This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Where did I say that? And if you took it that way, it's even more power for him in the celebrity category. Babe didn't play against other good international players. How then can he be ranked against others who were the best at their international sport?
Babe Ruth is revered as the greatest baseball player of all-time worldwide and everywhere baseball is played. No one seriously questions that even if baseball wasn't international at that time.I mean did you know that Japan's greatest player (Japan = #2 baseball league in the world) is nicknamed, literally, "The Babe Ruth of Japan"? He doesn't even get his own nickname, he's just said to be Japan's version of Babe Ruth.That is how great Babe Ruth is...
there are literally millions of people who know infinitely more about baseball than you do who disagree with you because they all recognize Ruth as the greatest player of all time in his sport.
This is my last post on the subject so it doesn't drive people away, but once again you are confusing concepts. Being recognized internationally is not the same as being the best at an international level. The fact that he is so popular internationally without haveing competed internationally makes him a good celebrity, very good IMO. But his dominance came solely in America and for the purposes of this draft he falls below a lot of the internationally competing athletes.And BL, the Eastern half of Russia is Asia and they are very big hockey fans/players.
you really are missing the point...Babe Ruth IS the greatest player in the history of baseball, period.
One more post...Larry, I completely agree that Ruth is the greatest player in the history of baseball, you still don't get that even though I've said it before several times.Baseball was not an international sport then, he didn't compete in an international league. He was the best ever in his sport in which, at the time, only half a continent truly and deeply cared about. It's grown infinitely since, which makes him a celebrity, but doesn't make him a great international athlete.
it doesn't say "the greatest athletes who competed in international competitions". It says "the greatest athletes in history from a global perspective" and since everyone who plays the game thinks he is the greatest ever, I'd say he more than qualifies....
honestly, misfitblondes was always going to rank me 20th in his categories no matter who I picked, I knew that before the draft started, so I don't really care where he ranks me...and as far as sweeney's arguments go, tim, you realize they are completely in opposition to your own arguments, right?You argued Ruth doesn't matter and isn't known internationally... Sweeney is simply arguing that he didn't compete internationally...Neither is relevant since neither is required to be great, but that isn't the point here...
I think this is really unfair to Misfit Blondes, Larry. I have full confidence that he and all the judges will be completely impartial. If I were you and I believed otherwise, I never would have participated in this draft.Sweeney's arguments aren't contradictory to mine, they're simply different to mine, in addition to mine, and quite possibly better than mine. They serve to strengthen my overall evaluation of the selection.
tim...your argument is that Ruth isn't known worldwide...Sweeneys is that, although Ruth was known worldwide and was and is considered the greatest of all time in his sport, he never actually played international competition...Thus, Sweeney has stated that your argument is false in making his claim. Thus, although he agrees with your evaluation, he has stated numerous times that your reasoning was false.Either way, I think you all are crazy if you don't think the athlete who is almost unanimously considered the greatest player to ever play a game that is going to soon be the second most popular sport on earth is not deserving of being in the top 20 athletes of all time...PLUS he isn't just the greatest at his sport, he's also the one who MADE the sport. Like the quote I quoted last page said "Babe Ruth IS baseball".
This is a good, convincing argument. Taken in conjunction with Larry's arguments, perhaps I am wrong. We'll see what Misfit Blondes thinks and eventually, what the FFA thinks.
The telegraph was in most homes throughout the world? The telegraph was similar to that of fax machines vs. telephones. Nearly everyone had/has a telephone yet many fewer people had fax machines. Many, maybe the majority of households had radios... corporations, I assume, media outlets, had the telegraph capabilities.
This is one big reason why I do not understand the love of the Gretzky pick. He was a good hockey player, but who knows him? I won't rank who has been picked but if Gretzky falls outside of the top 10, I would not be surprised.
Actually, there is and has been plenty of debate on the question. I happen to agree, as do many, but your pretentiousness detracts from the point. FWIW, I'd probably rank Ruth above Gretzky in the category, but I'm not the judge.
Exactly why he makes a much, much better celebrity than athlete. He was dominant in a sport while competing only against one nation's players. Most everyone else was competing in an international sport and was the best vs much higher percentage of the world's players.
Your post mentioned homes throughout the world? I don't see it in there. I'm pretty sure that the telegraph made radio and mail not the only ways news traveled. Maybe in Europe and USA most homes had radios but that was certainly not true throughout the world.
News travels quickly to the masses through mass communication efforts. While newspapers are good, they do not hit the masses right away. It takes time to report, type, print, distribute. The telegraph takes time to report, type up, deliver. The radio is report, talk which distributes the news. The radio cut out much of the time the other popular methods had to have... similar with the mail. I don't see how you are arguing the fact that radio, once in the hands of the masses, did not distribute the news, information, entertainment, much quicker than that of those other methods. If that is not what you are arguing, then what are you arguing?
Mad Sweeney - on the previous page you were making a case Watt should be a top 3 inventor (actually, if I am reading it correctly, you think he goes ahead of Edison and Tesla to #1). My research gave me a very different view of Watt.Watt's improved machine operated at very low pressures, relying on the power of the atmosphere - acting on a vacuum created by condensing steam - to do the work. They were, in fact, atmospheric engines rather than true steam engines. While the condenser idea is his alone, and sealing the top of the cylinder allowed for a far more efficient and powerful engine than the Newcomen engine, the real leap forward came when his patents expired. The future of the steam engine was high pressure steam - which does not use a condenser - that made the locomotive possible.
I'm not arguing anything, I was asking where the telegraph fit into your model of news only being distributed by mail and radio for many years, newspapers hadn't even occured to me. Then you went on some offensive about radios in most homes as if I had challenged something that didn't even appear in your post. So yes, I will just agree with you that other than telegraph and newspapers (and the telephone), mail and radio (in the homes that actually had it) were, for a goodly amount of time, the only ways news got around. I don't know why you'd be so down on telegraph anyways since Marconi worked with telegraphs a lot.
Just to add a con argument to the Ruth debate - he was dominant while competing against one nation's white players.When you look at how many great African-American and Latino superstar players followed Jackie into MLB, it almost taints the baseball records set before the color line was broken. XX% of the best players weren't allowed to compete.
Are you serious? It is completely unfair, and insulting even, to suggest Misfit will automatically rank your pick last. You're a real trip Larry.
Excellent point, and one that's been totally ignored in this draft. In fact, you could draft the next 9 greatest players in soccer's long history and make a very good argument that they + Pele would qualify for the top ten on this list ahead of everyone else selected thus far.
This has nothing to do with the Russell/Chamberlain argument. Which by the way, I feel strongly that it favors Chamberlain over Russell. I don't look at championships as a be-all in greatness.This has to do with Jordan being better than Chamberlain, Russell, Bird, Magic, etc.To think that Jordan is not the greatest basketball player takes some very homerish glasses.Yeah, you Celtic fans will never respect whom I talking about, despite the fact that he was far and away better than your greatest player ever. If the person I'm speaking of had been a Celtic, he would have had all those rings.
I wouldn't say that. I'm not a huge Wilt fan, I didn't start watching basketball till he was long gone. I'm actually more of a Jordan fan. But I think Wilt's numbers are Ruth like and actually more dominant than Michael. I think a very good objective argument can be made that Wilt is the best player of all time, and I believe it to be true.This has nothing to do with the Russell/Chamberlain argument. Which by the way, I feel strongly that it favors Chamberlain over Russell. I don't look at championships as a be-all in greatness.This has to do with Jordan being better than Chamberlain, Russell, Bird, Magic, etc.To think that Jordan is not the greatest basketball player takes some very homerish glasses.Yeah, you Celtic fans will never respect whom I talking about, despite the fact that he was far and away better than your greatest player ever. If the person I'm speaking of had been a Celtic, he would have had all those rings.
Okay, so I know you don't think he should be drafted, but if you believe him to be the greatest of all time, it's not inconceivable someone else feels the same way and is thus considering him. So, big time spotlighting here.I wouldn't say that. I'm not a huge Wilt fan, I didn't start watching basketball till he was long gone. I'm actually more of a Jordan fan. But I think Wilt's numbers are Ruth like and actually more dominant than Michael. I think a very good objective argument can be made that Wilt is the best player of all time, and I believe it to be true.This has nothing to do with the Russell/Chamberlain argument. Which by the way, I feel strongly that it favors Chamberlain over Russell. I don't look at championships as a be-all in greatness.This has to do with Jordan being better than Chamberlain, Russell, Bird, Magic, etc.To think that Jordan is not the greatest basketball player takes some very homerish glasses.Yeah, you Celtic fans will never respect whom I talking about, despite the fact that he was far and away better than your greatest player ever. If the person I'm speaking of had been a Celtic, he would have had all those rings.
I know, I know, but it's a little late in the day. I hinted, then Moops threw his name out. Look, it's better for the entire draft that nobody chooses this guy, OK? I don't want anybody to have a poor score. I want everyone to do well. So please draft someone other than Wilt Chamberlain, OK? If you think I've destroyed the integrity of the draft now, so be it.
Do I think you've destroyed the integrity of the draft? #### no. I'm just calling you on something that you regularly call others on. I couldn't care less about spotlighting to be honest.
ok, maybe last is a bit unfair, but that's only because misfits isn't dumb enough to actually do that...But misfits is definately going to rank my picks lower because I picked them than he would had someone else picked them...
A little bit of a psychological ploy here...1. Misfit is going to rank me low because he doesn't like me.ok, maybe last is a bit unfair, but that's only because misfits isn't dumb enough to actually do that...But misfits is definately going to rank my picks lower because I picked them than he would had someone else picked them...
I expected it coming in, no biggie... like I said, I don't care...
I suggest you read up on the history of baseball a little.
Agreed. Ruth was a tremendous athlete in his time and era. Everyone knows about the homeruns and hitting, sure, but did you know he was a starting pitcher for a World Series championship team? Not only was he in the Red Sox rotation, he had under a 3.00 ERA for the playoffs. That's just astounding.That's like A-Rod, fed on hot dogs and beer instead of roids, both hitting 50+ homeruns for the year, and being the best Yankees pitcher throughout the playoffs. It's unheard of. Even for the circumstances of Ruth's era, it was still unheard of. The guy was a tremendous athlete.He's the Gretzky of baseball.
I don't care what you say about me, just so you spell my name right.
I grew up in Australia and if you asked me to name 1 baseball player it would have been Babe RuthThe only other names that would even be considered would be Joe Di Maggio, Micky Mantle and Cal Ripken Jr.Most Australians would probably have heard of Babe Ruth. Ask them to name 3 Baseballers and unless they currently follow Baseball, Babe Ruth would definitely be in the list. Internationally.Basketball = Jordan, Magic & BirdBaseball = Babe RuthHockey = GretzkyCricket = BradmanSoccer = Pele, Beckham or XXXX
Timschochet made a passing reference earlier in the thread about Kistallnacht, the night of broken glass. In a coordinated attack on Jewish people and their property, 91 Jews were murdered and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and deported to concentration camps. More than 200 synagogues were destroyed and thousands of homes and businesses were ransacked.Max Schmeling agreed to hide the two teenage sons of a Jewish friend of his, David Lewin, November 9-10, 1938 when Nazi pogroms against the Jews reached new heights. He kept the Lewin boys, Henry and Werner, in his apartment at the Excelsior Hotel in Berlin, leaving word at the desk that he was ill and no one was to visit him.
The name Joe Louis might have been a name 30 years ago, but now ask someone to anme a boxer anda) It will depend what country they are fromand b it is almost certainly likely to be Ali or Tyson.A boxing fan knows who Joe Louis is, the man in the street not so much.
And this is why Bradman SHOULD score VERY high.The dominant player by a country mile in a sport with a large population of the world to draw from.
There is no sane argument about Bradman not being #1 and he has a larger population base than Baseball to draw from.I think the pick of Ruth is fine, but he is not the greatest player in Baseball history, just the most well known.
like Cricket
You have to look at what their world reknown was in their time.Some 25-30 year old came in here last week (I forget who it was) and made the preposterous argument with Doug B that Jackie O wasn't a big celebrity.There was no more famous 'reluctant celebrity' before her, but his contention was someone of a certain age (30 and under or some silly number) wouldn't know her if they saw her picture. The logic is absurd. It's not about who is recognizable or famous for today only.
