Originally posted by sh76To be honest, hockey isn't really my sport. A guy I worked with was a hockey nut and he convinced me about Gretzky. In naming all his stats his level of play was consistently waaaay above his peers. And with him it wasn't just about the insane numbers he would put up. I wish he was on here because he could easily make you a believer.
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 m ...[text shortened]... at, without them, would be nothing special; yet both teams are playing at a championship level.
Interesting fact: The NHL retired Gretzky's number. Not his team, the fricking LEAGUE!
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOne day, you or someone else has to explain to me what the big deal is about steroids. Most of them weren't illegal and weren't against the baseball rules as they existed at the time.
Steroids could have done the same thing 😉 zzzing! (just kidding).
Is it a dumb idea to take steroids? Sure. Just ask Ken Caminity (sp?). But, all this whining and moaning about the integrity of the sport and the sanctity of the game and all that nonsense. You're telling me players haven't always looked to questionable methods to help them get a competitive edge? Right. Baseball is about as "pure" as a Gaylord Perry sinker is dry.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI'm already a believer about Gretzky. Though, look at Ruth's numbers compared to his peers (except Gehrig, perhaps). They're just as impressive. I'd agree they're 1-2 in North American team sports though.
To be honest, hockey isn't really my sport. A guy I worked with was a hockey nut and he convinced me about Gretzky. In naming all his stats his level of play was consistently waaaay above his peers. And with him it wasn't just about the insane numbers he would put up. I wish he was on here because he could easily make you a believer.
Interesting fact: The NHL retired Gretzky's number. Not his team, the fricking LEAGUE!
Originally posted by sh76I would say Ruth's pitching ability tips it in his favor if it wasn't already. Pitchers who can bat just decent are extraordarily rare. Now imagine a very strong pitcher who's an all-time legend at the plate.
I'm already a believer about Gretzky. Though, look at Ruth's numbers compared to his peers (except Gehrig, perhaps). They're just as impressive. I'd agree they're 1-2 in North American team sports though.
Yeah, nice arguments for Babe.
Originally posted by sh76Well, why shouldn't players be allowed to use a corked bat?
One day, you or someone else has to explain to me what the big deal is about steroids. Most of them weren't illegal and weren't against the baseball rules as they existed at the time.
Is it a dumb idea to take steroids? Sure. Just ask Ken Caminity (sp?). But, all this whining and moaning about the integrity of the sport and the sanctity of the game and all t ...[text shortened]... a competitive edge? Right. Baseball is about as "pure" as a Gaylord Perry sinker is dry.
I understand your point, but I think a lot of people have the problem that the sport is about the extent humans can achieve through simple natural human effort and another argument is that it un-levels the playing field.
I tend to be a bit on the fence about steroids though. I also think more home runs makes the game more boring frankly.
Part of the excitement of the home run is that it's relatively rare and it can change the game when it happens. If every other hit is a home run then the game starts to suck.
Athlete: Björn Borg
Chess: Fischer
Comedy: George Carlin
Leadership and warfare: Hunkesni (Thathanka Iyotake) - (when, oh when, will this site support utf-8?)
Philosophy: Zarathustra
Politics: Olof Palme
Pornstar: Asia Carrera
Prose: Rimbaud
Psychology: N. Chomsky
RHP forum contributor: FMF
Science: Chien-Shiung Wu
Sociology: É. Durkheim
Originally posted by Seitseoriginally I had thought Martin Luther for theology as well, but in a close call I went with St Auggie
Mr. Spock if you're going scientific,
Borges for prose
J. M. Keynes for economics
Julius Caesar for government ([b]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
S ...[text shortened]... for chess
Attila the Hun for warfare
Socrates for philosophy
Max Weber for politics[/b]
Originally posted by PsychoPawnEinstein's genius was manifest in his plagaristic talents. Newton was genuine.
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?
Wilt the Stit Chamberlain the most dominant athlete
Aristotle best philosopher (practical, useful philosophy... amazing!)
Adam Smith most admirable economist (followed closely by Milton Friedman and Julian Simon)
Phil Jackson the best coach in professional basketball, led MJ and Shaq, now Gasol and Kobe.
John Wooden the best coach in college basketball... EVER! No explanation needed.
I'll go with Gretzky for hockey.
Fisher for chess (unfortunately given his shameful side, but for his time he was just so DOMINANT in a way that more modern greats like Kasparov could never be)
Jesus for theology, who single-handedly changed the course of world history by founding Christianity in its earliest, purest forms. Confucious and Mohamoud were also very influential.
Politician... hmm... Metternich? a hundred years of peace is impressive when there was no great empire ruling the world and there were many competing major powers... although admitedly Napoleon's wars had a lot to do with the desire for peace.
War-wager... Rommel? I mean the guy won when he had the tools and avoided defeat when he was overwhelmed... plus he turned on Hitler which just earns him bonus points. Otherwise you have Ghengis Khan and Napoleon.
Greatest Empire: Roman Empire. How did they get to rule the known world for so long? Good govenment and thinkers, administration, good policy, always seeking growth and always maintaining technological superirority.... eventually the politics of the years and years led to a slow and gradual decline, I'd say. What with their debts and splits in division of power and rule...
Science, I'll go with Einstein, though Newton and even Galileo were no slouches. No way for Stephen Hawking, not even close.
Inventor: Da Vinci. Other great inventor: Edison
Leadership: The Japanese leadership that decided to learn from the West which had caught up to them when Western Ships reached Japan. The Japanese soon caught up and were beating Russia in War just a few decades later.
Prose: Cervantes... close second, Shakespear. Third - Juan Rulfo.
Originally posted by sh76Lin Dan won 9 titles just between 2002 and 2004!
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.
35 first place titles since 2002 ... plus 12 second places and 7 third places ...
two-time gold medalist in the World Championships ... one-time gold medalist in the Olympics ...