Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber duecer
    anybody seen my
    10 Jul '09 12:44 / 1 edit
    an Idea lifted from the general forum; who in your opimion is the best at what? I'll start:

    Steven Hawking if you're going scientific,
    Yeats for prose
    Adam Smith for economics
    Jefferson for government
    St. Augustine for theology (close behind is Wesley)
    Churchill for leadership
    Freud for Psychology (maybe Jung)
    Dubious fro Sociology
    Lopez for chess
    Hannibal for warfare
    Plato for philosophy (though I think he stole from Socrates)
    Machiavelli for pure politics
  2. 10 Jul '09 13:00 / 1 edit
    Most dominant athlete within their own respective sport, Wayne Gretzky
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Jul '09 13:14
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Most dominant athlete within their own respective sport, Wayne Gretzky
    Ooh I don't know about that. What about Donald Bradman?
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Jul '09 13:18
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Most dominant athlete within their own respective sport, Wayne Gretzky
    For team sport, perhaps. Although, the fact that he only has 4 titles makes a strong case for Jordan (6 titles) and Ruth (7 titles).

    For over-all dominance of a sport, I'd look at Tiger, if you call golf a sport, that is.
  5. 10 Jul '09 13:19
    Why is Stephen Hawking the best for science? Is it just because he wrote a few good books?

    Einstein, despite his popularity in popular culture, should definitely be up there. Maybe Newton, but I'd put Einstein over Newton.
  6. 10 Jul '09 13:24
    Originally posted by sh76
    For team sport, perhaps. Although, the fact that he only has 4 titles makes a strong case for Jordan (6 titles) and Ruth (7 titles).

    For over-all dominance of a sport, I'd look at Tiger, if you call golf a sport, that is.
    Titles aren't necessarily the best indicator in a team game.

    If you look at the sheer number of records that Gretzky holds (or held) it's pretty impressive.

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

    Over 50 records held in the NHL...including most goals, most points, most assists, most goals per game average..etc... he was dominant and was helped by a great surrounding cast on the Oilers for sure, but his skill was undeniable.

    Although the fact that Chicago couldn't come all that close to winning a title without Jordan is a testament to his influence.

    It is in a sense comparing apples to oranges though. Gretzky was an offensive player and you would have to measure defensive players in a different way than offensive ones.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Jul '09 13:25
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Why is Stephen Hawking the best for science? Is it just because he wrote a few good books?

    Einstein, despite his popularity in popular culture, should definitely be up there. Maybe Newton, but I'd put Einstein over Newton.
    Einstein had the advantage of knowing Newton of course. Newton added a greater percentage of knowledge to what already existed. But, yes, for sheer brilliance, it's tough to match Einstein.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Jul '09 13:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Titles aren't necessarily the best indicator in a team game.

    If you look at the sheer number of records that Gretzky holds (or held) it's pretty impressive.

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

    Over 50 records held in the NHL...including most goals, most points, most assists, most goals per game average..etc layer and you would have to measure defensive players in a different way than offensive ones.
    Gretzky also won I believe 7 or 8 consecutive MVPs. Pretty amazing. His 215 point in one year is ridiculous, considering that in some years, you may be able to lead the league with roughly half that!

    BTW, the Bulls did nearly win a title without Jordan. In the year he was playing baseball, the Bulls had the 3 seed in the East and but for a phantom foul call by Hugh Hollins, they'd have taken a 3-2 lead over the Knicks, who later took Houston to 7 games in the finals.

    Then again, Messier did win 2 titles without Gretzky, while Gretzky won zero without Messier.

    But still, yes, over-all, I'd have to take Gretzky over Jordan for dominance of his sport.

    I'd take Ruth over both though. He routinely outhomered most TEAMS during his big years. He literally changed the game, bringing home runs from a rare anomaly to a routine facet of the game. Plus, he was a great pitcher too.
  9. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    10 Jul '09 13:40 / 1 edit
    Mr. Spock if you're going scientific,

    Borges for prose

    J. M. Keynes for economics

    Julius Caesar for government (Jefferson no, thanks, neither junkies nor slave owners are my groove)

    Martin Luther for theology (close behind is Wesley)

    Napoleon for leadership

    Freud for Psychology (maybe Jung)

    Durkheim for Sociology

    Seitse for chess

    Attila the Hun for warfare

    Socrates for philosophy

    Max Weber for politics
  10. 10 Jul '09 15:08
    Originally posted by sh76
    For team sport, perhaps. Although, the fact that he only has 4 titles makes a strong case for Jordan (6 titles) and Ruth (7 titles).

    For over-all dominance of a sport, I'd look at Tiger, if you call golf a sport, that is.
    You can't really base it on titles. Michael Jordan is a legend but he also had phenominal teammates.

    Barry Sanders would make anyone's top three all-time running back list and he has zero Superbowls.
  11. 10 Jul '09 15:15
    For leadership I would give it to Alexander the Great. His rivals would warship him and shower him with affection just after he got done kicking their ass. And to this day he is THE standard when it comes to military tactics.

    He faught and bled with his men. He subjected himself to the same hardships and he shared with them his rewards.

    In one battle a Persian prince brought his wife and daughter to witness his "glory" only to be soundly defeated by a far smaller army. The prince literally fled the scene and left his wife and child at the mercey of the enemy.

    Trembling with fear the woman begged for mercey when she came face to face with Alexander. He gave her aid and comfort and later he married her. She never left his side.
  12. 10 Jul '09 15:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    Einstein had the advantage of knowing Newton of course. Newton added a greater percentage of knowledge to what already existed. But, yes, for sheer brilliance, it's tough to match Einstein.
    I'm also basing it on the fact that Einstein's theories changed how we even thought about time and space.

    Part of the thing in science is that everyone stands on the shoulders of the prior giants (to use a metaphor that I believe Newton used) so who made the greater leap?
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Jul '09 15:19
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    You can't really base it on titles. Michael Jordan is a legend but he also had phenominal teammates.

    Barry Sanders would make anyone's top three all-time running back list and he has zero Superbowls.
    In assessing talent in general, yes. But in naming the greatest and most dominant athlete of all time, titles have to matter. Good example with Barry Sanders. But, in general, the truly great players win championships. The all time most dominant players win championships as well. The one sport where titles are least important in assessing this is baseball. No matter how good you are, you can't dominate the game in baseball. In basketball, football and hockey though, the best players should generally find a way to elevate their teams. Look at Koby and Lebron. Both are on teams that, without them, would be nothing special; yet both teams are playing at a championship level.
  14. 10 Jul '09 15:21
    Originally posted by sh76
    He literally changed the game, bringing home runs from a rare anomaly to a routine facet of the game. Plus, he was a great pitcher too.
    Steroids could have done the same thing zzzing! (just kidding).
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Jul '09 15:24 / 2 edits
    For World conquest, I'd have to go with Augustus Caesar. He was the one who truly established the Pax Romana and he did it with relatively little bloodshed. Franklin Roosevelt (whom the great Herman Wouk referred to as the "Augustus of the Industrial Age" ) managed to establish the Pax Americana using mostly other countries' blood; so he gets partial credit.