05 Dec '06 23:12>
Originally posted by Red NightHi Red, interesting thread.
Another person quoting wikipedia????
You realize these articles are written by anyone. They don't carry any scholarly weight.
Anybody can go in and make changes to the text.
I can go in and say that Dan Broadman was a 7 foot tall green space alien. (Now, eventually something like that will get changed...but it doesn't change the fact that entries are mostly just someone's opinion.)
I'm intrigued by your attempts to disparage cricket over this and other threads. Why not enjoy both cricket and baseball for what they are - two very different games.
Anyway on this Babe Ruth thing ...
Trying to make any sort of claim that one athlete or another is the 'greatest ever' is going to be a bit difficult given the changing nature of sports.
Taking your cricket example Don Bradman is of course recognised as one of the greats, but he played at a time when there was significantly less cricket played than there is today and players were amateurs - barely paid, and usually keeping down a full time job at the same time.
I'm not sure how it was with Babe Ruth when he played baseball but I suspect something similar.
Which raises the perennial question of course - how would any of these greats Babe Ruth, Don Bradman, Pele or whatever, go in playing the modern versions of the games they excelled at? There's no answer to that of course, people will have their own opinions.
Mine is that comparisons are pointless.
Comparing players from one era to another is pointless.
Comparing sports to other sports is pointless.
Just enjoy each sport for what it is.
I like watching soccer when soccer's being played; I like watching baseball when it's being played (and when the Australian networks will deign to show it); and so on.
Although I've got to admit a soft spot for cricket and Australian rules football having played them both, it doesn't stop me from enjoying many others.