Greatest Sportsman of All Time? - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Put 'Em Under Pressure
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-23-2009, 05:26 PM   #226
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Zoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: the great beyond
Posts: 36,802
Local Time: 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Not to nitpick, because God knows that's awful, but american "football" is popular everywhere in the U.S., not just in the south.
I know. I meant that as a way of showing impy that I understand his passion for the sport.
__________________

__________________
Zoots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 05:26 PM   #227
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,414
Local Time: 01:19 AM
It is, but it's religion down here.
__________________

__________________
impy13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 05:27 PM   #228
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,667
Local Time: 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoots View Post
I know. I meant that as a way of showing impy that I understand his passion for the sport.
Okay.
__________________
BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 06:58 PM   #229
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
pepokiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 7,973
Local Time: 08:19 AM
7 Reasons Why Americans Suck At Soccer
__________________
pepokiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 07:12 PM   #230
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,667
Local Time: 08:19 AM
That is so-ooo convincing.

Thank you, Pedo. I have now seen the light.
__________________
BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 07:19 PM   #231
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,667
Local Time: 08:19 AM
By the way, not that anyone should take anything they find on the Internets at face value, but I did some reading on different sites, and the consensus among some is that the word "soccer" originated in England as a slang word for "association football".

From Wikipedia:

Quote:
The word "soccer" originated as an "Oxford '-er'" slang abbreviation of "association", and was popularised by a prominent English footballer, Charles Wreford-Brown. This origin is evident in the sometimes-heard variation, "soccer football."
And:

Quote:
The word "football" still appears in formal designations, however, in for example, Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). The word "soccer" is more commonly used in several countries around the world that play other forms of football. When Australians say "football", they mean Australian Rules football instead [Well in southern states they do, in the north they mean Rugby League]. The Irish have Gaelic football. In the USA and Canada, of course, there is Gridiron football. Rugby Union, Rugby League, Australian Rules, Gaelic, American and Canadian football all owe their roots to Association football. With the exception of Gaelic Football, they all use an ovoid shaped ball. None is as popular around the world as Association football.
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~pstone/why.html
__________________
BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 07:51 PM   #232
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepokiss View Post
A website called Soccer Lens posts an article about how stupid the name soccer is. good source!
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 12:00 AM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
intedomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,952
Local Time: 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMP View Post
So you're saying that baseball was a response to Britain's colonization of India?
No the popularisation, adoption and codification of baseball came about as the anti-cricket. A slow, ball and bat game for Americans, as a point of differentiation from the Poms' ball and bat game of cricket.
__________________
intedomine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 12:26 AM   #234
ONE
love, blood, life
 
dan_smee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 12,827
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by No spoken words View Post
So, he has been mentioned a few times in here, and I maybe should go back and read, but instead I'll ask someone to tell me about the career of Sir Donald Bradman, and, for perspective's sake, tell me about the best contemporary of his so I can understand the gap between the two. Layman's terms when possible, please, as I'm a doltish American. But, I do want to know more, not from Wikipedia but from someone who has a passion for the sport and can tell me things above and beyond his statistics. Please.
Ok,

Basically, in cricket, the most telling statistic of a player's career is their average, which is how many runs they score for every wicket they lose (a wicket is like an out in baseball).

For a batsman, an average of 40 or over is considered fantastic. 50 or over is considered to be one of the greats of the game. 60 and over has only ever been achieved 4 times in the history of the game and it's 2,500 international players in 132 years, 3 of those averaged between 60 and 61, one was higher than 61: Sir Donald Bradman, who averaged 99.94.

I can't think of any other sport where one player has the key statistic of that game nearly double the next best.

A player scored 100 in an innings is a big deal. It is the key milestone in batting. Most batsmen who play 50 matches or so score 4 or 5, he needed 4 more runs in his career to AVERAGE 100

Records | Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | Cricinfo.com

Those stats read left to right:

Matches (games played, two innings per side)
Innings
Not Outs (team all out with that person still in, or game won)
Runs (1 scored every time the batsmen change ends, 4 if it goes into the fence on the bounce (fence is approx 80 meters (90 yards) away, 6 for over the fence on the full)
Highest Score for one Innings
Average
100s
50s (noting that if a score of 100 or more is achieved, it doesn't count as a 50)
0s

The other thing that makes him so great is the conditions he played under. Technology has developed cricket in leaps and bounds since he played in the 20s, 30s and 40s. The bats used have been developed to be bigger, lighter and sweeter, rule changes have come in to favour batsmen, protective gear has improved (helmets being one example), and perhaps most importantly, pitches are covered when it rains. This is important because a wet pitch is far more difficult to play on. Bowlers bowl up to 100 miles per hour (160 KPH), and the ball deviates and bounces variably when it is wet. Bradman often played games with wet pitches, whereas today, batsmen never do.

In any pure contest about the greatest sportsperson ever, the true indicator surely has to be dominance over their contemporaries. Bradman has to win if that is the measure because noone has ever looked like coming close to his record
__________________
dan_smee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 12:33 AM   #235
Blue Crack Supplier
 
No spoken words's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Where do YOU live?
Posts: 43,241
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_smee View Post
Ok,

Basically, in cricket, the most telling statistic of a player's career is their average, which is how many runs they score for every wicket they lose (a wicket is like an out in baseball).

For a batsman, an average of 40 or over is considered fantastic. 50 or over is considered to be one of the greats of the game. 60 and over has only ever been achieved 4 times in the history of the game and it's 2,500 international players in 132 years, 3 of those averaged between 60 and 61, one was higher than 61: Sir Donald Bradman, who averaged 99.94.

I can't think of any other sport where one player has the key statistic of that game nearly double the next best.

A player scored 100 in an innings is a big deal. It is the key milestone in batting. Most batsmen who play 50 matches or so score 4 or 5, he needed 4 more runs in his career to AVERAGE 100

Records | Test matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | Cricinfo.com

Those stats read left to right:

Matches (games played, two innings per side)
Innings
Not Outs (team all out with that person still in, or game won)
Runs (1 scored every time the batsmen change ends, 4 if it goes into the fence on the bounce (fence is approx 80 meters (90 yards) away, 6 for over the fence on the full)
Highest Score for one Innings
Average
100s
50s (noting that if a score of 100 or more is achieved, it doesn't count as a 50)
0s

The other thing that makes him so great is the conditions he played under. Technology has developed cricket in leaps and bounds since he played in the 20s, 30s and 40s. The bats used have been developed to be bigger, lighter and sweeter, rule changes have come in to favour batsmen, protective gear has improved (helmets being one example), and perhaps most importantly, pitches are covered when it rains. This is important because a wet pitch is far more difficult to play on. Bowlers bowl up to 100 miles per hour (160 KPH), and the ball deviates and bounces variably when it is wet. Bradman often played games with wet pitches, whereas today, batsmen never do.

In any pure contest about the greatest sportsperson ever, the true indicator surely has to be dominance over their contemporaries. Bradman has to win if that is the measure because noone has ever looked like coming close to his record
How do you, or anyone, explain the gap between him and his contemporaries, or anyone else? What set him apart? Why was he so good? When he retired, did he serve as an ambassador for the game, or quietly slip away? Do kids today know of his name/legacy? It's staggering how much better he was than everyone else. Wow.

I think the closest parallel in American sport would be Babe Ruth, who for a while was hitting more HR's per season than most teams were. But, even then we had guys like Cobb (Not a power hitter but an amazing player outside of that) and Gherig. A lot might say Gretzky, too.

Anyway, thanks so much for writing that up for me. Despite the silly sniping back and forth, I am and will always remain a fan of sport, and while the sports I have watched and enjoyed all my life will always be what entertains me most, I have always tried to learn/appreciate all the sports the world has to offer, both personally and eventually out of necessity professionally. So whether it's Bradman, Schumacher, Pele, Johan Olav Koss, etc, I appreciate greatness in sport.
__________________
No spoken words is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 01:17 AM   #236
ONE
love, blood, life
 
dan_smee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 12,827
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by No spoken words View Post
How do you, or anyone, explain the gap between him and his contemporaries, or anyone else? What set him apart? Why was he so good? When he retired, did he serve as an ambassador for the game, or quietly slip away? Do kids today know of his name/legacy? It's staggering how much better he was than everyone else. Wow.

I think the closest parallel in American sport would be Babe Ruth, who for a while was hitting more HR's per season than most teams were. But, even then we had guys like Cobb (Not a power hitter but an amazing player outside of that) and Gherig. A lot might say Gretzky, too.

Anyway, thanks so much for writing that up for me. Despite the silly sniping back and forth, I am and will always remain a fan of sport, and while the sports I have watched and enjoyed all my life will always be what entertains me most, I have always tried to learn/appreciate all the sports the world has to offer, both personally and eventually out of necessity professionally. So whether it's Bradman, Schumacher, Pele, Johan Olav Koss, etc, I appreciate greatness in sport.
No probs. I am a fan of all sports. I appreciate the talent on display. Whenh the 'lympics comes around, so do I! (perhaps that should go in MPCDL!)

Anyway, The reason I push so hard for him in this debate is that I have a more than basic understanding and sppreciation for basketball and baseball (not so much hockey or american football). I watched players like Jordan when i was a kid like many on here did. He was a supreme athlete, but so are many others who had records that were similar: a freak yes, but other freaks were around, and in the history of the game (Chamberlain, even players like Dom Wilkins) that had similar stats, or in some instances better stats.

Stats dont tell the full story, but they are a good indication of an individual sportspersons dominance.

The reason I think Bradman was better than anyone is purely internal. Cricket is a very mental game, missing a cricket ball is much more harshly punished than missing a baseball. You can face 300 balls in an innings, all around 95 mph in the hot sun and you have to concentrate, every single ball. Most players lapse. He just had an amazing ability to switch on every ball, reproduce his movements, he was ruthless, stylish and very very well practised.

I don't think it was anything other than he was a freak of nature who was naturally able to be that much better.
__________________
dan_smee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 01:27 AM   #237
Blue Crack Supplier
 
No spoken words's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Where do YOU live?
Posts: 43,241
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Thanks again.

And, Dominique Wilkins was a freak, but he did not have Jordan's work ethic or will to win. Few players had/have Jordan's will to win. It's what sets him apart from almost every other player to ever play basketball, in my opinion.

And, I love the Olympics, too. Take a look at the old Beijing Olympics threads and you will see a ton of posts from me.

Thanks again.....
__________________
No spoken words is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 01:43 AM   #238
ONE
love, blood, life
 
dan_smee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 12,827
Local Time: 11:19 PM
^ no arguements from me. There is definately an x-factor that sets great athletes who have all the stats apart from champions. Jordan was definately the latter.

The one thing that frustrates me is when people dismiss Bradman as a contender because they don't know anything about cricket, or think because America doesn't play it, it can't be counted. Fact of the matter is you may never in history find anyone in any sport that dominates the way he did.

I don't think anyone will ever agree on the one that stands out. You may have a list with 5 or 10 names, but I think he is the only one you could justify putting above the others because of his dominance.
__________________
dan_smee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 01:50 AM   #239
ONE
love, blood, life
 
dan_smee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 12,827
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by intedomine View Post
No the popularisation, adoption and codification of baseball came about as the anti-cricket. A slow, ball and bat game for Americans, as a point of differentiation from the Poms' ball and bat game of cricket.
The thing that always makes me smile is when i meet americans who have lived here for a little while who were baseball fans that fall in love with cricket. They are so so similar, yet people, depending on where they grow up are so polar towards them.

I have learned to love baseball through my uncle. I dont claim to know everythng about it, or every player: I have a team, I follow them religiously and I keep up to date with results elsewhere. I watch baseball tonight on espn. I dont have the access that people do in america. Same with the NBA.

Twenty20 cricket is made for an american audience. goes for roughly the same length as a baseball game, and you'll see the ball end up in the crowd far more often too. Key differences: the ball bounces on a hard strip of grass, and you hit it in any direction.

If the new American Twenty20 league goes ahead, I strongly urge Americans to watch it, because it is amazing the similarities, and the fanbases are ones that are predisposed to liking the same things
__________________
dan_smee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 01:52 AM   #240
ONE
love, blood, life
 
dan_smee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 12,827
Local Time: 11:19 PM
USA moves on plans for Twenty20 league | USA Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Lockerbie outlines plans for US-style IPL | USA Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

United States of America | Cricket | Home | Cricinfo.com
__________________

__________________
dan_smee is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From Fez to Dublin JCOSTER It's A Musical Journey 6 02-24-2009 12:42 PM
The Greatest Concert Festival of All Time DaveC Just the Bang and the Clatter 10 10-02-2008 10:14 AM
System of A Down Devlin PLEBA Archive 7 08-23-2006 04:03 PM
5 best American songwriters of the rock and roll era to today UnforgettableLemon Lemonade Stand Archive 18 01-07-2005 05:13 PM
2 whom it may concern hiphop Lemonade Stand Archive 6 10-11-2002 07:12 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com