World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[Uncle Humuna]

on an artistic level, yes... He does...He considers playing rock music inferior to playing other styles of music and he makes it clear with his ranking...

From 1st hand experience, I'll tell you straight up, I can play the music of Elton John, The Beatles, The Stones, etc. (most of their songs, I could probably sit down and play by ear, just from hearing them so many times).On the flip side, I could practice 8 hours a day for the next 10 years, and never even hope to come close to being able to play like Franz Liszt or Art Tatum.

It's not that you couldn't; it's that you prefer to have fun and rock out!

My liver hurts . . .

 

[Uncle Humuna]

...but head to head in matchups, the bottom 10 is cleaning the clock of most of the top 10. Especially the very bottom.

Based on what criteria?

Internet users glancing at two lists for 0.3 seconds and then making a decision on how to vote, e.g., iconography.ETA: Not just this category, but in several, name recognition will win the popular vote. Judging is for the seeds only.

Ah.I get it.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

on an artistic level, yes... He does...He considers playing rock music inferior to playing other styles of music and he makes it clear with his ranking...

From 1st hand experience, I'll tell you straight up, I can play the music of Elton John, The Beatles, The Stones, etc. (most of their songs, I could probably sit down and play by ear, just from hearing them so many times).On the flip side, I could practice 8 hours a day for the next 10 years, and never even hope to come close to being able to play like Franz Liszt or Art Tatum.

I could go outside and ask everyone I come up to if they've ever heard of Frank Liszt and I'm not sure I'd ever stop asking...I'd be surprised if the first person I asked didn't know who Elton John, the Beatles, and the Stones are...popularity means something in music, i think...(especially when the gap is that large... I mean, maybe someone should have picked David since, supposedly, his music could cause demons to leave men... That's gotta be some real good music there...)

On this list, as was stated from the beginning, popularity is 4th.So one of the most brilliant piano players ever is less great than Britney Spears because more people know her?

on some levels... yes...How good is someone who plays music if no one hears them?How good of a painter is someone if no one ever sees their work?he made popularity 4th in his judging, but it doesn't make sense to disregard popularity like that in reality... without some popularity, we wouldn't know who any of those people are...

I actually completely agree with you.That's why I included popularity as a criteria and didn't completely disregard it.

 

[mad sweeney]

on an artistic level, yes... He does...

He considers playing rock music inferior to playing other styles of music and he makes it clear with his ranking...

From 1st hand experience, I'll tell you straight up, I can play the music of Elton John, The Beatles, The Stones, etc. (most of their songs, I could probably sit down and play by ear, just from hearing them so many times).On the flip side, I could practice 8 hours a day for the next 10 years, and never even hope to come close to being able to play like Franz Liszt or Art Tatum.

I could go outside and ask everyone I come up to if they've ever heard of Frank Liszt and I'm not sure I'd ever stop asking...I'd be surprised if the first person I asked didn't know who Elton John, the Beatles, and the Stones are...



popularity means something in music, i think...

(especially when the gap is that large... I mean, maybe someone should have picked David since, supposedly, his music could cause demons to leave men... That's gotta be some real good music there...)

On this list, as was stated from the beginning, popularity is 4th.So one of the most brilliant piano players ever is less great than Britney Spears because more people know her?

on some levels... yes...How good is someone who plays music if no one hears them?

How good of a painter is someone if no one ever sees their work?

he made popularity 4th in his judging, but it doesn't make sense to disregard popularity like that in reality... without some popularity, we wouldn't know who any of those people are...

I'm not sure how much experience you have here...

 

[Orange Crush]

Tim, you've now bumped Richelieu and Leonidas up in the Wildcard rankings. Shouldn't you be pushing down the rankings of some or all of the people they've passed? Otherwise, by the end of the week you're going to end up with a top heavy list, like your GAD wildcard scores.

If your scores were evenly distributed they'd have 630 total points. Instead they're 16 points top heavy already. You need to adjust your rankings accordingly.

 

[Orange Crush]

Current Composers Rankings. Discussion and debate is welcome until Friday evening when I will post the final rankings.

19. Andrew Lloyd Webber

He's still overrated.

20. Irving Berlin

Here's the only travishomockery in your rankings. Berlin was a brilliant composer. I think you're punishing the genre (and I can't believe I'm making a LarryBoy argument!

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

So, without getting into where the rock musicians are placed relative to anyone else; at a basic level what you are saying here is that The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, and the Grateful Dead are all "greater" bands than the Rolling Stones. The Beatles is easy, add me to the chorus who felt they should easily be number one in this category. I'd like to understand how you arrive at all the other bands being greater than the Stones though.

I based my rankings on musicianship.

I don't think that really answers the question. Based on musicianship then, what places the Beatles first in this group? Why not Zeppelin who probably had the best musicianship across the board of any of these groups?ETA: and in comparison to the Beatles it not really close.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, you've now bumped Richelieu and Leonidas up in the Wildcard rankings. Shouldn't you be pushing down the rankings of some or all of the people they've passed? Otherwise, by the end of the week you're going to end up with a top heavy list, like your GAD wildcard scores.If your scores were evenly distributed they'd have 630 total points. Instead there's a 16 points top heavy already. You need to adjust your rankings accordingly.

We'll see. I don't see how it will matter much in the long run.

 

[NCCommish]

So, without getting into where the rock musicians are placed relative to anyone else; at a basic level what you are saying here is that The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, and the Grateful Dead are all "greater" bands than the Rolling Stones. The Beatles is easy, add me to the chorus who felt they should easily be number one in this category. I'd like to understand how you arrive at all the other bands being greater than the Stones though.

I based my rankings on musicianship.

I don't think that really answers the question. Based on musicianship then, what places the Beatles first in this group? Why not Zeppelin who probably had the best musicianship across the board of any of these groups?ETA: and in comparison to the Beatles it not really close.

Seriously?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Ya'll remember this one?

Mario Kart posted his team summary after 19 rounds, including a fine bio of Marconi the camera inventor.

Quite a few of his picks were top 3 or at worst top 5 in his mind.

With 3 rounds to go, he promised two more top 5 picks he had up his sleeve - athlete and musician.

Oh we killed him all morning about that stuff.

Athlete - top 5 up my sleeve

Musicians/Performers - top 5 up my sleeve

No pressure, Mario Kart.Take your time.

So what happened?

20.20 - Alexander Karelin - Athlete

21.01 - Franz Liszt - Musician/Performer

Give it up.

Wacky rankings or not, pretty good value for the 400th and 401st draft picks.

 

[timschochet]

I have to say again that I think Gigantomachia's cavalier dismissal of Socrates and King Solomon is a big mistake. The importance of those two people is not the fact of their existence, but the writings we attribute to them: in the case of Socrates, as Plato described him, and in the case of King Solomon, The Biblical books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclisiastes. I may not be an expert like GG, but I know enough to know that all of these works are relevant enough still today that they ought to be compared to the works of the other philosophers on GG's list. Rather than spend the time making an honest comparison, he punted. To me, the question of whether or not Plato created Socrates' work and that we don't know who really wrote those three books in the Bible is completely irrelevant. Krista, to her credit, did not use such poor logic when she evaluated the works of Homer. I did not use such poor logic when I evaluated the works of Lao Tzu, and Ozymandius did not use such poor logic when he evaluated the works of Sun Tzu. The three of us did what we were supposed to do: evaluate the work, it's greatness and importance on human culture and world history. This is what Gigantomachia should have done. I'm sorry to say he blew it.

 

[mad sweeney]

Ya'll remember this one?

Mario Kart posted his team summary after 19 rounds, including a fine bio of Marconi the camera inventor.

Quite a few of his picks were top 3 or at worst top 5 in his mind.

With 3 rounds to go, he promised two more top 5 picks he had up his sleeve - athlete and musician.

Oh we killed him all morning about that stuff.

Athlete - top 5 up my sleeve

Musicians/Performers - top 5 up my sleeve

No pressure, Mario Kart.Take your time.

So what happened?

20.20 - Alexander Karelin - Athlete

21.01 - Franz Liszt - Musician/Performer

Give it up.

Wacky rankings or not, pretty good value for the 400th and 401st draft picks.

Karelin's a little high rated for my taste but he's definitely a top 7-8 guy IMO, great picks.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

So, without getting into where the rock musicians are placed relative to anyone else; at a basic level what you are saying here is that The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, and the Grateful Dead are all "greater" bands than the Rolling Stones. The Beatles is easy, add me to the chorus who felt they should easily be number one in this category. I'd like to understand how you arrive at all the other bands being greater than the Stones though.

I based my rankings on musicianship.

I don't think that really answers the question. Based on musicianship then, what places the Beatles first in this group? Why not Zeppelin who probably had the best musicianship across the board of any of these groups?ETA: and in comparison to the Beatles it not really close.

Seriously?

Taking everything out of the picture but musicianship, Zeppelin is pretty clearly ahead IMO. George Harrison is the strong card in the Beatles line-up, and he's not in the same class as Jimmy Page. John Paul Jones would probably be the next in line based on musicianship alone after Page and Harrison. Then you have John Bonham vs. Ringo Starr. I don't think anything needs to be said about that. Now, I don't agree that this is the correct way to evaluate these groups, which is the point I'm really trying to get out.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I'd like to offer an opinion if I may. (Bugger off to the first person who says I may not.)

I've noticed that a lot of the categories were set up so people could just Google "world's greatest X" and select the next highest person, search wiki for a quick write up and post it. Since people didn't know a lot about some of these people, major arguments were not made with regards to rankings. When it came to the Athletes, everyone knew all (or most) of the names and it became a case of personal preference with how they should be ranked. Some people absolutely despised my rankings, some had minor complaints and others were satisfied with the effort I put forth. The level of comfort people have/had in certain categories really shows when it comes to the passion they appeared to put into their arguments.

I really enjoyed ranking both categories (final Composers list will be posted Friday evening) and would like to thank everyone who participated in the draft and the discussions in this thread.

Ozy said it a little differently earlier with an analogy I have often heard.

Propose a $20 million capital investment project for a power plant (or anything highly technical) and as long as you offer a perfunctory presentation it will get rubber stamped approval from the board of directors.

Go before that same group with a request for a $250K parking lot, and you'll get besieged with questions. What kind of lighting will be used? How many reserved spaces for Directors and above? How wide are the spaces? etc.

Why?

Because nobody understands a power plant, but everybody thinks they know parking lots.

 

[timschochet]

Furthermore I have found an interesting contradiction. Here is what Wiki says about Confucius:



His teachings may be found in the Analects of Confucius (論語), a collection of "brief aphoristic fragments", which was compiled many years after his death. Modern historians do not believe that any specific documents can be said to have been written by Confucius,[5][6] but for nearly 2,000 years he was thought to be the editor or author of all the Five Classics[7][8] such as the Classic of Rites (editor), and the Spring and Autumn Annals (春秋) (author).

So apparently we don't know whether or not Confucius wrote his stuff either, yet Gigantomachia does not apply here the same stringent rules. Why is this?

 

[higgins]

UH, I think you did a great job on the rankings.

I do have one minor beef with the McLaughlin slot, however -- ranked right above him (BB King) is a guitarist that publicly admitted (on 'Rattle and Hum').... that he couldn't play chords...that his fingers were so fat, that he literally couldn't play chords.

Now I ask you: should a guitarist that can (and has) mastered a kajillionteen different types of music be ranked behind a guitarist who admits he can't even play chords? If BB King was alone in the blues category (without the JL Hookers, Robert Johnsons, Buddy Guys or Robert Crays of the world), I'd agree with you...but he's not....while McLaughlin for the most part stands alone at the top in his musical genre. I can certainly understand rating Miles or The Beatles above him....but a guitarist who admittedly can't play chords?!?!? Over McLaughlin of all people?!?!? And BB plays one type of music only, while McL is the master of a kajillionteen.

I humbly request that you re-think this because the irony is seriously grating on me. TIA.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I have to say again that I think Gigantomachia's cavalier dismissal of Socrates and King Solomon is a big mistake. The importance of those two people is not the fact of their existence, but the writings we attribute to them: in the case of Socrates, as Plato described him, and in the case of King Solomon, The Biblical books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclisiastes. I may not be an expert like GG, but I know enough to know that all of these works are relevant enough still today that they ought to be compared to the works of the other philosophers on GG's list. Rather than spend the time making an honest comparison, he punted. To me, the question of whether or not Plato created Socrates' work and that we don't know who really wrote those three books in the Bible is completely irrelevant. Krista, to her credit, did not use such poor logic when she evaluated the works of Homer. I did not use such poor logic when I evaluated the works of Lao Tzu, and Ozymandius did not use such poor logic when he evaluated the works of Sun Tzu. The three of us did what we were supposed to do: evaluate the work, it's greatness and importance on human culture and world history. This is what Gigantomachia should have done. I'm sorry to say he blew it.

It's truly a shame for HERBERT and LB. I thought both made solid choices; I wasn't sure where they would end up, but never in a million years would I have thought that Socrates was going to be 19th. Solomon was more of a risk but I thought it was an inspired choice (no pun intended). Quite unfair to see that kind of inconsistency.

 

[timschochet]

Furthermore, let's look at what is said about Democritus:

His exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from his mentor Leucippus, as they are often mentioned together in texts

Gee, that sounds just like what GG is saying about Socrates and Plato, except that he's got Democritus ranked above Socrates. Apparently for whatever reason, Democritus is worth actually comparing to other philosophers, while Socrates is not.

And here's what we know about Epicurus, whom GG also ranks above Socrates and King Solomon:

Only a few fragments and letters remain of Epicurus's 300 written works. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[higgins]

Furthermore, let's look at what is said about Democritus:

His exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from his mentor Leucippus, as they are often mentioned together in texts

Gee, that sounds just like what GG is saying about Socrates and Plato, except that he's got Democritus ranked above Socrates. Apparently for whatever reason, Democritus is worth actually comparing to other philosophers, while Socrates is not.

And here's what we know about Epicurus, whom GG also ranks above Socrates and King Solomon:

Only a few fragments and letters remain of Epicurus's 300 written works. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators.

What's wrong with this picture?

I don't know what made me think of this...but: how would Studs & Duds say what you just said?

 

[timschochet]

So it seems to me that if Gigantomachia were being truly consistent, he would have to rank Confucius, Democritus, Epicurus, Socrates, and King Solomon all tied for 20, with nothing to distinguish between them. After all, we really are unsure about the historical accuracy of ANY of these guys.

On the other hand, if he's going to judge the work of any of these guys, he really ought to judge the works of all of them.

 

[Abrantes]

So it seems to me that if Gigantomachia were being truly consistent, he would have to rank Confucius, Democritus, Epicurus, Socrates, and King Solomon all tied for 20, with nothing to distinguish between them. After all, we really are unsure about the historical accuracy of ANY of these guys.

On the other hand, if he's going to judge the work of any of these guys, he really ought to judge the works of all of them.

You shut up now!

 

[BobbyLayne]

So it seems to me that if Gigantomachia were being truly consistent, he would have to rank Confucius, Democritus, Epicurus, Socrates, and King Solomon all tied for 20, with nothing to distinguish between them. After all, we really are unsure about the historical accuracy of ANY of these guys. On the other hand, if he's going to judge the work of any of these guys, he really ought to judge the works of all of them.

Good work on this tonight.OK...I don't want to beat this to death, we'll just move forward...but one last point - I honestly did not understand his defensive reaction when you asked about Aristotle. While admittedly I am no philosophy expert, to say Aristotelian philosophy is essentially the same as Platonism makes no sense.

 

[rodg12]

I'd like to offer an opinion if I may. (Bugger off to the first person who says I may not.)I've noticed that a lot of the categories were set up so people could just Google "world's greatest X" and select the next highest person, search wiki for a quick write up and post it. Since people didn't know a lot about some of these people, major arguments were not made with regards to rankings. When it came to the Athletes, everyone knew all (or most) of the names and it became a case of personal preference with how they should be ranked. Some people absolutely despised my rankings, some had minor complaints and others were satisfied with the effort I put forth. The level of comfort people have/had in certain categories really shows when it comes to the passion they appeared to put into their arguments.I really enjoyed ranking both categories (final Composers list will be posted Friday evening) and would like to thank everyone who participated in the draft and the discussions in this thread.

This is spot on. I mean, this is a fantasy football message board after all so most of the people on here are going to be sports enthusiasts. Ergo, these athletes rankings would come under the most scrutiny and therefore be the hardest to judge. I've disagreed with some of your rankings of the athletes, but I did want to say I give you props for doing it. Not an easy job at all.

 

[Orange Crush]

I was once in lust with this girl named Nikki, but she said we were strictly platonic. I hate that Plato guy.

 

[timschochet]

I'm willing to bet right now that no one seeded higher then 8 wins this thing. And it won't be close either. Most of the judges that have been "off" have been so far off as to be almost upside down. At this point a bowling score is better then a golf score in these things.Not attacking anyone in a mean spirited way - most of the judges were up front with their "criteria." But overall I have no doubt that a lower seed is money going into the voting. And I didn't come close to feeling that way in the GAD.

I would agree with this, except for one thing: Doug B is ranked 1st, and probably will end up that way, or at least in top 3. And as for the FFA voting:George WashingtonOrwellLouis ArmstrongRembrandtMichelangeloAquinasKing DavidJulius CaesarThe two artists alone are going to make him difficult to defeat.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

I think the disconnect here is that you think I am judging the music, I'm notI'm judging the muscian.(If Jimi Hendrix had been picked, he would have been high in the rankings)

I understand what you are doing...

Your previous post contradicts this:

He considers playing rock music inferior to playing other styles of music and he makes it clear with his ranking...

 

[Mario Kart]

1) Franz Liszt2) Jascha Heifetz 3) Enrico Caruso4) Luciano Pavarotti5) Art Tatum6) Louis Armstrong7) Yo Yo Ma8) Frank Sinatra9) Miles Davis10) The Beatles11) B.B. King12) John McLaughlin13) Frank Zappa14) Led Zeppelin15) Queen16) Pink Floyd17) The Grateful Dead18) The Rolling Stones19) Elton John20) U2

One of the more accurate lists by any judge. Great job Uncle Humuna.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

So, without getting into where the rock musicians are placed relative to anyone else; at a basic level what you are saying here is that The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, and the Grateful Dead are all "greater" bands than the Rolling Stones. The Beatles is easy, add me to the chorus who felt they should easily be number one in this category. I'd like to understand how you arrive at all the other bands being greater than the Stones though.

I based my rankings on musicianship.

I don't think that really answers the question. Based on musicianship then, what places the Beatles first in this group? Why not Zeppelin who probably had the best musicianship across the board of any of these groups?ETA: and in comparison to the Beatles it not really close.

Vocals were included.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

UH, I think you did a great job on the rankings.

I do have one minor beef with the McLaughlin slot, however -- ranked right above him (BB King) is a guitarist that publicly admitted (on 'Rattle and Hum').... that he couldn't play chords...that his fingers were so fat, that he literally couldn't play chords.

Now I ask you: should a guitarist that can (and has) mastered a kajillionteen different types of music be ranked behind a guitarist who admits he can't even play chords? If BB King was alone in the blues category (without the JL Hookers, Robert Johnsons, Buddy Guys or Robert Crays of the world), I'd agree with you...but he's not....while McLaughlin for the most part stands alone at the top in his musical genre. I can certainly understand rating Miles or The Beatles above him....but a guitarist who admittedly can't play chords?!?!? Over McLaughlin of all people?!?!? And BB plays one type of music only, while McL is the master of a kajillionteen.

I humbly request that you re-think this because the irony is seriously grating on me. TIA.

Honestly, I had a hard time ranking McLaughlin.Technically, I know he is top notch.

But technical ability is only 2nd on my criteria list.

1st is the ability to "emote".

I know this is a bit abstract, but for further clarification, please see B.B. King.

B.B. is also at least McLaughlin's equal in influence, and definitely far out measures him in popularity.

eta -> Also, I think there are some other jazz guitarists who would be ranked ahead of McLaughlin (Django, Wes Montomery, Charlie Christian to name a few).

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think the disconnect here is that you think I am judging the music, I'm notI'm judging the muscian.(If Jimi Hendrix had been picked, he would have been high in the rankings)

I understand what you are doing...

Your previous post contradicts this:

He considers playing rock music inferior to playing other styles of music and he makes it clear with his ranking...

no, it doesn't...you think that a rock musician is less of a musician than a classical musician... You showed that...And that's fine, I understand how someone can see things that way... and maybe on some levels they are correct...but at the same time, I'd much rather listen to the rock music than the classical... (as would you, seemingly)

 

[TwinTurbo]

Leaders Judge- flysack

1. Augustus Caesar

2. Constantine

3. George Washington

4. Ashoka The Great

5. Charlemagne

6. Peter The Great

7. Ramses The Great

8. Suleiman

9. Qin Shi Huang

10. Cyrus The Great

11. Abraham Lincoln

12.Marcus Aurelius

13.King Louis XIV

14.Anwar Sadat

15. Franklin D. Roosevelt

16. Kublai Khan

17.Jawalhawal Nehru

18. David Ben Gurion

19. William The Conqueror

20. Mao ZeDong

Ok so I already gave my glowing assessment of LB's squad on page 176 of this thread, but I also feel the need to comment on the Leaders ranking. I would submit to the Judges that King Louis XIV at pick 13.2 was one of the steals of the draft. Sure it's easy to hate on the French but the Sun King was one of the few leaders in the history of mankind that could sport tights with an ermine lined robe and still kick ### and look good doing it. He was one of the greatest Kings that ever lived when it came to actually acting like a King. And unlike Napolean, he was tall enough to ride the wave of success for an epic 72 year reign, longer than any other leader on that list. He was sporting the crown by the time he was five. Plus if the Man in the Iron Mask story was a myth rooted in truth, then maybe there was really two of him. But while a twin may be a mere legend, no one can dispute that he played his enemies and rivals off each other masterfully, broke their power, and ushered in the golden age of the French empire. He was the very definition of absolute monarch. He didn't exactly finish strong but France is still living off his accomplishments some 300 years later. And his blood still runs in the veins of the current Spanish monarchy and King of Spain. So Spain continues to get pwned by this guy to this day. Plus Remy Martin named some pretty awesome Cognac after his dad. A Royal drink indeed. I would definitely move Louis XIV up the list and argue that he's borderline top 10 material along with Sulieman and Cyrus the Great.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

no, it doesn't...you think that a rock musician is less of a musician than a classical musician... You showed that...

I could easily see how someone might come to your conclusion (that I consider "playing rock music inferior to playing other styles of music")if only presented with the minimal data included in my ranking of the 20 drafted musicians.I offered you some additional data though (by giving an example of a rock musician that would have ranked highly if he had been selected), in order to show you that your conclusion was incorrect.The reality is, I was not judging the selections based on style of music, but rather on the musician's own merits. It just so happens that none of the rock musicians selected rank highly when using my judging criteria.eta-> FYI, if you had just selected Freddie Mercury, I probably would have ranked him higher than I ranked Queen, but I had to rank Queen as a group, not solely on Mecury's merits.

I'd much rather listen to the rock music than the classical... (as would you, seemingly)

It's true. But my preference in music has no bearing on the ranking of the musicianship of the artist.(It doesn't even have a bearing on the ranking of the greatness of the music itself).

 

[Gigantomachia]

I have to say again that I think Gigantomachia's cavalier dismissal of Socrates and King Solomon is a big mistake. The importance of those two people is not the fact of their existence, but the writings we attribute to them: in the case of Socrates, as Plato described him, and in the case of King Solomon, The Biblical books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclisiastes. I may not be an expert like GG, but I know enough to know that all of these works are relevant enough still today that they ought to be compared to the works of the other philosophers on GG's list. Rather than spend the time making an honest comparison, he punted. To me, the question of whether or not Plato created Socrates' work and that we don't know who really wrote those three books in the Bible is completely irrelevant. Krista, to her credit, did not use such poor logic when she evaluated the works of Homer. I did not use such poor logic when I evaluated the works of Lao Tzu, and Ozymandius did not use such poor logic when he evaluated the works of Sun Tzu. The three of us did what we were supposed to do: evaluate the work, it's greatness and importance on human culture and world history. This is what Gigantomachia should have done. I'm sorry to say he blew it.

I explained Socrates in detail. Many scholars are beginning to rethink Socrates as a philosophical figure, the fact that you are behind the curve is a matter of choice, not necessity. The bottom line is that the philosophers I posted ahead of Soc and Sol can at least be credited with some extent without need of going through another individual. Solomon is simply a mystical figure whose existence remains unverifiable outside of biblical accounts.Again, this was the best philosophers and I counted them as such. Your claim about logic is silly considering how you are trying to use it. But this America where every opinion is worth something, unfortunately. Sorry to say, on this subject yours is not worth much, i.e, your blowing it.

 

[Gigantomachia]

So it seems to me that if Gigantomachia were being truly consistent, he would have to rank Confucius, Democritus, Epicurus, Socrates, and King Solomon all tied for 20, with nothing to distinguish between them. After all, we really are unsure about the historical accuracy of ANY of these guys. On the other hand, if he's going to judge the work of any of these guys, he really ought to judge the works of all of them.

Good work on this tonight.OK...I don't want to beat this to death, we'll just move forward...but one last point - I honestly did not understand his defensive reaction when you asked about Aristotle. While admittedly I am no philosophy expert, to say Aristotelian philosophy is essentially the same as Platonism makes no sense.

It makes complete sense. What Aristotle did was essential agree that the forms provide us knowledge of the world, he simply stated that those forms are giving to us through experience rather than birth. When you really read the Greek and work with how he does this, it actually fails. What most fail to realize was that western thought essential ignored Aristotle until Aquinas reintroduced him so as to support the budding field of science. Any good scientist can tell you Aristotle sucked at it. So you should really question how he allowed Aquinas to support his ideals, which many will point out was because sounds different from Plato on the surface, but anyone who studies this in detail without traditional blinders on can see that I can do everything with Plato that I can do with Aristotle. Besides, the coward fled Athens when he was threatened by the populace, so he couldn't have been that great.ETA: Also, I stated that I am judging on depth and range of philosophical thought, something I just don't see in Solomon and Aristotle up against Plato suffers a similar blow. Couple this with the range and depth of thinkers such as Soren and Wittgenstein and I think Aristotle is right where he should be. And all I really know about Socrates is that he is dead.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

OK, a couple of adjustments.John Madden's Lunchbox made an excellent argument for Harry Truman. I think he went overboard; I don't think Truman belongs in the 1st tier. But he certainly doesn't belong in the third tier, either. I'm moving Truman to the 2nd tier and giving him 13 points.

Thank You.What about Marie Curie?By the way this will probably be the nicest post I make all day

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Current Composers Rankings. Discussion and debate is welcome until Friday evening when I will post the final rankings.

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven

3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

4. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

5. Richard Wagner

6. Johannes Brahms

7. Igor Stravinsky

8. Joseph Haydn

9. Franz Schubert

10. George Frideric Handel

11. Frederic Chopin

12. Antonio Vivaldi

13. Antonin Dvorak

14. John Williams

15. Modest Mussorgsky

16. Edward Elgar

17. Johann Strauss II

18. Georg Philipp Telemann

19. Andrew Lloyd Webber

20. Irving Berlin

02. Johann Sebastian Bach

See, this pisses me off more than any other ranking (And you’re about to see that I’m reasonably pissed off)Irving Berlin at 20 is ridiculous. He’s a better composer than a lot of the boring old fart composers and to put Andrew Lloyd-Webber ahead of him is liking taking a dump over his face.

Even if he was at 19 and Lloyd-Webber was behind him I could live with it, not be happy mind you, but live with it.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Current Composers Rankings. Discussion and debate is welcome until Friday evening when I will post the final rankings.

19. Andrew Lloyd Webber

He's still overrated.

20. Irving Berlin

Here's the only travishomockery in your rankings. Berlin was a brilliant composer. I think you're punishing the genre (and I can't believe I'm making a LarryBoy argument!

This guy knows things

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

To be fair to UH, he stated his criteria at the beginning of the draft. But as I wrote then, those were his criteria, not mine. In the third post, I wrote:

12. Musicians/Performers The greatest performers of music in world history. For this category and this category alone I will allow more than one person to be drafted at once; I am thinking specifically of modern rock bands.

My intention here was pretty clear to everyone. I was aware that the "composers" category would be completely dominated by classical music. I wanted to have modern, popular music as well. I think Uncle Humuna chose to take me more literally than I intended.

The problem was that I’d already picked based on your criteria.Can I move Vaclav Havel to Musician/Performer and the Beatles to wild card?

As for the Beatles ranking I’ve been well and truly shafted here.

I was the only one to pick before the unusual guidelines for ranking these were made and they differ greatly from what was written by timschochet in his guide. Tim’s instruction was basically inviting the selection of Rock Groups to be included, Uncle H’s interpretation is looking for skill.

So I personally think the ranking of 10 is a ####### joke. May as well make it 20.

If I had known what the criteria were I would never wasted my 2nd pick (when many BIG BIG names were still on the board) on the Beatles and would have instead chosen someone who could play the nose flute like a demon.

It’s like picking Adrian Peterson and then being told RB’s get 1 point for a touchdown and 1 point for 100 rushing yards, while a WR gets 10 points for a TD and 1 point per 10 receiving yards after I’ve already drafted Peterson.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Current Composers Rankings. Discussion and debate is welcome until Friday evening when I will post the final rankings.

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven

3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

4. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

5. Richard Wagner

6. Johannes Brahms

7. Igor Stravinsky

8. Joseph Haydn

9. Franz Schubert

10. George Frideric Handel

11. Frederic Chopin

12. Antonio Vivaldi

13. Antonin Dvorak

14. John Williams

15. Modest Mussorgsky

16. Edward Elgar

17. Johann Strauss II

18. Georg Philipp Telemann

19. Andrew Lloyd Webber

20. Irving Berlin

02. Johann Sebastian Bach

These artistic categories aren't worth the time we put into them. The judging has been close to awful.ETA: My intended sarcasm didn't quite shine in the above. These rankings are fairly accurate I guess. HAving been trained in classical music I can attest that a few of the guys here that given credit just because they are classical, in actuality, suck. But this was a good job of judging and shows how bad some of the other judges did in the artistic type categories.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have to say again that I think Gigantomachia's cavalier dismissal of Socrates and King Solomon is a big mistake. The importance of those two people is not the fact of their existence, but the writings we attribute to them: in the case of Socrates, as Plato described him, and in the case of King Solomon, The Biblical books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclisiastes. I may not be an expert like GG, but I know enough to know that all of these works are relevant enough still today that they ought to be compared to the works of the other philosophers on GG's list. Rather than spend the time making an honest comparison, he punted. To me, the question of whether or not Plato created Socrates' work and that we don't know who really wrote those three books in the Bible is completely irrelevant. Krista, to her credit, did not use such poor logic when she evaluated the works of Homer. I did not use such poor logic when I evaluated the works of Lao Tzu, and Ozymandius did not use such poor logic when he evaluated the works of Sun Tzu. The three of us did what we were supposed to do: evaluate the work, it's greatness and importance on human culture and world history. This is what Gigantomachia should have done. I'm sorry to say he blew it.

I explained Socrates in detail. Many scholars are beginning to rethink Socrates as a philosophical figure, the fact that you are behind the curve is a matter of choice, not necessity. The bottom line is that the philosophers I posted ahead of Soc and Sol can at least be credited with some extent without need of going through another individual. Solomon is simply a mystical figure whose existence remains unverifiable outside of biblical accounts.Again, this was the best philosophers and I counted them as such. Your claim about logic is silly considering how you are trying to use it. But this America where every opinion is worth something, unfortunately. Sorry to say, on this subject yours is not worth much, i.e, your blowing it.

 

[Ozymandias]

Current Composers Rankings. Discussion and debate is welcome until Friday evening when I will post the final rankings.

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven

3. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

4. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

5. Richard Wagner

6. Johannes Brahms

7. Igor Stravinsky

8. Joseph Haydn

9. Franz Schubert

10. George Frideric Handel

11. Frederic Chopin

12. Antonio Vivaldi

13. Antonin Dvorak

14. John Williams

15. Modest Mussorgsky

16. Edward Elgar

17. Johann Strauss II

18. Georg Philipp Telemann

19. Andrew Lloyd Webber

20. Irving Berlin

02. Johann Sebastian Bach

These artistic categories aren't worth the time we put into them. The judging has been close to awful.

That's the problem with things that don't have a score. They become somewhat subjective, based on the mindset of the judge. It's like the difference between the 400 meters at the Olympics, and the gold medal for synchronized swimming. You know clearly who won the first. For the second, it depends on whether the judge had a bad hair day that morning.But you still can have the competition, and what you hope is that the judge sets forth clear criteria, and then sticks to it.

 

[BobbyLayne]

And all I really know about Socrates is that he is dead.

HERBERT THE HIPPO - We've identified the issue. You picked a dead guy.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

To be fair to UH, he stated his criteria at the beginning of the draft. But as I wrote then, those were his criteria, not mine. In the third post, I wrote:

12. Musicians/Performers The greatest performers of music in world history. For this category and this category alone I will allow more than one person to be drafted at once; I am thinking specifically of modern rock bands.

My intention here was pretty clear to everyone. I was aware that the "composers" category would be completely dominated by classical music. I wanted to have modern, popular music as well. I think Uncle Humuna chose to take me more literally than I intended.

The problem was that I’d already picked based on your criteria.Can I move Vaclav Havel to Musician/Performer and the Beatles to wild card?

As for the Beatles ranking I’ve been well and truly shafted here.

I was the only one to pick before the unusual guidelines for ranking these were made and they differ greatly from what was written by timschochet in his guide. Tim’s instruction was basically inviting the selection of Rock Groups to be included, Uncle H’s interpretation is looking for skill.

So I personally think the ranking of 10 is a ####### joke. May as well make it 20.

If I had known what the criteria were I would never wasted my 2nd pick (when many BIG BIG names were still on the board) on the Beatles and would have instead chosen someone who could play the nose flute like a demon.

It’s like picking Adrian Peterson and then being told RB’s get 1 point for a touchdown and 1 point for 100 rushing yards, while a WR gets 10 points for a TD and 1 point per 10 receiving yards after I’ve already drafted Peterson.

I agree with this, and UH knows that. The fact is that far too many of the judges tried to "judge" their category outside of the spirit of this entire exxercise. It's not that the popular guys aren't getting the popular spots - it's almost to the point where it looks like most of the judges are doing their lists upside down just to be fresh and controversial. This category was never about pure musicianship at all, nor was it intended to be. If it was, then there would not have been the caveat for rock and roll bands because as an animal, the rock and roll band doesn't compare to the pure musicianship of others. But that isn't point, and even saying that there are some bands - like the Beatles - who are so clear and concrete members of the top 5 here that anything less is seriously questionable.UH has been clear what he was looking for. I simply submit that what he was looking for had no place in this draft as constructed under the rules, and even if it did, his list is wrong based on his own criteria.

 

[D_House]

Man, this is some serious business in here.

 

[Thorn]

Man, this is some serious business in here.

CrankyDraft has been activated.

 

[Gigantomachia]

And all I really know about Socrates is that he is dead.

HERBERT THE HIPPO - We've identified the issue. You picked a dead guy.

:X Now let's be clear, he picked a dead guy that left no writings and who we have conflicting accounts as to the nature and abilities of this individual as such.

But is dead.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I have to say again that I think Gigantomachia's cavalier dismissal of Socrates and King Solomon is a big mistake. The importance of those two people is not the fact of their existence, but the writings we attribute to them: in the case of Socrates, as Plato described him, and in the case of King Solomon, The Biblical books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclisiastes. I may not be an expert like GG, but I know enough to know that all of these works are relevant enough still today that they ought to be compared to the works of the other philosophers on GG's list. Rather than spend the time making an honest comparison, he punted. To me, the question of whether or not Plato created Socrates' work and that we don't know who really wrote those three books in the Bible is completely irrelevant. Krista, to her credit, did not use such poor logic when she evaluated the works of Homer. I did not use such poor logic when I evaluated the works of Lao Tzu, and Ozymandius did not use such poor logic when he evaluated the works of Sun Tzu. The three of us did what we were supposed to do: evaluate the work, it's greatness and importance on human culture and world history. This is what Gigantomachia should have done. I'm sorry to say he blew it.

I explained Socrates in detail. Many scholars are beginning to rethink Socrates as a philosophical figure, the fact that you are behind the curve is a matter of choice, not necessity. The bottom line is that the philosophers I posted ahead of Soc and Sol can at least be credited with some extent without need of going through another individual. Solomon is simply a mystical figure whose existence remains unverifiable outside of biblical accounts.Again, this was the best philosophers and I counted them as such. Your claim about logic is silly considering how you are trying to use it. But this America where every opinion is worth something, unfortunately. Sorry to say, on this subject yours is not worth much, i.e, your blowing it.

:X

Well said, well spoken.Do have a sign we can carry around in front of cameras as well?

 

[flysack]

How many rock musicians will be played 50 years from now?

Well, take a look at Elvis. He wasn't even drafted.

The Beatles have stood the test of time fairly well. They may still be played 50 years from now. The others, the jury is out, but it is questionable.

Bob Dylan. His lyrics are already anthologized in The Viking Portable Beat Reader.

I know he's folk and rock, but I think both stages of his career will last.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have to say again that I think Gigantomachia's cavalier dismissal of Socrates and King Solomon is a big mistake. The importance of those two people is not the fact of their existence, but the writings we attribute to them: in the case of Socrates, as Plato described him, and in the case of King Solomon, The Biblical books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclisiastes. I may not be an expert like GG, but I know enough to know that all of these works are relevant enough still today that they ought to be compared to the works of the other philosophers on GG's list. Rather than spend the time making an honest comparison, he punted. To me, the question of whether or not Plato created Socrates' work and that we don't know who really wrote those three books in the Bible is completely irrelevant. Krista, to her credit, did not use such poor logic when she evaluated the works of Homer. I did not use such poor logic when I evaluated the works of Lao Tzu, and Ozymandius did not use such poor logic when he evaluated the works of Sun Tzu. The three of us did what we were supposed to do: evaluate the work, it's greatness and importance on human culture and world history. This is what Gigantomachia should have done. I'm sorry to say he blew it.

I explained Socrates in detail. Many scholars are beginning to rethink Socrates as a philosophical figure, the fact that you are behind the curve is a matter of choice, not necessity. The bottom line is that the philosophers I posted ahead of Soc and Sol can at least be credited with some extent without need of going through another individual. Solomon is simply a mystical figure whose existence remains unverifiable outside of biblical accounts.Again, this was the best philosophers and I counted them as such. Your claim about logic is silly considering how you are trying to use it. But this America where every opinion is worth something, unfortunately. Sorry to say, on this subject yours is not worth much, i.e, your blowing it.

:X

Well said, well spoken.Do have a sign we can carry around in front of cameras as well?

It must really bug you that someone can have absolutely no respect or admiration for your field of "study." I mean, it's so important to you that didn't even follow the rules, which shows an independent heart and spirit. Yet to not have that admired must really claw at you sometimes. Do you ever stop to think, why me? What does it all mean?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Now let's be clear, he picked a dead guy that left no writings and who we have conflicting accounts as to the nature and abilities of this individual as such.

But is dead.

The issue identified in several posts on the previous page was your inconsistency, which you chose not to address.

Furthermore I have found an interesting contradiction. Here is what Wiki says about Confucius:



His teachings may be found in the Analects of Confucius (論語), a collection of "brief aphoristic fragments", which was compiled many years after his death. Modern historians do not believe that any specific documents can be said to have been written by Confucius,[5][6] but for nearly 2,000 years he was thought to be the editor or author of all the Five Classics[7][8] such as the Classic of Rites (editor), and the Spring and Autumn Annals (春秋) (author).

So apparently we don't know whether or not Confucius wrote his stuff either, yet Gigantomachia does not apply here the same stringent rules. Why is this?

Furthermore, let's look at what is said about Democritus:

His exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from his mentor Leucippus, as they are often mentioned together in texts

Gee, that sounds just like what GG is saying about Socrates and Plato, except that he's got Democritus ranked above Socrates. Apparently for whatever reason, Democritus is worth actually comparing to other philosophers, while Socrates is not.

And here's what we know about Epicurus, whom GG also ranks above Socrates and King Solomon:

Only a few fragments and letters remain of Epicurus's 300 written works. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators.

What's wrong with this picture?

So it seems to me that if Gigantomachia were being truly consistent, he would have to rank Confucius, Democritus, Epicurus, Socrates, and King Solomon all tied for 20, with nothing to distinguish between them. After all, we really are unsure about the historical accuracy of ANY of these guys.

On the other hand, if he's going to judge the work of any of these guys, he really ought to judge the works of all of them.