Greatest Sportsman of All Time?

[Jive Turkey]

I question the validity of certain things like calling an american version of 'what looks like rugby' as football.

Rugby is technically called Rugby Football. It evolved from regular European Football in the same way that North American Football did. The North American style of play was much more successful and thus, kept the name. I dont understand why people get so uppity about that.

 

[impy13]

I'd challenge any non-American to spend a day tailgating and then go to a game and tell me football isn't the most bad ass thing, well, ever.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I'd challenge any non-American to spend a day tailgating and then go to a game and tell me football isn't the most bad ass thing, well, ever.

can a I get a beer hat and I giant foam hand as well??

 

[Zoots]

Zoots - I'm not a non-American, but for what it's worth I think baseball is boring as hell, and American Football, aka, Handegg is god-awful.

lol. I actually enjoy American Football Rugby to an extent. But Baseball does bore me.

I think quite a few non-Americans who have been in this thread are probably sleeping right now, zoots.

Oh I don't think so. I see one non-american still lurking! And his name starts with a number.

Sorry if my comments were off-putting.

No worries. And we are most definitely not financeguy and BVS!

 

[Jive Turkey]

I've never even been tailgating ( ) but Football is the only sport I watch regularly on tv (well, that and mma)

 

[impy13]

can a I get a beer hat and I giant foam hand as well??

If I don't have you doing a kegstand within five minutes of hitting the parking lot, I've failed.

For what it's worth, we tend to dress fairly nice for games. College football in the South, at least.

 

[No spoken words]

I'm just merely stating the facts as I see them from others. Perhaps I should have quoted someone else.

This does not suffice. My wound remains a gaping one.

 

[impy13]

Judging by that photo of you and Beav in Hottest Chick Around, that's not the only thing gaping.

 

[No spoken words]

One thing I stopped doing long ago was defending NFL Football or Baseball. You like it, great. You don't, hey, I understand. It is what it is. And I really have tried to learn about/appreciate a wide variety sports over the years, both personally and professionally. If I got defensive in here, it is because it just seemed like people were hating on American sports for the sake of it, and that's hard for me to understand.

 

[No spoken words]

Judging by that photo of you and Beav in Hottest Chick Around, that's not the only thing gaping.

Spoiler

Fuck off

 

[Zoots]

Judging by that photo of you and Beav in Hottest Chick Around, that's not the only thing gaping.

I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed watching this past Superbowl game. I can understand how passionate southerners are about american football. I had a roommate from GA who is crazy about the sport! I mean no disrespect to the sport while arguing about the origins of the nomenclature.

 

[impy13]

Super Bowl*

Sorry. Pet peeve.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

what's so "super" about it anyway? Is it good for popcorn or salads?

 

[No spoken words]

what's so "super" about it anyway? Is it good for popcorn or salads?

1967

 

[BoMac]

I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed watching this past Superbowl game. I can understand how passionate southerners are about american football. I had a roommate from GA who is crazy about the sport! I mean no disrespect to the sport while arguing about the origins of the nomenclature.

Not to nitpick, because God knows that's awful, but american "football" is popular everywhere in the U.S., not just in the south.

 

[Zoots]

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.

 

[impy13]

It is, but it's religion down here.

 

[BoMac]

I know. I meant that as a way of showing impy that I understand his passion for the sport.

Okay.

 

[pepokiss]

7 Reasons Why Americans Suck At Soccer

 

[BoMac]

That is so-ooo convincing.

Thank you, Pedo. I have now seen the light.

 

[BoMac]

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:

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:

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

 

[Jive Turkey]

7 Reasons Why Americans Suck At Soccer

A website called Soccer Lens posts an article about how stupid the name soccer is. good source!

 

[intedomine]

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.

 

[dan_smee]

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

 

[No spoken words]

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.

 

[dan_smee]

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.

 

[No spoken words]

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.....

 

[dan_smee]

^ 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]

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]

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