World's Greatest Draft (2 Viewers)

[larry_boy_44]

5. Scientist - Big Rocks

this is a hard category for me to judge the judge and, to me at lest, to judge.

Too High: Galileo Galilei, to me what he did seemed greater for the political/religious statement he made rather than the scientific importance of it. It was worldchanging, but not "great science changing", if that makes sense.

Too Low: Albert Einstein, this is a copout answer, I'll admit it. Einstein and Newton are 1A/1B probably, but I just think Einstein is the 1A, not Newton.

 

[larry_boy_44]

4. Inventor - Orange Crush

Too High: Wilbur Wright, I think what he did was, more than anyone else in this category, just a matter of time and wasn't as much about him being great as it was about all the work and pieces everyone else had and him getting lucky.

Too Low: Isambard Kingdom Brunel, he was ranked the #2 Briton of all time by a nation-wide BBC poll, but we find him the #10 inventor of all time? Makes no sense!

 

[larry_boy_44]

3. Rebel - Fennis

The quotes were awesome, the rankings made sense.

Too High: Spartacus and William Wallace, we only know about them because of their movies

Too Low: Vladimir Lenin, revolutionized Russia which became a major world power afterwards

 

[larry_boy_44]

2. Military - Ozymandius

He did a good job and exlained/defended his rankings well.

Too High: Genghis Khan/Subotai, one of them should have been lower

Too Low: Sun Tzu, I agree he shouldn't necessarily be #1, but #16 just feels too low since it was stated initially that theorists go in this category.

 

[larry_boy_44]

1. Playwrights/Poets - Krista04

Great writeups, consistent rankings, I honestly can't complain.

Too High: Homer, as much as I think we shouldn't penalize too much those with questionable existence, I do think it should be a consideration.

Too Low: Matsuo Basho, who doesn't know what a haiku is?

 

[krista4]

What do I win? Take that, Fennis!

Really, wherever you ranked my rankings, larry, these were good write-ups on your reasoning and I liked the "too high/too low" part, especially when you're willing (as in Homer) to say if you think your guy is too high.

 

[Big Rocks]

5. Scientist - Big Rocksthis is a hard category for me to judge the judge and, to me at lest, to judge.Too High: Galileo Galilei, to me what he did seemed greater for the political/religious statement he made rather than the scientific importance of it. It was worldchanging, but not "great science changing", if that makes sense.Too Low: Albert Einstein, this is a copout answer, I'll admit it. Einstein and Newton are 1A/1B probably, but I just think Einstein is the 1A, not Newton.

Just for the record, timschochet ranked Galileo since I selected him. If I was to rank him, he would be in the 5-7 range. As for Einstein, I wouldn't argue with anyone who puts Einstein 1 and Newton 2. They are both men among boys.

 

[Mixlflick1]

What do I win? Take that, Fennis! Really, wherever you ranked my rankings, larry, these were good write-ups on your reasoning and I liked the "too high/too low" part, especially when you're willing (as in Homer) to say if you think your guy is too high.

Except that he put over 1/2 of his picks in the too low category and only one in the too high category.

 

[Thorn]

Anna Nicole Smith, yes, she is still ranked much too high at #20.

Though I think I agree with you

 

[Mario Kart]

Franz k Liszt

The reasons you gave for not having the most recent performers in the top of the rankings contradicts your reasons for not having American athletes in the top rankings. And, it is accepted that Franz Liszt was the first real musical performer. He wrote his own, composed his own and performed his own in a way that had not been seen before. HUGE and deserving of #1 easily.I saw no to little problems with both the Athletes and Performers rankings because this was a "World" draft and not an "America first-thought draft". This should have made every drafter look at the world from a global perspective and not an American first perspective. This same reasoning should have put religious views, personal politics, and other biases aside and focus on the Global impact/importance/influence/direction each person made in their given category. Unfortunately that was not the case for all drafters or all judges, which is fine, but had that been the outlook, I think the rankings would be much much different.

 

[timschochet]

What do I win? Take that, Fennis!

Really, wherever you ranked my rankings, larry, these were good write-ups on your reasoning and I liked the "too high/too low" part, especially when you're willing (as in Homer) to say if you think your guy is too high.

I wouldn't give him too much credit for this. At least half of his selections are listed elsewhere as "too low", and then at the very end he mentions one guy (Homer) as "too high", so we're supposed to think he's even handed. Sure, Larry.Nice job overall, though.

 

[rodg12]

Franz k Liszt

The reasons you gave for not having the most recent performers in the top of the rankings contradicts your reasons for not having American athletes in the top rankings. And, it is accepted that Franz Liszt was the first real musical performer. He wrote his own, composed his own and performed his own in a way that had not been seen before. HUGE and deserving of #1 easily.I saw no to little problems with both the Athletes and Performers rankings because this was a "World" draft and not an "America first-thought draft". This should have made every drafter look at the world from a global perspective and not an American first perspective. This same reasoning should have put religious views, personal politics, and other biases aside and focus on the Global impact/importance/influence/direction each person made in their given category. Unfortunately that was not the case for all drafters or all judges, which is fine, but had that been the outlook, I think the rankings would be much much different.

SHOCKING!!

The two categories where your guys were overrated.

 

[mad sweeney]

20. Celebrity - Zaxxonhe didn't really tell us what he was looking for, didn't seem to rank the category based on what he said that he was looking for, and seemingly had no logic behind his rankings. This was actually the easiest ranking on the list.Too High: Jackie Kennedy Onassis, you can't rank her higher than JFK.Anna Nicole Smith, yes, she is still ranked much too high at #20.Too Low: The Virgin Mary, no we don't know what she actually looked like, but her image is still one of the most important and well-known in the history of the world.

Easily the worst, though I can't see how he didn't rank the category based on what he said he was looking for when he didn't say what he was looking for.This is the first of the ridiculous continuation of your pleas that your guys are too lowly ranked. IMO you got a gift not coming in last behind an actual celebrity in ANS. I'll throw my own pick in there as the real too low. Jackie Chan swamps the entire second half of his list for celebrity, being ranked lower than Richtofen is a complete joke.

 

[mad sweeney]

19. Athlete - Misfit BlondesI actually feel bad that this category is ranked so low, but I can't justify moving it any higher. I do want to give misfit credit for taking a lot of flck from people about his rankings and both sticking with it as the judge and realizing how bad his first rankings were and fixing it.He also has the only "too in the middle" ranking which goes to Bruce Lee. I agree with those who say Lee should have been first (or close to it) or last (or close to it). If you go by "athleticism", he should be at the top. If you go by "sporting greatness", he should be last because he never competed. To rank him 12th feels like an attempt at compromise, but it doesn't make logical sense outside of that attempt at compromise.Too High: many "non-American" athletes, he tried too hard to account for the rest of the world and ended up over-valuing non-American sports. Although I am curious where he would have ranked Tony Hawk or some of the other "X-Games" guys...Too Low: Tiger Woods, Babe Ruth, and Jesse Owens, these guys got ranked low, seemingly, solely because they are American and that makes no sense.

I think you infer anti-American and anti-Christian bias too much. I agree with you on Owens though.

 

[mad sweeney]

12. Intellectual - Yankeee23fan

The "Adam Smith Incident" notwithstanding, I think Yankee tended to favor his personal opinion of things a little too much. He also discounted men of antiquity (Justinian and Hammurabi) more than was warranted, in my opinion.

Too High: This isn't going to be for a specific person, rather it seems that the ideals and people whose ideas Yankee agree with all got ranked at the top, and the others below them. And maybe I'm wrong in reading it that way, but its how I took the rankings.

Too Low: Justinian and Hammurabi, even if they didn't technically create the documents they created, they are still known as the earliest lawgivers, Hammurabi especially (I remember learning about him in like 2nd and 3rd grade, no one else on this list except maybe Jefferson is learned about in 2nd grade).

Considering that you put so many of your picks as the "too low", I don't see how you can assail YF for doing this. Although you're right about it. He did offer up a generic retraction of sorts for not sticking to his rankings which I took to be a tacit statement that Freud was ranked too low due to other influences. And though I don't think he meant any harm, I thought it was rude or discourteous at least to rank his own guy after Tim specifically asked him not to.

 

[Mario Kart]

SHOCKING!!The two categories where your guys were overrated.

Considering the world, they were ranked appropriately. Considering Amero-centric thinking, they were ranked inappropriately. I believe you have showed your card throughout the thread as to which you think is "better".

 

[mad sweeney]

8. Wildcard - Timscochetthis was the hardest category. On one hand, it was by far the most difficult. On the other hand I really am not sure how good Tim really did with it. he seemed to show his own biases the most out of any of the judges, of course part of that was probably due to the immense scope of what he was asked to judge.Too High: Edwin Hubble, I don't think he's the #1 scientist/inventor on the wildcard list.Cardinal Richelieu, he should not get more points than King Louis XIII did.Too Low: CS Lewis, we've all heard the arguments. I think Tim was wrong with this one by a lot.Cleopatra, I think Tim completely discounted some categories in his wildcard rankings, and Cleopatra was hurt by it.Nostradamus, see Cleopatra, he's too well known even today to give only 2 points to.Shigeru Miyamoto, officially he didn't actually get ranked in the wildcard rankings as he isn't in the list in the 1st post of the thread. Seriously, though, maybe I'm looking too far forward, but I really think he'll be spoken of on level with Walt Disney in terms of the effect he had on the world through his creations/innovations/inspiration in video games.

More complaining about your picks being too low despite the ground being pounded to death several times prior. No matter how you feel about videogames, your boy doesn't stack up to most people on this list. Porn innovators have made lagging industries into multi billion dollar empires as well and they don't belong on the list either.

 

[Fennis]

What do I win? Take that, Fennis! Really, wherever you ranked my rankings, larry, these were good write-ups on your reasoning and I liked the "too high/too low" part, especially when you're willing (as in Homer) to say if you think your guy is too high.

:X Clearly Krista4 is a LB alias. It all makes sense.

 

[mad sweeney]

I'd give Larry about a 14/20 for his judging, but then I'd have to knock it down to 11 simply for using it as one more soapbox to retread all of his objections to his rankings. Despite that however I think he did a pretty good job (though I expected a lot more writeup considering the wait!) so I'll bump that up to a 12 since he didn't really use his people being too low against the judges in his rankings.

Good job Larry.

 

[rodg12]

SHOCKING!!

The two categories where your guys were overrated.

Considering the world, they were ranked appropriately. Considering Amero-centric thinking, they were ranked inappropriately. I believe you have showed your card throughout the thread as to which you think is "better".

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting the ranking of Karelin. None whatsoever. I've read about the sport. It is not close to in the top 20 in world popularity. Not close. Please provide some evidence to back this ranking....As for Litszt, whatever. I don't necessarily believe he was the best performer of ALL TIME, but big deal. I do know for a fact he hasn't been heard by anywhere close to as many people as The Beatles.

 

[mad sweeney]

SHOCKING!!

The two categories where your guys were overrated.

Considering the world, they were ranked appropriately. Considering Amero-centric thinking, they were ranked inappropriately. I believe you have showed your card throughout the thread as to which you think is "better".

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting the ranking of Karelin. None whatsoever. I've read about the sport. It is not close to in the top 20 in world popularity. Not close. Please provide some evidence to back this ranking....As for Litszt, whatever. I don't necessarily believe he was the best performer of ALL TIME, but big deal. I do know for a fact he hasn't been heard by anywhere close to as many people as The Beatles.

I don't know about it's popularity as a spectator sport but wrestling is the oldest mano y mano competition in the world. It's classic. I think Karelin is too high, but not by too much. He probably should've been around 7 or 8.

 

[Mario Kart]

SHOCKING!!

The two categories where your guys were overrated.

Considering the world, they were ranked appropriately. Considering Amero-centric thinking, they were ranked inappropriately. I believe you have showed your card throughout the thread as to which you think is "better".

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting the ranking of Karelin. None whatsoever. I've read about the sport. It is not close to in the top 20 in world popularity. Not close. Please provide some evidence to back this ranking....As for Litszt, whatever. I don't necessarily believe he was the best performer of ALL TIME, but big deal. I do know for a fact he hasn't been heard by anywhere close to as many people as The Beatles.

Popularity does not make one great. Karelin was at the top of his game, in his sport, at the highest level, against all competitors for 10+ years. Name anyone who holds that resume and I will listen. The guy did not surrender a point in 6+ years of competition... at the highest level, against all competitors. I don't know what more you would like. His records will probably not be broken unless another phenom comes along. Also, his sport was all him... no equipment, no ball, no racket, no QB, no bat... him and him alone (maybe some powder and tape). That type of athlete ranks higher in my book... and world standards, than someone who uses a ball, racket, bat or whatever else. Had decathlete's been taken... they are much better athletes than most that were even drafted if they maintained their prowess for longer than others. Roman Serble could have been ranked #1 but the Thorpe ranking also makes sense.Again, popularity does not make a performer great. Liszt "popularized" performing when it came to music. The Elton John's probably thank Liszt. The Beatles were good performers but what did they do to revolutionize "performing"? Sing a song, play a guitar, what else did they do? I made an inquiry about Marcel Marceau for this category but was denied as it pertained to music only. Otherwise, Marceau would be, or should be, in the top 5 easily.

 

[larry_boy_44]

What do I win? Take that, Fennis! Really, wherever you ranked my rankings, larry, these were good write-ups on your reasoning and I liked the "too high/too low" part, especially when you're willing (as in Homer) to say if you think your guy is too high.

Except that he put over 1/2 of his picks in the too low category and only one in the too high category.

and most of them were in large groups (i think) where the reason i said they were too low was because it seemed the judge discounted part of the reason the category was there...the only one I can think of that was not like that was Brunel, and the only reason i chose him was becuase I had no clue who else to pick... lol

 

[larry_boy_44]

20. Celebrity - Zaxxonhe didn't really tell us what he was looking for, didn't seem to rank the category based on what he said that he was looking for, and seemingly had no logic behind his rankings. This was actually the easiest ranking on the list.Too High: Jackie Kennedy Onassis, you can't rank her higher than JFK.Anna Nicole Smith, yes, she is still ranked much too high at #20.Too Low: The Virgin Mary, no we don't know what she actually looked like, but her image is still one of the most important and well-known in the history of the world.

Easily the worst, though I can't see how he didn't rank the category based on what he said he was looking for when he didn't say what he was looking for.This is the first of the ridiculous continuation of your pleas that your guys are too lowly ranked. IMO you got a gift not coming in last behind an actual celebrity in ANS. I'll throw my own pick in there as the real too low. Jackie Chan swamps the entire second half of his list for celebrity, being ranked lower than Richtofen is a complete joke.

he said "being well known" which tells us almost nothing... but if you actually consider "how well known a person is" as the reasoning, the list makes no sense...which is why he both essentially didn't tell us what he wanted, and didn't follow what he said he wanted at the same time...

 

[larry_boy_44]

8. Wildcard - Timscochetthis was the hardest category. On one hand, it was by far the most difficult. On the other hand I really am not sure how good Tim really did with it. he seemed to show his own biases the most out of any of the judges, of course part of that was probably due to the immense scope of what he was asked to judge.Too High: Edwin Hubble, I don't think he's the #1 scientist/inventor on the wildcard list.Cardinal Richelieu, he should not get more points than King Louis XIII did.Too Low: CS Lewis, we've all heard the arguments. I think Tim was wrong with this one by a lot.Cleopatra, I think Tim completely discounted some categories in his wildcard rankings, and Cleopatra was hurt by it.Nostradamus, see Cleopatra, he's too well known even today to give only 2 points to.Shigeru Miyamoto, officially he didn't actually get ranked in the wildcard rankings as he isn't in the list in the 1st post of the thread. Seriously, though, maybe I'm looking too far forward, but I really think he'll be spoken of on level with Walt Disney in terms of the effect he had on the world through his creations/innovations/inspiration in video games.

More complaining about your picks being too low despite the ground being pounded to death several times prior. No matter how you feel about videogames, your boy doesn't stack up to most people on this list. Porn innovators have made lagging industries into multi billion dollar empires as well and they don't belong on the list either.

yes, video games/computer electronics are equivalent to porn and cartoon movies aren't...do you realize how dumb that sounds?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I'd give Larry about a 14/20 for his judging, but then I'd have to knock it down to 11 simply for using it as one more soapbox to retread all of his objections to his rankings. Despite that however I think he did a pretty good job (though I expected a lot more writeup considering the wait!) so I'll bump that up to a 12 since he didn't really use his people being too low against the judges in his rankings. Good job Larry.

like I said, in a couple categories (Brunel comes to mind specifically) I used mine because it was the only one I could think of that I could even make a coherent argument for because the rankings were very good and the only people I wasn't sure about I didn't know a lot about, but they seemed about right after looking them up...plus there were three or four categories that I really think the judge didn't look at it the way that the draft meant for the category to look at things (musician, athlete, the whole "some ancient people are worthless, but others aren't" think with philosophers, etc.)

 

[Ozymandias]

Well, Larry, since I ranked your guy 19th, I have to admit personal bias must not have been part of your decision.

Now, about that boobies thing...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Well, Larry, since I ranked your guy 19th, I have to admit personal bias must not have been part of your decision.

Now, about that boobies thing...

why do you think Krista was #1?

 

[mad sweeney]

8. Wildcard - Timscochetthis was the hardest category. On one hand, it was by far the most difficult. On the other hand I really am not sure how good Tim really did with it. he seemed to show his own biases the most out of any of the judges, of course part of that was probably due to the immense scope of what he was asked to judge.Too High: Edwin Hubble, I don't think he's the #1 scientist/inventor on the wildcard list.Cardinal Richelieu, he should not get more points than King Louis XIII did.Too Low: CS Lewis, we've all heard the arguments. I think Tim was wrong with this one by a lot.Cleopatra, I think Tim completely discounted some categories in his wildcard rankings, and Cleopatra was hurt by it.Nostradamus, see Cleopatra, he's too well known even today to give only 2 points to.Shigeru Miyamoto, officially he didn't actually get ranked in the wildcard rankings as he isn't in the list in the 1st post of the thread. Seriously, though, maybe I'm looking too far forward, but I really think he'll be spoken of on level with Walt Disney in terms of the effect he had on the world through his creations/innovations/inspiration in video games.

More complaining about your picks being too low despite the ground being pounded to death several times prior. No matter how you feel about videogames, your boy doesn't stack up to most people on this list. Porn innovators have made lagging industries into multi billion dollar empires as well and they don't belong on the list either.

yes, video games/computer electronics are equivalent to porn and cartoon movies aren't...do you realize how dumb that sounds?

I do, but you're the one that said it...

 

[rodg12]

SHOCKING!!

The two categories where your guys were overrated.

Considering the world, they were ranked appropriately. Considering Amero-centric thinking, they were ranked inappropriately. I believe you have showed your card throughout the thread as to which you think is "better".

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting the ranking of Karelin. None whatsoever. I've read about the sport. It is not close to in the top 20 in world popularity. Not close. Please provide some evidence to back this ranking....As for Litszt, whatever. I don't necessarily believe he was the best performer of ALL TIME, but big deal. I do know for a fact he hasn't been heard by anywhere close to as many people as The Beatles.

Popularity does not make one great. Karelin was at the top of his game, in his sport, at the highest level, against all competitors for 10+ years. Name anyone who holds that resume and I will listen. The guy did not surrender a point in 6+ years of competition... at the highest level, against all competitors. I don't know what more you would like. His records will probably not be broken unless another phenom comes along. Also, his sport was all him... no equipment, no ball, no racket, no QB, no bat... him and him alone (maybe some powder and tape). That type of athlete ranks higher in my book... and world standards, than someone who uses a ball, racket, bat or whatever else. Had decathlete's been taken... they are much better athletes than most that were even drafted if they maintained their prowess for longer than others. Roman Serble could have been ranked #1 but the Thorpe ranking also makes sense.Again, popularity does not make a performer great. Liszt "popularized" performing when it came to music. The Elton John's probably thank Liszt. The Beatles were good performers but what did they do to revolutionize "performing"? Sing a song, play a guitar, what else did they do? I made an inquiry about Marcel Marceau for this category but was denied as it pertained to music only. Otherwise, Marceau would be, or should be, in the top 5 easily.

Wow, just wow. Completely ridiculous opinion. Go hit a baseball thrown at 90+ or make a basket with two defenders in your face or play a 5 hour marathon tennis match-up against the other best player in the world or dribble a soccer ball through two defenders a score a goal past a goalie and tell me that takes less athleticism than freaking greco-roman wrestling. Oh, and popularity matters greatly when you consider how great someone is at a sport. If no one else plays the sport or cares about the sport, you're not going to have the best competitors in the world competing in that sport. Who cares that he dominated a sport where it's very arguable the best-suited athletes in the world for it didn't even compete in it. Some of the stud offensive and defensive linemen in the NFL would make fantastic greco-roman wrestlers with the skills they have.

 

[BobbyLayne]

17. Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr - BobbyLayne

He judged humanitarians way too highly and the saints/martyrs way too low. And, no, Mother Theresa doesn't count as a saint/martyr, she's a humanitarian. So 4 out of the top 5 (11 out of the top 12) were humanitarians while # 12, 15, 17, and 19 were all saints/martyrs.

Too High: Mother Theresa - she has a big name... Probably would have been better off as a celebrity and should not have been ranked so high. She did not affect the world nearly as much as pretty much every other person on this list.

Too Low: St. Francis of Assisi & Saint Peter, both of these picks should have been higher in order to show a balance between the three parts of this category. Instead the humanitarians got massively overrated and the saints/martyrs got underrated.

10 of the 20 people in this category were religious figures or individuals for whom their belief in Christ was central to their life's work. On that basis, I think the distribution was pretty even-handed.#1 - The top ranking went to Albert Schweitzer, who spent six years studying music, philosophy and theology before he opted for medical school. He was a pastor before he was a physician, and his decision to become a doctor was within the context of becoming a medical missionary. Although most often revered as an exemplorary humanitarian Schweitzer was a significant theologian in his time. Many of his studies focused on the life of Jesus and contemporary interpretations of the bible. In 1906 he published The Quest of the Historical Jesus and followed it with The Psychiatric Study of Jesus in 1911 as part of his medical dissertation. His studies of the new and old testament greatly influenced other biblical scholars. Let's put it this way: he is ten times greater the apologetics scholar C.S. Lewis is held up to be; the latter never advanced beyond his undergraduate studies at Oxford (Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English - no theological or graduate studies).

#4 - Joan of Arc, Saint

#5 - Mother Teresa, named Blessed of Calcutta, on the path to Sainthood, Roman Catholic nun

#6 - Bishop Desmond Tutu, clergy

#7 - William Wilberforce, evangelical Christian, as with Schweitzer, long held up as a great Christian hero in the U.K.

#8 - MLK, clergy

#13 & #15 - Saint Peter and Saint Francis - on what basis should they be held higher? This categoy is not the pseudo-religious figure category to stick Saints you don't think will get a fair shake going up against Mohammed and Paul of Tarsus. Based on his leadership in the early church and his two epistles, this seemed like an apporpriate ranking to me for the apostle. As for Francis, what should I have given more weight to...his stigmata...or the baptism of the wolf?

#17 & #19 - Saint Nicholas and John the Baptist

Six of the top 8 in the category were individuals who lived Christ-centered lives while making significant contributions to mankind.

Anyway, I researched everybody in the category, and dedicated a lot of time and effort to both the rankings and the writeups. I'm proud of the job I did regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

 

[wikkidpissah]

anybody wanna argue with me about WGD stuff so we can get this thread to 200 pgs?

 

[Mario Kart]

SHOCKING!!

The two categories where your guys were overrated.

Considering the world, they were ranked appropriately. Considering Amero-centric thinking, they were ranked inappropriately. I believe you have showed your card throughout the thread as to which you think is "better".

You have yet to provide any evidence supporting the ranking of Karelin. None whatsoever. I've read about the sport. It is not close to in the top 20 in world popularity. Not close. Please provide some evidence to back this ranking....As for Litszt, whatever. I don't necessarily believe he was the best performer of ALL TIME, but big deal. I do know for a fact he hasn't been heard by anywhere close to as many people as The Beatles.

Popularity does not make one great. Karelin was at the top of his game, in his sport, at the highest level, against all competitors for 10+ years. Name anyone who holds that resume and I will listen. The guy did not surrender a point in 6+ years of competition... at the highest level, against all competitors. I don't know what more you would like. His records will probably not be broken unless another phenom comes along. Also, his sport was all him... no equipment, no ball, no racket, no QB, no bat... him and him alone (maybe some powder and tape). That type of athlete ranks higher in my book... and world standards, than someone who uses a ball, racket, bat or whatever else. Had decathlete's been taken... they are much better athletes than most that were even drafted if they maintained their prowess for longer than others. Roman Serble could have been ranked #1 but the Thorpe ranking also makes sense.Again, popularity does not make a performer great. Liszt "popularized" performing when it came to music. The Elton John's probably thank Liszt. The Beatles were good performers but what did they do to revolutionize "performing"? Sing a song, play a guitar, what else did they do? I made an inquiry about Marcel Marceau for this category but was denied as it pertained to music only. Otherwise, Marceau would be, or should be, in the top 5 easily.

Wow, just wow. Completely ridiculous opinion. Go hit a baseball thrown at 90+ or make a basket with two defenders in your face or play a 5 hour marathon tennis match-up against the other best player in the world or dribble a soccer ball through two defenders a score a goal past a goalie and tell me that takes less athleticism than freaking greco-roman wrestling. Oh, and popularity matters greatly when you consider how great someone is at a sport. If no one else plays the sport or cares about the sport, you're not going to have the best competitors in the world competing in that sport. Who cares that he dominated a sport where it's very arguable the best-suited athletes in the world for it didn't even compete in it. Some of the stud offensive and defensive linemen in the NFL would make fantastic greco-roman wrestlers with the skills they have.

I will let you go on believing that to be the case. I will not attempt to change your "idea" of what makes an athlete. Keep fighting the good fight, I guess. I have said my peace on the matter and you have failed in your venture. TIA

 

[BobbyLayne]

anybody wanna argue with me about WGD stuff so we can get this thread to 200 pgs?

Sure, let's go.Pick any one of these ten; you take one side, I'll take the other.

The 10 Biggest Intellectual Fights Of All time

Seriously, though, I just want one person to explain to me what "the triumph of Bohr" was; I still can't understand what the debate was about.

8. Einstein vs. QT: The Gambling God

“God does not play dice with the universe,” said the man who became an icon of physics with his theories of special and general relativity, Albert Einstein. In 1927 Einstein began a series of debates with quantum explorer Niels Bohr about quantum indeterminism, its epistemological basis and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

The arguments revolved around what is known as the measurement problem and whether or not particles in the quantum state were really both wave and particle at the same time until measurements were made. Einstein wanted to insist that the apparent indeterminacy at the quantum level was just a (temporary) inability to measure certain properties, while Bohr maintained the impossibility of determining precise values of certain properties because at the quantum level the values were by nature uncertain. Bohr eventually won on the striking results of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [EPR] experiment which arose from these debates and established the phenomenon of quantum non-locality.

 

[mad sweeney]

anybody wanna argue with me about WGD stuff so we can get this thread to 200 pgs?

Sure, let's go.Pick any one of these ten; you take one side, I'll take the other.

The 10 Biggest Intellectual Fights Of All time

Seriously, though, I just want one person to explain to me what "the triumph of Bohr" was; I still can't understand what the debate was about.

8. Einstein vs. QT: The Gambling God

“God does not play dice with the universe,” said the man who became an icon of physics with his theories of special and general relativity, Albert Einstein. In 1927 Einstein began a series of debates with quantum explorer Niels Bohr about quantum indeterminism, its epistemological basis and interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

The arguments revolved around what is known as the measurement problem and whether or not particles in the quantum state were really both wave and particle at the same time until measurements were made. Einstein wanted to insist that the apparent indeterminacy at the quantum level was just a (temporary) inability to measure certain properties, while Bohr maintained the impossibility of determining precise values of certain properties because at the quantum level the values were by nature uncertain. Bohr eventually won on the striking results of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [EPR] experiment which arose from these debates and established the phenomenon of quantum non-locality.

God does not play dice with the universe: He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)

 

[rodg12]

I will let you go on believing that to be the case. I will not attempt to change your "idea" of what makes an athlete. Keep fighting the good fight, I guess. I have said my peace on the matter and you have failed in your venture. TIA

Soooo glad you're letting me go on believing what I believe. Oh, and if you're going to talk down to somebody, you might want to make sure your post uses the correct 'piece.' It makes you look pretty freaking bad when you do it in a post that contains grammatical errors. TIA.

 

[thatguy]

Newton is very deserving of the top spot over Einstein. Both were absolutely brilliant, but Newton to me is the clear #1.

 

[Mario Kart]

I will let you go on believing that to be the case. I will not attempt to change your "idea" of what makes an athlete. Keep fighting the good fight, I guess. I have said my peace/piece on the matter and you have failed in your venture. TIA

Soooo glad you're letting me go on believing what I believe. Oh, and if you're going to talk down to somebody, you might want to make sure your post uses the correct 'piece.' It makes you look pretty freaking bad when you do it in a post that contains grammatical errors. TIA.

Ooh, oooh, you got me good they're. I bow down to you or Lord of Grammatics. I never did talk down to anybody. I stated my reasons, said my peace/piece, and am moving on. I am not going to debate with you if I can see the end result of said fictional debate ten posts from now. I need not nor will I try to change your opinion on what you believe to be correct. The fact is, I look at athletes in a different light and appreciate the ability of someone to dominate his/her sport like no other, popularity be damned. On the other hand, it has been your contention that having an ability to use a piece of equipment enhances ones athletic ability. While the term "athlete" has been enhanced over time to infer the use of other equipment, the old usage of "athlete" inferred to ones "God" given ability... without equipment. (i.e. track stars, marathon runners, decathletes)

I guess anybody who can chop a tree down with an axe, or a farmer who can dig a hole to plant crops, or the kid who can build the largest sand castle are all athletes too. Heck, everyone is an athlete. :(

 

[mad sweeney]

I will let you go on believing that to be the case. I will not attempt to change your "idea" of what makes an athlete. Keep fighting the good fight, I guess. I have said my peace/piece on the matter and you have failed in your venture. TIA

Soooo glad you're letting me go on believing what I believe. Oh, and if you're going to talk down to somebody, you might want to make sure your post uses the correct 'piece.' It makes you look pretty freaking bad when you do it in a post that contains grammatical errors. TIA.

Ooh, oooh, you got me good they're. I bow down to you or Lord of Grammatics. I never did talk down to anybody. I stated my reasons, said my peace/piece, and am moving on. I am not going to debate with you if I can see the end result of said fictional debate ten posts from now. I need not nor will I try to change your opinion on what you believe to be correct. The fact is, I look at athletes in a different light and appreciate the ability of someone to dominate his/her sport like no other, popularity be damned. On the other hand, it has been your contention that having an ability to use a piece of equipment enhances ones athletic ability. While the term "athlete" has been enhanced over time to infer the use of other equipment, the old usage of "athlete" inferred to ones "God" given ability... without equipment. (i.e. track stars, marathon runners, decathletes)

I guess anybody who can chop a tree down with an axe, or a farmer who can dig a hole to plant crops, or the kid who can build the largest sand castle are all athletes too. Heck, everyone is an athlete. :(

Yeah but it's the guy who writes a book about lumber, framing and sand castles that is the greatest for each category!

 

[Mario Kart]

Yeah but it's the guy who writes a book about lumber, framing and sand castles that is the greatest for each category!

I never saw that guy... he does not exist. And, just because people follow the techniques of the lumber instructions, and framing instructions, and sand castle instructions... those followers are much better than the author of their topic.

 

[dparker713]

While the term "athlete" has been enhanced over time to infer the use of other equipment, the old usage of "athlete" inferred to ones "God" given ability... without equipment. (i.e. track stars, marathon runners, decathletes)

Care to tell me how a decathlon happens without equipment?BTW, ancient Olympics included events using javelins, discus, faux-armor, horses and even chariots.

 

[mad sweeney]

While the term "athlete" has been enhanced over time to infer the use of other equipment, the old usage of "athlete" inferred to ones "God" given ability... without equipment. (i.e. track stars, marathon runners, decathletes)

Care to tell me how a decathlon happens without equipment?BTW, ancient Olympics included events using javelins, discus, faux-armor, horses and even chariots.

Don't forget wrestling!

 

[rodg12]

I will let you go on believing that to be the case. I will not attempt to change your "idea" of what makes an athlete. Keep fighting the good fight, I guess. I have said my peace/piece on the matter and you have failed in your venture. TIA

Soooo glad you're letting me go on believing what I believe. Oh, and if you're going to talk down to somebody, you might want to make sure your post uses the correct 'piece.' It makes you look pretty freaking bad when you do it in a post that contains grammatical errors. TIA.

Ooh, oooh, you got me good they're. I bow down to you or Lord of Grammatics. I never did talk down to anybody. I stated my reasons, said my peace/piece, and am moving on. I am not going to debate with you if I can see the end result of said fictional debate ten posts from now. I need not nor will I try to change your opinion on what you believe to be correct. The fact is, I look at athletes in a different light and appreciate the ability of someone to dominate his/her sport like no other, popularity be damned. On the other hand, it has been your contention that having an ability to use a piece of equipment enhances ones athletic ability. While the term "athlete" has been enhanced over time to infer the use of other equipment, the old usage of "athlete" inferred to ones "God" given ability... without equipment. (i.e. track stars, marathon runners, decathletes)

I guess anybody who can chop a tree down with an axe, or a farmer who can dig a hole to plant crops, or the kid who can build the largest sand castle are all athletes too. Heck, everyone is an athlete. :(

BS. Saying you'll 'let' me keep believing what I believe and putting quotes around idea when talking about what I think makes an athlete - that's talking down to me. At least admit it. Your definition of athlete is comical. Even one of your examples of an athlete use multiple pieces of equipment. Namely the shot put, discus, javelin and pole (for the pole vault) used in the decathlon. Might want to rethink that one.

 

[mad sweeney]

I will let you go on believing that to be the case. I will not attempt to change your "idea" of what makes an athlete. Keep fighting the good fight, I guess. I have said my peace/piece on the matter and you have failed in your venture. TIA

Soooo glad you're letting me go on believing what I believe. Oh, and if you're going to talk down to somebody, you might want to make sure your post uses the correct 'piece.' It makes you look pretty freaking bad when you do it in a post that contains grammatical errors. TIA.

Ooh, oooh, you got me good they're. I bow down to you or Lord of Grammatics. I never did talk down to anybody. I stated my reasons, said my peace/piece, and am moving on. I am not going to debate with you if I can see the end result of said fictional debate ten posts from now. I need not nor will I try to change your opinion on what you believe to be correct. The fact is, I look at athletes in a different light and appreciate the ability of someone to dominate his/her sport like no other, popularity be damned. On the other hand, it has been your contention that having an ability to use a piece of equipment enhances ones athletic ability. While the term "athlete" has been enhanced over time to infer the use of other equipment, the old usage of "athlete" inferred to ones "God" given ability... without equipment. (i.e. track stars, marathon runners, decathletes)

I guess anybody who can chop a tree down with an axe, or a farmer who can dig a hole to plant crops, or the kid who can build the largest sand castle are all athletes too. Heck, everyone is an athlete.

BS. Saying you'll 'let' me keep believing what I believe and putting quotes around idea when talking about what I think makes an athlete - that's talking down to me. At least admit it. Your definition of athlete is comical. Even one of your examples of an athlete use multiple pieces of equipment. Namely the shot put, discus, javelin and pole (for the pole vault) used in the decathlon. Might want to rethink that one.

Doesn't happen

 

[BobbyLayne]

Newton is very deserving of the top spot over Einstein. Both were absolutely brilliant, but Newton to me is the clear #1.

Yup.

The list below is from the book The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press (2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons.

1 Isaac Newton the Newtonian Revolution

2 Albert Einstein Twentieth-Century Science

3 Neils Bohr the Atom

4 Charles Darwin Evolution

5 Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease

6 Sigmund Freud Psychology of the Unconscious; Freudian psychoanalysis (Freudianism)

7 Galileo Galilei the New Science

8 Antoine Laurent Lavoisier the Revolution in Chemistry

9 Johannes Kepler Motion of the Planets

10 Nicolaus Copernicus the Heliocentric Universe

11 Michael Faraday the Classical Field Theory

12 James Clerk Maxwell the Electromagnetic Field

13 Claude Bernard the Founding of Modern Physiology

14 Franz Boas Modern Anthropology

15 Werner Heisenberg Quantum Theory

16 Linus Pauling Twentieth-Century Chemistry

17 Rudolf Virchow the Cell Doctrine

18 Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics

19 Ernest Rutherford the Structure of the Atom

20 Paul Dirac Quantum Electrodynamics

21 Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy

22 Tycho Brahe the New Astronomy

23 Comte de Buffon l'Histoire Naturelle

24 Ludwig Boltzmann Thermodynamics

25 Max Planck the Quanta

26 Marie Curie Radioactivity

27 William Herschel the Discovery of the Heavens

28 Charles Lyell Modern Geology

29 Pierre Simon de Laplace Newtonian Mechanics

30 Edwin Hubble the Modern Telescope

31 Joseph J. Thomson the Discovery of the Electron

32 Max Born Quantum Mechanics

33 Francis Crick Molecular Biology

34 Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics

35 Leonard Euler Eighteenth-Century Mathematics

36 Justus Liebig Nineteenth-Century Chemistry

37 Arthur Eddington Modern Astronomy

38 William Harvey Circulation of the Blood

39 Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy

40 Christiaan Huygens the Wave Theory of Light

41 Carl Gauss (Karl Friedrich Gauss) Mathematical Genius

42 Albrecht von Haller Eighteenth-Century Medicine

43 August Kekule Chemical Structure

44 Robert Koch Bacteriology

45 Murray Gell-Mann the Eightfold Way

46 Emil Fischer Organic Chemistry

47 Dmitri Mendeleev the Periodic Table of Elements

48 Sheldon Glashow the Discovery of Charm

49 James Watson the Structure of DNA

50 John Bardeen Superconductivity

51 John von Neumann the Modern Computer

52 Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics

53 Alfred Wegener Continental Drift

54 Stephen Hawking Quantum Cosmology

55 Anton van Leeuwenhoek the Simple Microscope

56 Max von Laue X-ray Crystallography

57 Gustav Kirchhoff Spectroscopy

58 Hans Bethe the Energy of the Sun

59 Euclid the Foundations of Mathematics

60 Gregor Mendel the Laws of Inheritance

61 Heike Kamerlingh Onnes Superconductivity

62 Thomas Hunt Morgan the Chromosomal Theory of Heredity

63 Hermann von Helmholtz the Rise of German Science

64 Paul Ehrlich Chemotherapy

65 Ernst Mayr Evolutionary Theory

66 Charles Sherrington Neurophysiology

67 Theodosius Dobzhansky the Modern Synthesis

68 Max Delbruck the Bacteriophage

69 Jean Baptiste Lamarck the Foundations of Biology

70 William Bayliss Modern Physiology

71 Noam Chomsky Twentieth-Century Linguistics

72 Frederick Sanger the Genetic Code

73 Lucretius Scientific Thinking

74 John Dalton the Theory of the Atom

75 Louis Victor de Broglie Wave/Particle Duality

76 Carl Linnaeus the Binomial Nomenclature

77 Jean Piaget Child Development

78 George Gaylord Simpson the Tempo of Evolution

79 Claude Levi-Strauss Structural Anthropology

80 Lynn Margulis Symbiosis Theory

81 Karl Landsteiner the Blood Groups

82 Konrad Lorenz Ethology

83 Edward O. Wilson Sociobiology

84 Frederick Gowland Hopkins Vitamins

85 Gertrude Belle Elion Pharmacology

86 Hans Selye the Stress Concept

87 J. Robert Oppenheimer the Atomic Era

88 Edward Teller the Bomb

89 Willard Libby Radioactive Dating

90 Ernst Haeckel the Biogenetic Principle

91 Jonas Salk Vaccination

92 Emil Kraepelin Twentieth-Century Psychiatry

93 Trofim Lysenko Soviet Genetics

94 Francis Galton Eugenics

95 Alfred Binet the I.Q. Test

96 Alfred Kinsey Human Sexuality

97 Alexander Fleming Penicillin

98 B. F. Skinner Behaviorism

99 Wilhelm Wundt the Founding of Psychology

100 Archimedes the Beginning of Science

 

[Mario Kart]

A decathlon uses "equipment" to allow each participant to test their might/athleticism against each other. The javelin is the same for each participant. The discus, same. Hurdles, same height. Pole, same. Metal ball, same weight. 100 meters, same distance. Bottom line, the competition pits one individual versus one or more individuals competing against each other.

I doubt you find anybody ever swear on their life that a basketball player, baseball player, wrestler even, cricket player, pound for pound, ability per ability is a better pure athlete than a decathlete. If decathlons were easy... everyone would do it.

 

[Mario Kart]

BS. Saying you'll 'let' me keep believing what I believe and putting quotes around idea when talking about what I think makes an athlete - that's talking down to me. At least admit it. Your definition of athlete is comical. Even one of your examples of an athlete use multiple pieces of equipment. Namely the shot put, discus, javelin and pole (for the pole vault) used in the decathlon. Might want to rethink that one.

Doesn't happen

and rodg claims I talk down to people. Uh, huh.

 

[rodg12]

A decathlon uses "equipment" to allow each participant to test their might/athleticism against each other. The javelin is the same for each participant. The discus, same. Hurdles, same height. Pole, same. Metal ball, same weight. 100 meters, same distance. Bottom line, the competition pits one individual versus one or more individuals competing against each other.

I doubt you find anybody ever swear on their life that a basketball player, baseball player, wrestler even, cricket player, pound for pound, ability per ability is a better pure athlete than a decathlete. If decathlons were easy... everyone would do it.

Riiiiiiiiight, it's not really equipment. Because the basketballs players use are player specific, as are the soccer balls, the footballs, the baseballs, the volley balls, the tennis balls. Oh wait, they're not?!?! Your argument wasn't that decathletes are better athletes. You're argument was that people who use equipment are inherently worse athletes than people who don't. Then you threw out decathletes as people who didn't use equipment.

 

[dparker713]

A decathlon uses "equipment" to allow each participant to test their might/athleticism against each other. The javelin is the same for each participant. The discus, same. Hurdles, same height. Pole, same. Metal ball, same weight. 100 meters, same distance. Bottom line, the competition pits one individual versus one or more individuals competing against each other. I doubt you find anybody ever swear on their life that a basketball player, baseball player, wrestler even, cricket player, pound for pound, ability per ability is a better pure athlete than a decathlete. If decathlons were easy... everyone would do it.

Im sure LeBron James decided not to try decathlons because they were too hard and it had nothing to do with the lure of hundreds of millions of dollars awaiting him at age 18 as a basketball player.

 

[mad sweeney]

BS. Saying you'll 'let' me keep believing what I believe and putting quotes around idea when talking about what I think makes an athlete - that's talking down to me. At least admit it. Your definition of athlete is comical. Even one of your examples of an athlete use multiple pieces of equipment. Namely the shot put, discus, javelin and pole (for the pole vault) used in the decathlon. Might want to rethink that one.

Doesn't happen

and rodg claims I talk down to people. Uh, huh.

What does that have to do with it? It's not an insult, you don't rethink things. You stick to your ideas. You refuse to admit Tzu was a bad pick at 1.01 and continue to believe he was not only the best pick for the category but that he was the SOD. So you don't rethink things. It's not talking down at all and it has absolutely nothing to do with you rtalking down to rodg. Sorry