bradman relative to his sport.

You cannot say you don't care about hockey (for the record, I don't) and then bring up shit like squash and cricket. You are underminding yourself, at least to me because I couldn't care less about cricket. I'd rather not watch anything than watch cricket. In the end, it's irrelevant whether you like the sport to recognize dominance. :roll:

[riseagainst]

Look at the ****ing stat nerds coming out of the woodwork. :oldlol:

Cena is the best ever, period.

Cena has more "hart" than Hart. He's gonna easily surpass Hart when you consider this guys longevity at the top.

I wouldn't be surprised if the dude remains a mainevent-er for 20 more years. Hell, possibly 30.


nigguh, Cena ain't even better than Santino Marella. Cena is only propped up by the media just like Lebron currently is.

[Hey Yo]

Comparing Phelps (a freaking swimmer) to a guy who dominated a team sport is just absurd and asinine.

You can have your cricket since nobody in the states gives a shit about it.

What next, gonna bust out some Curling stats?

[oarabbus]

Comparing Phelps (a freaking swimmer) to a guy who dominated a team sport is just absurd and asinine.

You can have your cricket since nobody in the states gives a shit about it.

What next, gonna bust out some Curling stats?


No one gives a shit about ice hockey either. People give a shit about Football, then Baseball. Even Basketball is an afterthought. Ice hockey is irrelevant in the USA in the grand scheme of things.



You cannot say you don't care about hockey (for the record, I don't) and then bring up shit like squash and cricket. You are underminding yourself, at least to me because I couldn't care less about cricket. I'd rather not watch anything than watch cricket. In the end, it's irrelevant whether you like the sport to recognize dominance. :roll:


:biggums:

That's EXACTLY my point. I thought it was ****ing obvious :facepalm

More people play cricket than Ice Hockey on a global level. And I don't give a shit about Cricket, Ice Hockey, OR Squash, I SAID I had never heard of that guy until I googled it. I too would rather not watch anything than cricket either. Doesn't change the fact, that Bradman's dominance eclipses that of Gretsky.

The point is that if you look at some random sport like ice hockey, which isn't even played on most continents, you can find superior players in other esoteric sports like cricket, or squash.

Which is why achievements in the true international sports (Track and Field, Soccer, Fighting/Boxing, Basketball) are the truly impressive feats.

[Budadiiii]

nigguh, Cena ain't even better than Santino Marella. Cena is only propped up by the media just like Lebron currently is.
Bruh.....

He's carried the company for a decade and will continue for another decade. That type of dominance hasn't been seen in pro wrestling.

He's a 15 time world champion, second only to Ric Flair. The hype is warranted.

Pretty soon he will have the most title reigns in history and we all know he's the biggest draw in the sport.

Cena > Jordan, Ali, Gretzsky, Tiger, Ruth PUT TOGETHER.

[DukeDelonte13]

gretzky

[SugarHill]

:biggums:

That's EXACTLY my point. I thought it was ****ing obvious :facepalm

More people play cricket than Ice Hockey on a global level anyway genius. And I don't give a shit about Cricket, Ice Hockey, OR Squash, I SAID I had never heard of that guy until I googled it. :hammerhead:

The point is that if you look at some random sport like ice hockey, which isn't even played on most continents, you can find superior players in other esoteric sports like cricket, or squash.

Which is why achievements in the true international sports (Track and Field, Soccer, Fighting/Boxing, Basketball) are the truly impressive feats.

THAT IS IRRELEVANT. Something isn't more impressive because more people watch it. What are you even saying right now? Are you saying less people might play it making their accomplishments not impressive because they don't attract a wider talent pool? Are you suggesting that hockey players are inherently less talented than basketball players in their respective activities? Why is it relevant?

My point is that it's not.

lol @ hockey being "some random sport"

[IncarceratedBob]

Look at the ****ing stat nerds coming out of the woodwork. :oldlol:

Cena is the best ever, period.

Cena has more "hart" than Hart. He's gonna easily surpass Hart when you consider this guys longevity at the top.

I wouldn't be surprised if the dude remains a mainevent-er for 20 more years. Hell, possibly 30.
Cena isn't respected by the elite wrestling community...

He has more "hart" than Hart? I'm gonna give you a pass on this one because it's obvious you aren't read up on your history..

Bret Hart witnessed his brother die and still came out an hour later and put on the goddamn match of a lifetime, with a run time of 24:43 and 18 special grapples it's easily a top 5 match all time.

Cena's greatest match? :roll:

Probably some crap where he was carried by a superior athlete.

At the end of the day Cena has shown that he doesn't have what it takes to win match convincingly, also his move set is so limited it's quite pathetic. He is beloved by little kids and women which brings in money so that's why he gets so many main events but his talent just isn't there.

CM Punk should be carrying wrestling right now, not John Cena but Vince made a huge mistake...

Cm Punk stats:

19:21 avg match time
7.4 special grapples/match
only 2 men have kicked out of his finisher

those are elite numbers dude

[oarabbus]

THAT IS IRRELEVANT. Something isn't more impressive because more people watch it. What are you even saying right now? Are you saying less people might play it making their accomplishments not impressive because they don't attract a wider talent pool? Are you suggesting that hockey players are inherently less talented than basketball players in their respective activities? Why is it relevant?

My point is that it's not.

lol @ hockey being "some random sport"


How can you say that it's not relevant the number of people that watch a sport, then turn around and say you don't care about achievements in Squash or Cricket? You can't logically say that Gretzsky is the best and then disqualify Bradman because you don't like Cricket.

Ice hockey isn't even played in every state IN the US.

[Hey Yo]

No one gives a shit about ice hockey either. People give a shit about Football, then Baseball. Even Basketball is an afterthought. Ice hockey is irrelevant in the USA in the grand scheme of things.

Then why is the best most competitive professional Hockey league located in the states and Canada?

[SugarHill]

How can you say that it's not relevant the number of people that watch a sport, then turn around and say you don't care about achievements in Squash or Cricket? You can't logically say that Gretzsky is the best and then disqualify Bradman because you don't like Cricket.

Ice hockey isn't even played in every state IN the US.

I never did. I was using your own logic of dismissing hockey. :hammerhead:

I guess Bradman could be seen as a right answer. I'm not disputing that. Never was.

[oarabbus]

I never did. I was using your own logic of dismissing hockey. :hammerhead:

I guess Bradman could be seen as a right answer. I'm not disputing that. Never was.


Sorry, I'm just bitter from arguments with friends who talk MAD shit about basketball players and say how they are pansies and unimpressive athletes, and even football players are pansies compared to Ice Hockey players, who are the Real True Men of athletics. I might be personally biased on this subject :D


Then why is the best most competitive professional Hockey league located in the states and Canada?

America has the best horse racing and Arena Football leagues too

[SugarHill]

Cena isn't respected by the elite wrestling community...

He has more "hart" than Hart? I'm gonna give you a pass on this one because it's obvious you aren't read up on your history..

Bret Hart witnessed his brother die and still came out an hour later and put on the goddamn match of a lifetime, with a run time of 24:43 and 18 special grapples it's easily a top 5 match all time.

Cena's greatest match? :roll:

Probably some crap where he was carried by a superior athlete.

At the end of the day Cena has shown that he doesn't have what it takes to win match convincingly, also his move set is so limited it's quite pathetic. He is beloved by little kids and women which brings in money so that's why he gets so many main events but his talent just isn't there.

CM Punk should be carrying wrestling right now, not John Cena but Vince made a huge mistake...

Cm Punk stats:

19:21 avg match time
7.4 special grapples/match
only 2 men have kicked out of his finisher

those are elite numbers dude
Dude actually wrestled after seeing his brother die? :biggums: :facepalm

[SugarHill]

Sorry, I'm just bitter from arguments with friends who talk MAD shit about basketball players and say how they are pansies and unimpressive athletes, and even football players are pansies compared to Ice Hockey players, who are the Real True Men of athletics. So I overreacted a bit and let personal bias get in the way of things here.

Those hockey nuts need to be taken out back and shot in the head.

[pudman13]

who is the most dominant/impactful athlete in their respective sport.

most to least or least to most

GO!!!


The #1 answer to this question is Bobby Orr. #2 is probably Pele.

[IncarceratedBob]

Dude actually wrestled after seeing his brother die? :biggums: :facepalm
His brother Owen Hart was also a wrestler and died during his entrance at an event...

Vince McMahon, Bret Harts boss told him to either get out there and wrestle or he would void his contract and would never compete for his company again..

[Mass Debator]

The Rock :bowdown:

[SugarHill]

His brother Owen Hart was also a wrestler and died during his entrance at an event...

Vince McMahon, Bret Harts boss told him to either get out there and wrestle or he would void his contract and would never compete for his company again..

I know about that but not the Vince shit. Vince is an unrelenting piece of trash.

[Milbuck]

His brother Owen Hart was also a wrestler and died during his entrance at an event...

Vince McMahon, Bret Harts boss told him to either get out there and wrestle or he would void his contract and would never compete for his company again..
:biggums:

[BasedTom]

http://sportsthenandnow.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/wayne.jpg

[oarabbus]

Those hockey nuts need to be taken out back and shot in the head.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who has encountered them. For the record, I do realize Gretzky's level of dominance is unreal. I still think Ali and Jordan had more impact on global culture though.

[3peated]

babe ruth didnt play against blacks. his stats dont mean shit

and gretzky did?

[SugarHill]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who has encountered them. For the record, I do realize Gretzky's level of dominance is unreal. I still think Ali and Jordan had more impact on global culture though.

Fair enough. I'm not sure anyone would disagree.

[IncarceratedBob]

and gretzky did?
Not the same thing you assclown, blacks don't like playing hockey. It's not like Hockey doesn't allow blacks...


Black pitchers would have rocked that fat fvcks world... he played against the same guys that Wilt Chamberlain dropped 100 on.. basically dudes who played sports as a past time... in the morning they were plumbers, they came home in the afternoon and either pitched or played basketball

[SugarHill]

:biggums:

Dude is lying. Bret Hart was in WCW when that shit happened. :kobe:

[oarabbus]

Not the same thing you assclown, blacks don't like playing hockey. It's not like Hockey doesn't allow blacks...


Black pitchers would have rocked that fat fvcks world... he played against the same guys that Wilt Chamberlain dropped 100 on.. basically dudes who played sports as a past time... in the morning they were plumbers, they came home in the afternoon and either pitched or played basketball


Just like all the best pitchers now are black? :biggums:

[CavaliersFTW]

F.cking LOL at Cena.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/9a/9adde2c4e1247c1325fa538f26c2f2ef25812ecec3beb3e273 7030fa7faa2134.jpg

Goldberg >>>

[Milbuck]

Dude is lying. Bret Hart was in WCW when that shit happened. :kobe:
Damn. Should figured, there's no way he could've strung together multiple serious posts in a row.

[bizil]

For me in terms of THE TOTAL PACKAGE its gotta be Ali! The cultural impact in terms of fighting racism in this country as well as standing up for his rights during the Vietnam War trump any other athlete. Jordan was really the guy who put the total package together in terms of marketing dominance ON A WORLDWIDE level. On the field, all of them dominated their sports on a very similar level. But I do agree that baseball banning blacks back in the day does affect Ruth's standing to a degree. He still would have be epic for sure, but u had dudes in the Negro League were just as good. So u would have more guys like a Josh Gibson would might be the original all time HR King and NOT BABE! U had Cool Papa Bell who was just as good or better than that racist piece of shit Ty Cobb. And u had Satchel Paige who peak wise doesn't take a backseat to any pitcher EVER!

[QuebecBaller]

Gretzky of those listed. His statistical domination is quite ludicrous.

This

And Gretzky is even better at making children compare to the others :lol

http://5z3udk.assets-01.cdndrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Paulina-Gretzky-Daughter-of-Wayne-Gretzky.jpg

[riseagainst]

This

And Gretzky is even better at making children compare to the others :lol

http://5z3udk.assets-01.cdndrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Paulina-Gretzky-Daughter-of-Wayne-Gretzky.jpg


because he's white.

[SugarHill]

This

And Gretzky is even better at making children compare to the others :lol

http://5z3udk.assets-01.cdndrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Paulina-Gretzky-Daughter-of-Wayne-Gretzky.jpg
http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/paulina-gretzky-instagram-8.jpg

[Trollsmasher]

http://i.4cdn.org/b/1414009557313.gif
linking 4chan directly

****ing newfag

[Breezy]

lemieux>Gretzky
Louis>Ali
Nicklaus>Woods
Blacks>Ruth

[TheReal Kendall]

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/paulina-gretzky-instagram-8.jpg

Damn that's a great pic.

[Rameek]

Tiger may not have the majors but man PGA wins as a minority? Changed a lot in golf with courses length, equipment rules etc.....

Wrestling has saber-metrics?????
You're joking...right?

Cena has an average match time of 18:23, and an overall win loss record of 211-89. With a belt on the line his record is 28-13, sounds good..right? Bret Hart average match time is 21:19, nearly 3 minutes better than Cena. Overall 319-59 record while going 44-15 in matches with belts on the line.

Then we can get into some deeper stats...

SGC (Special Grapple Completion)

Cena 4.6 / match
Hart 8.1 / match
Rock 6.2 / match
Flair 9.4 / match
Taker 7.1 / match

MCvF (Match Completion via Finisher)

Cena 81.4%
Hart 90.3%
Rock 94.7%
Flair 88.1%
Taker 98.2%

Also look at one key stat... Finishers that a superstar kicked out of..

Cena 12
Hart 14
Rock 19
Flair 11
Taker 29

Cena isn't the greatest, you're a joke.

[KevinNYC]

Not the same thing you assclown, blacks don't like playing hockey. It's not like Hockey doesn't allow blacks...


Black pitchers would have rocked that fat fvcks world... he played against the same guys that Wilt Chamberlain dropped 100 on.. basically dudes who played sports as a past time... in the morning they were plumbers, they came home in the afternoon and either pitched or played basketball
You're an idiot.

[rmt]

Tiger Woods (14 majors) doesn't even belong on this list. It should be Jack Nicklaus (18 majors).

[LAZERUSS]

babe ruth didnt play against blacks. his stats dont mean shit

In 1939, 20 year old rookie Ted Williams hit .327 with 31 HRs. In that same season, 31 year old Jimmie Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. Just the year before, in 1938, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs.

In 1932, a 24 year old Foxx batted .364 with 58 HRs. In that same season, a 37 year old Babe, and well past his peak, batted .341 with 41 HRs. Five years earlier, in 1927, a prime Ruth, at age 32, batted .356 with 60 HRs. And to be honest, that may not have been a peak Babe, either.

Ok, fast forward to 1941. A 22 year old Williams had what was probably his peak season. He batted .406 with 37 HRs.


Now, in 1957, in a league that had been integrated for 10 years, a 38 year old Williams batted .388 with 38 HRs.


Wait...a peak Williams hit .406 against unintegrated pitching in 1941, but a 38 year Williams, who would retire three years later at age 41, hit .388 against integrated pitching?


Oh, and in 1957, a 23 year old Henry Aaron, and in his only MVP season, batted .322 with 44 HRs (in 675 plate appearances.) In 1971, a 37 year old Aaron batted .327 with a career-high 47 HRs (in 573 PAs.) Two years later, in 1973, a 39 year old Aaron hit 40 HRs and in only 465 PAs.

So a prime Aaron hit 44 HRs in 1957, and a near-the-end Aaron hit 40, 16 years later in 1973?

Willie Mays hit 51 HRs in 1955. In 1965 Mays hit 52.

You can find similar "bridges" throughout baseball history. Nolan Ryan was just as dominant later in his career, as he had been much earlier. In 1973 Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH (on a slow gun BTW.) He struck out 383 batters in 326 IP, with an ERA of .287. 18 years later, a 44 year old Ryan had an ERA of 2.91, and struck out 203 batters in 173 IP. And a 46 year old Ryan, on his very last pitch, and with an injured arm, was clocked at 98 MPH.

Just some food for thought...

[LAZERUSS]

Tiger Woods (14 majors) doesn't even belong on this list. It should be Jack Nicklaus (18 majors).

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/1/6/5277428/tiger-woods-records-johnny-miller-hyundai-tournament-of-champions-2014

Up thru 2014...


"It’s a crazy stat," Miller said in response to colleague Rich Lerner’s observation that Woods’ winning 26 percent of the tour events he had entered was "mind-blowing."

Noting that his own "12 or 13 percent ... wasn’t bad," Miller agreed, and went Lerner one better.

"Nobody, I think," averred Miller, "will touch that [Tiger's winning percentage] maybe forever."


http://www.golfchannel.com/news/brandel-chamblee/tiger-vs-jack-head-head-majors/


It must be noted that this comparison involves only majors; if you expand it to include regular Tour events Tiger wins easily. He has a career winning percentage of 25 percent; Jack's winning percentage through the end of 1979 was 18 percent. Clearly when it comes to the week-to-week grind of the Tour, Tiger has no equal. I dare say that his winning percentage is the most untouchable of all of his accomplishments.

Tiger is UNQUESTIONABLY the greatest "winner" in PGA tour history.

[LAZERUSS]

The answer is Wilt Chamberlain.

This.

Gretzky holds some 63 NHL records.

At last count, in 2009, the NBA's greatest statistician, Harvey Pollack, had Wilt with over 90. And the REALITY was/is, if you include "streak" records, it is likely in the THOUSANDS.

Not only that, but Wilt has many records which are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the next best mark (and often, it is WILT with the next best mark.)

[Asukal]

You wanna talk domination? Its gotta be Russell, 11 out of 13. Did it in a league where a the GOAT choker played. :bowdown:

[outbreak]

It's Don Bradman by a LONG margin. I understand a lot of people here don't like cricket or want to acknowledge it but he is widely acknowledge as the most dominant sportsman of all time. Babe Ruth even requested to meet him when he toured the states and was a fan of his. The statistical differences between him and the next best players is just amazing even more so when you factor in that he was playing in an era of uncovered pitches, no fielding restrictions, bodyline bowling, no helmets and poor padding and weak bats.

[LongLiveTheKing]

Why are people talking about John Cena wrestling is fake?

[IncarceratedBob]

Why are people talking about John Cena wrestling is fake?
Lmao..

it's about as fake a the 2002 western conference finals

[tpols]

At last count, in 2009, the NBA's greatest statistician, Harvey Pollack, had Wilt with over 90. And the REALITY was/is, if you include "streak" records, it is likely in the THOUSANDS.


Damn.. just like his women? And mountain Lion KOs? :eek:

[LAZERUSS]

You wanna talk domination? Its gotta be Russell, 11 out of 13. Did it in a league where a the GOAT choker played. :bowdown:

Yeah, West was a "choker" all right. Never beat Russell, albeit, he lost several game seven's by close margins.

Of course, Russell went H2H with Chamberlain 143 times, and probably did not outplay him in more than dozen, or so, games. In fact, Wilt not only outplayed Russell in probably well over a hundred of those H2H's, he absolutely annihilated him in at least of a third of them.

Too bad for both West and Chamberlain, that Russell was fortunate enough to have played with better teammates and deeper rosters. Interesting too, that Wilt had more overall TEAM success against Russell, than the West-Baylor duo did at their peaks.

In any case, Chamberlain's 7-2 margin in First-Team All-NBA selections over Russell in their ten years in the league together speaks volumes about who the better player really was.

[JebronLames]

who is the most dominant/impactful athlete in their respective sport.

most to least or least to most

GO!!!
considering only their dominance in their sport:

1)Gretzky
2)Woods
3)Ali
4)Ruth
5)Jordan

[LAZERUSS]

Just a PARTIAL list of Wilt's records...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Wilt_Chamberlain

[Asukal]

Just a PARTIAL list of Wilt's records...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Wilt_Chamberlain

Very impressive for a career loser. :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Very impressive for a career loser. :applause:

Yep...a "career loser."

Played 14 seasons.

Played in 13 post-seasons.

Went to the Conference Finals in 10 of them.

Played in six Finals.

In his 13 post-seasons, his TEAMs lost to the eventual champion, TEN times. Oh, and seven of those were to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and four of those defeats were in game seven's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. His three other "defeats" were to the '70 Knicks, who went 60-22, and fielded four HOFers (and his 46-36 Lakers lost a game seven); to a 66-16 Bucks team that is probably a top-4 team all-time (in a series in which Wilt outplayed a peak Kareem); and to a 56-26 Knick team that fielded six HOFers.

Anchored four teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 and that won dominating world titles.

Played on two teams that had back-to-back seasons of 130-33, and 129-35 (only MJ had better consecutive season runs.)

Played on four teams that had the best record in the league.

And anchored two title teams that just overwhelmed their opposition. Oh, and in one, he crushed Russell and his eight-time defending champion and 60-21 Celtics, and in the other, he chopped down a peak Kareem and his defending champion and 63-19 Bucks.

"career loser"...

:facepalm

[LBJFTW]

It's Gretzky and it's not even close.

I came in this thread to post exactly this.

[Asukal]

Yep...a "career loser."

Played 14 seasons.

Played in 13 post-seasons.

Went to the Conference Finals in 10 of them.

Played in six Finals.

In his 13 post-seasons, his TEAMs lost to the eventual champion, TEN times. Oh, and seven of those were to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and four of those defeats were in game seven's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. His three other "defeats" were to the '70 Knicks, who went 60-22, and fielded four HOFers (and his 46-36 Lakers lost a game seven); to a 66-16 Bucks team that is probably a top-4 team all-time (in a series in which Wilt outplayed a peak Kareem); and to a 56-26 Knick team that fielded six HOFers.

Anchored four teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 and that won dominating world titles.

Played on two teams that had back-to-back seasons of 130-33, and 129-35 (only MJ had better consecutive season runs.)

Played on four teams that had the best record in the league.

And anchored two title teams that just overwhelmed their opposition. Oh, and in one, he crushed Russell and his eight-time defending champion and 60-21 Celtics, and in the other, he chopped down a peak Kareem and his defending champion and 63-19 Bucks.

"career loser"...

:facepalm

In other words, he lost so many times in the playoffs he deserves to be called a "career loser". :oldlol: :lol

Here is Wilt explained in simple numbers (explains his name too):
30-22-18

:cheers: :roll:

[JohnnySic]

One thing that I hold against Gretzky winning this is that he was protected his entire career. There's this rediculous unwritten rule in hockey that you cant touch the big stars. They even have their own personal goons to discourage this from happening. Man, fukc that. If I was a pro hockey player Gretzky and the like would be in my crosshairs 24/7. :mad:

[Psileas]

This.

Gretzky holds some 63 NHL records.

At last count, in 2009, the NBA's greatest statistician, Harvey Pollack, had Wilt with over 90. And the REALITY was/is, if you include "streak" records, it is likely in the THOUSANDS.

Not only that, but Wilt has many records which are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the next best mark (and often, it is WILT with the next best mark.)

I can't talk about players of other American sports, but whenever winning 2 NBA titles, something which like 90% of all NBA players in history can't claim, is considered one of your weakest points, imagine how GOAT level you have to be. 3 titles are considered a strong point of Bird's career, so were 3 titles for Jordan when he first retired, so were 3 for Laker Shaq, but 2 for Wilt, that's one of his least impressive achievements, and it wouldn't make much of a difference if they were 3, either. :bowdown:

[rmt]

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/1/6/5277428/tiger-woods-records-johnny-miller-hyundai-tournament-of-champions-2014

Up thru 2014...



http://www.golfchannel.com/news/brandel-chamblee/tiger-vs-jack-head-head-majors/



Tiger is UNQUESTIONABLY the greatest "winner" in PGA tour history.

Well, if your criteria of who is best is winning percentage, then you must also think that the Spurs, who have the highest winning percentage (71%) over a 17 year period, is the best - better than the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls.

The gold standard of any sport has always been who wins the majors/championship? Who cares if you win the little dinky-dink tournaments? Equating normal, ordinary tournaments to the majors is akin to equating normal, ordinary meets to World Championships or worse yet, Olympics.

[pudman13]

Gretzky is to the NHL what Ruth is to baseball or Wilt to the NBA (or Maravich to the NCAA, for that matter) in terms of the record books, but Orr was the better player, and because hockey is a two-way game, the more dominant one. If you've seen them both play, you'd have seen that Orr, more than any other player in any sport, was so obviously better than anybody else out there on the ice that it's just mind-blowing. Also, he does have one stat to back it up, the most important stat in hockey: +/-, where he holds the single season record and also has the best career average (Cumulatively, he's second to Larry Robinson, who played twice as many games as him.) The obvious comparison is Bill Russell, when you figure the importance of defense, but Orr led the league in scoring twice, as a defender, and held the season assist record for many years until Gretzky broke it in a much higher scoring era.

[MP.Trey]

Gretzky is to the NHL what Ruth is to baseball or Wilt to the NBA (or Maravich to the NCAA, for that matter) in terms of the record books, but Orr was the better player, and because hockey is a two-way game, the more dominant one. If you've seen them both play, you'd have seen that Orr, more than any other player in any sport, was so obviously better than anybody else out there on the ice that it's just mind-blowing. Also, he does have one stat to back it up, the most important stat in hockey: +/-, where he holds the single season record and also has the best career average (Cumulatively, he's second to Larry Robinson, who played twice as many games as him.) The obvious comparison is Bill Russell, when you figure the importance of defense, but Orr led the league in scoring twice, as a defender, and held the season assist record for many years until Gretzky broke it in a much higher scoring era.
Well then who's the Jordan of the NHL?

[oarabbus]

Gretzky is to the NHL what Ruth is to baseball or Wilt to the NBA (or Maravich to the NCAA, for that matter) in terms of the record books, but Orr was the better player, and because hockey is a two-way game, the more dominant one. If you've seen them both play, you'd have seen that Orr, more than any other player in any sport, was so obviously better than anybody else out there on the ice that it's just mind-blowing. Also, he does have one stat to back it up, the most important stat in hockey: +/-, where he holds the single season record and also has the best career average (Cumulatively, he's second to Larry Robinson, who played twice as many games as him.) The obvious comparison is Bill Russell, when you figure the importance of defense, but Orr led the league in scoring twice, as a defender, and held the season assist record for many years until Gretzky broke it in a much higher scoring era.


Lol @ all the Gretzky nutcases who say Gretzky is the GOAT dominant athlete of all time and "it isn't close" when he isn't even the best at his own sport. Anyway Bradman was better at cricket than Gretzky is at ice hockey.

[Hey Yo]

Gretzky is to the NHL what Ruth is to baseball or Wilt to the NBA (or Maravich to the NCAA, for that matter) in terms of the record books, but Orr was the better player, and because hockey is a two-way game, the more dominant one. If you've seen them both play, you'd have seen that Orr, more than any other player in any sport, was so obviously better than anybody else out there on the ice that it's just mind-blowing. Also, he does have one stat to back it up, the most important stat in hockey: +/-, where he holds the single season record and also has the best career average (Cumulatively, he's second to Larry Robinson, who played twice as many games as him.) The obvious comparison is Bill Russell, when you figure the importance of defense, but Orr led the league in scoring twice, as a defender, and held the season assist record for many years until Gretzky broke it in a much higher scoring era.
Highly disagree with that. The +/- stat is very misleading.


"One major and recurring criticism has been voiced since the stat became an official NHL number in 1967, namely that a good player who is surrounded by weak players will likely have a poor plus-minus number through little fault of his own, while a weaker player who is surrounded by strong players will have a good plus-minus number through little credit to himself.

Just how commonly does the official NHL plus -minus system award get it wrong, assigning false positives and false negatives?

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/05/13/just-how-horse-shit-is-the-nhls-official-plus-minus-stat/

[LAZERUSS]

I can't talk about players of other American sports, but whenever winning 2 NBA titles, something which like 90% of all NBA players in history can't claim, is considered one of your weakest points, imagine how GOAT level you have to be. 3 titles are considered a strong point of Bird's career, so were 3 titles for Jordan when he first retired, so were 3 for Laker Shaq, but 2 for Wilt, that's one of his least impressive achievements, and it wouldn't make much of a difference if they were 3, either. :bowdown:

I have always felt that Chamberlain was ONE POINT away from likely the greatest post-season in NBA history.

He was traded mid-season by the Warriors (for three players and a sizeable sum of money back then), to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before and missed the playoffs. Even Wilt's presence didn't immediately reap rewards, as Philly only went 40-40 for the season. BUT, he led his team to a first round romp over Oscar's loaded 48-32 Royals team, which included a series clinching triple-double of 38 points (on 14-22 shooting), with 26 rebounds, and 10 blocks. Then, in a one-sided beatdown of Russell, he nearly led his under-dog Sixers to a game seven win (in Boston BTW),...but alas, "Havlicek stole the ball!"

In that series, Chamberlain overwhelmed Russell...averaging 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shooting .555 from the floor. And in the clinching game seven, Wilt hung a 30-32 game on Russell (on 80% shooting from the field BTW), in a one point loss.

With Baylor injured and missing the entire Finals, Boston steam-rolled LA, 4-1...in a Finals in which Russell averaged 18 ppg, 25 rpg, and shot .702 from the field.

Given the fact that Chamberlain just annihilated the Lakers the entire decade of the 60's (he had SEASONS of 40 ppg, 44 ppg, 48 ppg, and 52 ppg against them), Wilt likely would have set scoring, rebounding, and efficiency records that would still stand today.

ONE POINT...

[BIZARRO]

Statistically, of the big four sports I'd say it's Wilt.

However regarding Gretzky. I think it's certainly tight between Orr and Gretzky, could go either way really between who's better.

But I feel Mario Lemieux was better than both of them. His ppg are right there with Gretzky despite playing in a lower scoring era, and with lesser talent, and he was at 6'5 just a more talented and physically imposing player, and a better skater.

And he has a much higher goals per game average than Gretzky. Despite fighting a lot of injuries, back pain, cancer, etc.

All said, the eye test also tells me that at his best Super Mario was the most talented and the best.

Did Wayne have the best career? Longevity, etc.. Yes, I 'd say so.

Would I choose a healthy Mario in his prime over a healthy Wayne in his prime? Definitely.

[La Frescobaldi]

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/1/6/5277428/tiger-woods-records-johnny-miller-hyundai-tournament-of-champions-2014

Up thru 2014...



http://www.golfchannel.com/news/brandel-chamblee/tiger-vs-jack-head-head-majors/



Tiger is UNQUESTIONABLY the greatest "winner" in PGA tour history.

Sam Snead says hi.

[La Frescobaldi]

Eddie Merckx is by far the greatest champion in all pro sports and it's not only not close, nobody can even see his taillights.

http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/images/alltime25graph.gif

He has more than double the victories of his nearest competitor in the entire sport.

And not only is cycling physically the hardest of all sports, it is behind only soccer in terms of popularity. More people watch each of the Giros than watch all of each NBA season including playoffs. Then you have to talk about the Tour de France, which has about 2 billion viewers. With a B.

[Psileas]

I have always felt that Chamberlain was ONE POINT away from likely the greatest post-season in NBA history.

He was traded mid-season by the Warriors (for three players and a sizeable sum of money back then), to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before and missed the playoffs. Even Wilt's presence didn't immediately reap rewards, as Philly only went 40-40 for the season. BUT, he led his team to a first round romp over Oscar's loaded 48-32 Royals team, which included a series clinching triple-double of 38 points (on 14-22 shooting), with 26 rebounds, and 10 blocks. Then, in a one-sided beatdown of Russell, he nearly led his under-dog Sixers to a game seven win (in Boston BTW),...but alas, "Havlicek stole the ball!"

In that series, Chamberlain overwhelmed Russell...averaging 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shooting .555 from the floor. And in the clinching game seven, Wilt hung a 30-32 game on Russell (on 80% shooting from the field BTW), in a one point loss.

With Baylor injured and missing the entire Finals, Boston steam-rolled LA, 4-1...in a Finals in which Russell averaged 18 ppg, 25 rpg, and shot .702 from the field.

Given the fact that Chamberlain just annihilated the Lakers the entire decade of the 60's (he had SEASONS of 40 ppg, 44 ppg, 48 ppg, and 52 ppg against them), Wilt likely would have set scoring, rebounding, and efficiency records that would still stand today.

ONE POINT...

As far as I'm concerned he'd have needed, well, 0 more points to have the arguably GOAT post-season - 1967. I guess you meant he'd have surpassed that postseason, giving him the arguably 2 GOAT postseasons.

[LAZERUSS]

As far as I'm concerned he'd have needed, well, 0 more points to have the arguably GOAT post-season - 1967. I guess you meant he'd have surpassed that postseason, giving him the arguably 2 GOAT postseasons.

Excellent point.

His '67 post-season run was just so dominant in so many ways. As expected, he murdered Dierking and the Royals in the first round (28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, and on a .617 FG%.) And had he been so inclined he could easily have averaged 40 ppg in that series. In his first two games he scored 78 points on a .648 FG%, with a high game of 41 points. Still, his third game was perhaps even more impressive, when he scored 16 points, grabbed 30 rebounds, and handed out a playoff record (at the time) of 19 assists (and there were also estimates of as high as 20 blocked shots.)

And with a supporting cast the equal of Russell's (Boston went 60-21 that year, and with as deep a roster as any in the history of the NBA)...HE was the THE difference. Chamberlain outscored Russell by 11 ppg in that series...which was their average ppg team differential. He also slaugtered Russell on the glass; in assists; in FG%; and likely in blocked shots (he held a known 29-8 margin.)

Then he crushed a peak Thurmond in the Finals. In their six H2H's, he outscored Nate, 5-1; outrebounded Nate, 5-1; outassisted Nate, 5-1; and outshot Nate from the field, 6-0. He also had a known quad double of 10-38-10-10, which was his second known quad of the post-season (he had a 24-32-13-12 game against Russell), and likely his third (game three of the first round.)


Still, a Chamberlain taking what had been a bottom-feeding Sixer team the year before, in his 64-65 playoff run, to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics, at their zenith of their dynasty...with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG% series (and with 42 blocks in the five known games), including a game seven of 30 points, on 12-15 FG/FGA, with 32 rebounds (and he scored six of Philly's last eight points)...was perhaps the most lopsided series ever involving GOAT centers.

And he surely would have just annihilated the Lakers in the Finals that year, as well. I suspect that THAT Chamberlain would have averaged 40 ppg in the Finals, and likely on a staggering FG%. And given the fact that in the entire decade of the 60's, that Wilt faced the Lakers in 86 H2H games, and had a staggering 42 40+ point games against them, including 19 50+ point games; and 7 60+ point games; and even two 70+ points games...there was a strong possibility that Chamberlain would have set Finals' scoring and efficiency records that likely would still stand today.

He was ONE damned point away from having what likely would have been the greatest post-season run in NBA history.

[Asukal]

He was ONE damned point away from having what likely would have been the greatest post-season run in NBA history.

Dude he lost end of story. GOAT choker gonna choke! :oldlol:

[pudman13]

Highly disagree with that. The +/- stat is very misleading.


Orr was on good teams, but so was Gretsky, and if you watch those Bruin teams, Orr is the main reason those teams were so good.

I don't think the stat is especially misleading, especially considering that the best players have better numbers than their own teammates.

[kells333]

Cena isn't respected by the elite wrestling community...

He has more "hart" than Hart? I'm gonna give you a pass on this one because it's obvious you aren't read up on your history..

Bret Hart witnessed his brother die and still came out an hour later and put on the goddamn match of a lifetime, with a run time of 24:43 and 18 special grapples it's easily a top 5 match all time.

Cena's greatest match? :roll:

Probably some crap where he was carried by a superior athlete.

At the end of the day Cena has shown that he doesn't have what it takes to win match convincingly, also his move set is so limited it's quite pathetic. He is beloved by little kids and women which brings in money so that's why he gets so many main events but his talent just isn't there.

CM Punk should be carrying wrestling right now, not John Cena but Vince made a huge mistake...

Cm Punk stats:

19:21 avg match time
7.4 special grapples/match
only 2 men have kicked out of his finisher

those are elite numbers dude

Wasnt brett hart already in wcw by the time owen died. Why does match time matter. If cena beats everyone in 10 mins is that a bad thing?
Ps brett hart is even top 10 wrestler all time let alone best ever in All sports

[kells333]

nigguh, Cena ain't even better than Santino Marella. Cena is only propped up by the media just like Lebron currently is.

I wish they had an emoji for the look im giving yo dumbass right now

[kells333]

Look at the ****ing stat nerds coming out of the woodwork. :oldlol:

Cena is the best ever, period.

Cena has more "hart" than Hart. He's gonna easily surpass Hart when you consider this guys longevity at the top.

I wouldn't be surprised if the dude remains a mainevent-er for 20 more years. Hell, possibly 30.

Salute

[kells333]

Bruh.....

He's carried the company for a decade and will continue for another decade. That type of dominance hasn't been seen in pro wrestling.

He's a 15 time world champion, second only to Ric Flair. The hype is warranted.

Pretty soon he will have the most title reigns in history and we all know he's the biggest draw in the sport.

Cena > Jordan, Ali, Gretzsky, Tiger, Ruth PUT TOGETHER.

Couldnt have said it any better myself

[Timmy D for MVP]

Until that fateful night late November Tiger Woods was the best at what he did that anyone else I'd ever seen, including Jordan.

Babe Ruth is so impressive statistically in relation to his peer but he played in a watered down era and that can't be ignored.

I don't know enough about hockey to comment on Gretzky.

[La Frescobaldi]

Until that fateful night late November Tiger Woods was the best at what he did that anyone else I'd ever seen, including Jordan.

Babe Ruth is so impressive statistically in relation to his peer but he played in a watered down era and that can't be ignored.

I don't know enough about hockey to comment on Gretzky.

how was it a watered down era? I wasn't around for the Babe.

i'm curious because people say that exact same thing about, for example, Chamberlain, Russell, Frazier etc. But yet I did watch NBA for a lot of those years and I know, myself, having watched it, live, in real time, that it was completely different from watered down.

[LAZERUSS]

Dude he lost end of story. GOAT choker gonna choke! :oldlol:

I'm curious as to your definition of a "choker."

So a player who single-handedly carried his 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss (in a game seven in which he put up a 30 pt, 32 reb, 12-15 FG/FGA effort)...in a series in which he just annihilated a center whom many consider to be the greatest defensive center/player of all-time...with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG%, 8 bpg run...is a "choker?"

If that is the case, then surely you would agree that:

Baylor choked in the '62 Finals.

West choked in the '69 Finals.

Kareem choked in the '74 Finals.

Kareem choked in the '77WCF's.

Jordan choked in the first round of the '86 playoffs.

Shaq choked in the '04 Finals.

Lebron choked in the '09 ECF's.

And Hakeem choked in roughly half of his playoff series.

[Trollsmasher]

GOAT athlete imho

http://bbcicecream.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Gaius-Appuleius-Diocles3.jpg

[kells333]

GOAT athlete imho

http://bbcicecream.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Gaius-Appuleius-Diocles3.jpg

Jesus?

[Leroy Jetson]

Gretzky is untouchable. If hockey were more popular in the US he'd put Jordan's fame to shame. And I'm not even a hockey fan

[Timmy D for MVP]

how was it a watered down era? I wasn't around for the Babe.

i'm curious because people say that exact same thing about, for example, Chamberlain, Russell, Frazier etc. But yet I did watch NBA for a lot of those years and I know, myself, having watched it, live, in real time, that it was completely different from watered down.

Restricted talent pool due to segregation.

[oarabbus]

Gretzky is untouchable. If hockey were more popular in the US he'd put Jordan's fame to shame. And I'm not even a hockey fan

Bradman > Gretzky statistically. And I don't watch cricket or hockey.

[CHi1PriDe]

Between MJ or Gretzky for me but Gretzky was a ***** who didn't like to throw down. MJ on the other hand was fearless. MJ hands down :bowdown:

[La Frescobaldi]

Restricted talent pool due to segregation.

:wtf: .................................................. ..... for real? baseball?

name a top 10 black pitcher. shoot name 2 in the top 25.

Ruth hit against at least 7 pitchers in the top 25 - as many as in any era and more than most.

maybe you mean he wouldn't hold any records if Hank Aaron had been hitting in those days? but aaron played longer and did far less. and Bonds would have been great anywhere but he is a known pedo

[LAZERUSS]

:wtf: .................................................. ..... for real? baseball?

name a top 10 black pitcher. shoot name 2 in the top 25.

Ruth hit against at least 7 pitchers in the top 25 - as many as in any era and more than most.

maybe you mean he wouldn't hold any records if Hank Aaron had been hitting in those days? but aaron played longer and did far less. and Bonds would have been great anywhere but he is a known pedo

Furthermore, while players like Bonds and Sosa were taking PEDs and swinging corked bats, Ruth was inhaling hot dogs and swinging a 42 oz bat.

Same with Mantle, who was an alcoholic ravaged with injuries, and still had more raw power from either side of the plate than a PED-enhanced Bonds at his peak.

[LAZERUSS]

I won't get into other sports, but in the sports of MLB baseball, professional football, and NBA basketball, ONE man stands alone...and that is WILT. As great as Ruth was, most all of his slugging records have been eclipsed (albeit, by an era of PED-enhanced players.) Same with football. At one time Jim Brown was light years ahead of his peers. However, most all of his rushing records have been shattered (and some only a few years after he retired.)

Meanwhile, MANY of Wilt's records still stand today, and likely will never be broken.

[Trollsmasher]

Jesus?
Gaius Appuleius Diocles, a chariot racer

he won 1462 out of 4257 four horse races he competed in over 24 years long career and his career earnings were today's equivalent of 15 billion USD:applause:

[Charlie Sheen]

Furthermore, while players like Bonds and Sosa were taking PEDs and swinging corked bats, Ruth was inhaling hot dogs and swinging a 42 oz bat.

Same with Mantle, who was an alcoholic ravaged with injuries, and still had more raw power from either side of the plate than a PED-enhanced Bonds at his peak.

Take away everything after 1999 and Bonds is still a 3 time MVP...

It's funny how you can't in good faith compare Bonds to the other baseball greats, but you have no problem shrugging off the babe playing on a team that monopolized talent in a small league of whites only.

[LAZERUSS]

Take away everything after 1999 and Bonds is still a 3 time MVP...

It's funny how you can't in good faith compare Bonds to the other baseball greats, but you have no problem shrugging off the babe playing on a team that monopolized talent in a small league of whites only.

Even before his obvious use of PEDs, Bonds was a HOFer. Still, he was not the powerful hitter that either Ruth or Mantle were.

In any case, I covered the rest of your post earlier...


In 1939, 20 year old rookie Ted Williams hit .327 with 31 HRs. In that same season, 31 year old Jimmie Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. Just the year before, in 1938, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs.

In 1932, a 24 year old Foxx batted .364 with 58 HRs. In that same season, a 37 year old Babe, and well past his peak, batted .341 with 41 HRs. Five years earlier, in 1927, a prime Ruth, at age 32, batted .356 with 60 HRs. And to be honest, that may not have been a peak Babe, either.

Ok, fast forward to 1941. A 22 year old Williams had what was probably his peak season. He batted .406 with 37 HRs.


Now, in 1957, in a league that had been integrated for 10 years, a 38 year old Williams batted .388 with 38 HRs.


Wait...a peak Williams hit .406 against unintegrated pitching in 1941, but a 38 year Williams, who would retire three years later at age 41, hit .388 against integrated pitching?


Oh, and in 1957, a 23 year old Henry Aaron, and in his only MVP season, batted .322 with 44 HRs (in 675 plate appearances.) In 1971, a 37 year old Aaron batted .327 with a career-high 47 HRs (in 573 PAs.) Two years later, in 1973, a 39 year old Aaron hit 40 HRs and in only 465 PAs.

So a prime Aaron hit 44 HRs in 1957, and a near-the-end Aaron hit 40, 16 years later in 1973?

Willie Mays hit 51 HRs in 1955. In 1965 Mays hit 52.

You can find similar "bridges" throughout baseball history. Nolan Ryan was just as dominant later in his career, as he had been much earlier. In 1973 Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH (on a slow gun BTW.) He struck out 383 batters in 326 IP, with an ERA of .287. 18 years later, a 44 year old Ryan had an ERA of 2.91, and struck out 203 batters in 173 IP. And a 46 year old Ryan, on his very last pitch, and with an injured arm, was clocked at 98 MPH.

Just some food for thought...

[Charlie Sheen]

Now, in 1957, in a league that had been integrated for 10 years, a 38 year old Williams batted .388 with 38 HRs.

misleading. it had been 10 years since Jackie Robinson. boston didnt even have a black player until 2 years later. the league was moving towards integration but to say it was there at that point is patently false.

fair or not...there's no real good way to compare any of these guys across eras and im always gonna side with the player i saw in my lifetime in these cases. but, yeah... i dont need to take the thread down that road.

[Timmy D for MVP]

:wtf: .................................................. ..... for real? baseball?

name a top 10 black pitcher. shoot name 2 in the top 25.

Ruth hit against at least 7 pitchers in the top 25 - as many as in any era and more than most.

maybe you mean he wouldn't hold any records if Hank Aaron had been hitting in those days? but aaron played longer and did far less. and Bonds would have been great anywhere but he is a known pedo

Bob Gibson.

But I digress. It wasn't only blacks that had restricted access, they just had no access. But I don't care what you may want to look at: (who the pitchers might have been, if he'd have had peers that could keep up with him, etc.) when you restrict the talent pool so much you end up with a watered down product. Period.

How many white players do you have in your NBA top ten? (Personally I have 1). Would it then be reasonable to say if we removed all the white players from the NBA it wouldn't water down the league?

[La Frescobaldi]

Bob Gibson.

But I digress. It wasn't only blacks that had restricted access, they just had no access. But I don't care what you may want to look at: (who the pitchers might have been, if he'd have had peers that could keep up with him, etc.) when you restrict the talent pool so much you end up with a watered down product. Period.

How many white players do you have in your NBA top ten? (Personally I have 1). Would it then be reasonable to say if we removed all the white players from the NBA it wouldn't water down the league?

Bob might be top 10, although I doubt it. Nor is there another for a long, long way down the list. So while no access was a social problem without question, 70 years ago, it isn't a sport question, really. Not in baseball.

Precisely as the NBA has its strengths and weaknesses, baseball has its own; and your logic about removing all whites applies to baseball pretty much as strongly in the reverse. Would the Majors be watered down if you took out all the blacks?

But my point wasn't about race, although yours clearly is. The point is you have no idea what Babe Ruth's era was like, anymore than I do. So why fling race into something you know nothing about? Particularly when 60 years clearly shows it doesn't even apply to that sport to any great degree.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Bob might be top 10, although I doubt it. Nor is there another for a long, long way down the list. So while no access was a social problem without question, 70 years ago, it isn't a sport question, really. Not in baseball.

Precisely as the NBA has its strengths and weaknesses, baseball has its own; and your logic about removing all whites applies to baseball pretty much as strongly in the reverse. Would the Majors be watered down if you took out all the blacks?

But my point wasn't about race, although yours clearly is. The point is you have no idea what Babe Ruth's era was like, anymore than I do. So why fling race into something you know nothing about? Particularly when 60 years clearly shows it doesn't even apply to that sport to any great degree.

What are you talking about? Like honestly I have no clue where you went with this post.

Yes or no ignoring a large population of players waters down a league?

[La Frescobaldi]

What are you talking about? Like honestly I have no clue where you went with this post.

Yes or no ignoring a large population of players waters down a league?

the answer, as i said, depends.

do you think it would water down the NBA if all whites sat it out? yes or no

[Timmy D for MVP]

the answer, as i said, depends.

do you think it would water down the NBA if all whites sat it out? yes or no

How does that depend? Restricting the talent pool in ANY scenario waters down the product. Even if it's a two league situation like the ABA and NBA.

In what scenario does that not water down the product?

100% it does. No question.

[La Frescobaldi]

How does that depend? Restricting the talent pool in ANY scenario waters down the product. Even if it's a two league situation like the ABA and NBA.

In what scenario does that not water down the product?

100% it does. No question.

a most excellent response.

I expected a typical rant. I believe we've got some insight here. I thank you.

[Timmy D for MVP]

a most excellent response.

I expected a typical rant. I believe we've got some insight here. I thank you.

Idk where you thought I was going or what you thought my point was or even if that was sincere.

But to sum up my point entirely, I think Babe Ruth is a great baseball player. He's to me maybe the 2nd or 3rd best all time. But as far as comparing him to other dominant athletes he does lose out because of the era in which he played. This isn't a slight to Ruth who played when he played and was phenomenal. But I cannot mention him in this argument when his dominance comes with a qualifier that makes it tough to compare to other athletes who were dominant.

[La Frescobaldi]

Idk where you thought I was going or what you thought my point was or even if that was sincere.

But to sum up my point entirely, I think Babe Ruth is a great baseball player. He's to me maybe the 2nd or 3rd best all time. But as far as comparing him to other dominant athletes he does lose out because of the era in which he played. This isn't a slight to Ruth who played when he played and was phenomenal. But I cannot mention him in this argument when his dominance comes with a qualifier that makes it tough to compare to other athletes who were dominant.


Yes, I see that clearly now and I did misjudge it. We won't ever know for sure how good he was.