What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

World's Greatest Draft (2 Viewers)

Zaxxon said:
Celebrities List1 - Princess Diana2 - Pope John Paul II3 - Elvis Presley4 - Marilyn Monroe5 - Michael Jackson6 - David Beckham7 - Madonna8 - Jackie Kennedy Onassis9 - Audrey Hepburn10 - Charlie Chaplin11 - Barack Obama12 - Lucille Ball13 - King Tutankhamun14 - John F. Kennedy15 - Manfred von Richthofen16 - Eva Peron17 - Jackie Chan18 - Hugh Hefner19 - The Virgin Mary20 - Anna Nicole Smith
Another rankings abomination. Half the people selected don't belong in this category and it was up to the judge to weed them out and place them at the bottom. FAIL!!!!
If "half the people selected" don't belong and your complaint is they didn't go to the bottom of the list, I look to the top 10 and see who you mean...Nope, everyone in the top 10 belongs. FAIL!!!!
I have no idea what this means.
 
I tend to agree. Tut should be 20th, right behind Mary. ANS at 20 is ridiculous, she's 1000 times the celebrity as Mary and should be several spots higher since the category is plum ripe with ineligibles. However, neither Tut nor Mary were celebrities. They are posthumously famous, absolutely NOT the same thing.
The original category description didn't say anything like that. When anyone thinks of Ancient Egypt, the first thing they see (after the Pyramids) is the death mask of King Tut. If the Tut relics were to make another tour of America, there would be absoulte and total coverage on Entertainment Tonight and millions would try to get tickets.If the intent was to select living or recently deceased (say past 30 years) people, then that should have been established upfront.
Yes it did. People who are recognized wherever they go. No one outside of Tuts region ever recognized him. Even less for Mary. Neither are celebrities. They are simply very famous after their death. Being famous is not the category. Being a celebrity is. Half the drafters are completely disregarding the definition if celebrity.
 
Just curious where some of these scientists would have been randed:

Dr. J. Craig Venter-mapped the human genome

Dr. Robert Gallo-one of the guys who discovered the retrovirus that causes HIV/AIDS

Alfred Russel Wallace-Also came up with the theory of evolution, but Darwin got his book published first
IMO as a biologist - Venter doesn't belong in this list. He was part of a huge collective of scientists that worked on mapping the genome. He implemented 'shotgun sequencing,' (a technique that he did not develop) to compete with the NIH's Human Genome Project, which had been ongoing for some time. Although his technique produced sequence faster, the quality of the sequence has been shown to be less than that generated by the NIH project. And he did it all with an eye on profit, as he infamously has tried multiple times to patent gene sequences. On the other hand, the goal of the NIH project was to provide a publically available tool for scientists worldwide.

Gallo- I don't know much about him, but I'd think that others that came before him in virology and apparently weren't drafted (such as Jonas Salk) would have a much better case. As with Venter, the collaborative nature of science now also hurts him, because I imagine he was not alone in this discovery.

Wallace - a good case could be made that he could be on this list, but Darwin had been developing his theory for 30 years before Wallace, ever since his trip on the HMS Beagle. And while Wallace had many of the same conclusions as Darwin, his evidence was not as complete as Darwin's. For example, Darwin quite brilliantly used domestication of animals as an example of selection, while Wallace did not. So Darwin's work was published first and had stronger evidence.

IMO I also think neither Crick nor Watson individually belong on the list. Their report of the structure of DNA was indeed a huge development, but there is significant controversy about how much of the work was their own and how much was lifted (uncredited) from the data of Rosalind Franklin. No matter what, their work was primarily theoretical and they relied heavily on the data of others (Franklin, Wilkins) and also the published failed attempts of others to devise a DNA structure (most notably Pauling). So since this was a group effort, I'd hesitate to put Crick above all others as a top 20 greatest ever scientist.

In addition to Jonas Salk, and Linus Pauling, one notable omission for me is Gregor Mendel, basically the father of genetics. All of these guys have a very strong case for being on this list.

ETA: Fleming is another choice that I think may be overrated. His biggest discovery was quite famously an accidental one, and although it resulted in penicillin, he never advanced penicillin to the point of usability in humans. That work was done by others, after he had given up. However, I understand the critical importance of his discovery in human history, so my objection is less to his selection than to his ranking.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately, I'm not going to be at a computer today long enough to debate this, but I have to say that I don't understand the Darwin ranking and love. Tim argues that his biggest influence is on religion? That's the measure of the scientist? This isn't a question about evolution (I believe in evolution). My question is why does he rank above most of the people on that list? The theory hasn't led to new inventions, cured diseases, or improved the lives of the people of the world. At best he should be 10th, but I still can't see him above Fleming, de Lavoisier or Crick.

 
I tend to agree. Tut should be 20th, right behind Mary. ANS at 20 is ridiculous, she's 1000 times the celebrity as Mary and should be several spots higher since the category is plum ripe with ineligibles. However, neither Tut nor Mary were celebrities. They are posthumously famous, absolutely NOT the same thing.
The original category description didn't say anything like that. When anyone thinks of Ancient Egypt, the first thing they see (after the Pyramids) is the death mask of King Tut. If the Tut relics were to make another tour of America, there would be absoulte and total coverage on Entertainment Tonight and millions would try to get tickets.If the intent was to select living or recently deceased (say past 30 years) people, then that should have been established upfront.
Yes it did. People who are recognized wherever they go. No one outside of Tuts region ever recognized him. Even less for Mary. Neither are celebrities. They are simply very famous after their death. Being famous is not the category. Being a celebrity is. Half the drafters are completely disregarding the definition if celebrity.
Half the drafters are completely disregarding the definition if celebrity.
HUGE EFFIN' GOLF CLAP!!!!
 
I get into arguments about this with my Jewish relatives all the time. We all know a LOT about the Holocaust, and they think that American children should as well. But though there is some complicity (as Flysack pointed out) the Holocaust did not take place in America. I would like American children to learn a little more American history. For instance, we had our own little shameful crime during World War II- the treatment of Japanese Americans. Not that this compares to the Holocaust, but it should be taught more than it is.

And I think that Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, which chronicles the treatment of the American Indians during the 19th century, should be required reading in all high schools.
Interestingly enough, my wife has taught both in NY State and Los Angeles. In NY the Japanese internment wasn't part of the high school curriculum. In Los Angeles, she as required to do a massive interdisciplinary unit with the social studies teacher. Her English classes read a memoir by the son (or daughter) of an internment victim. Location really does play a large role in teaching these things.

My friend is a social studies teaching in New Hampshire. For years now he's been fighting tooth and nail to get the Darfur genocide included in the social studies curriculum and nobody ever supports him. They think there's more important stuff to cover than a "holocaust" going on RIGHT NOW.

:unsure:

 
Just curious where some of these scientists would have been randed:

Dr. J. Craig Venter-mapped the human genome

Dr. Robert Gallo-one of the guys who discovered the retrovirus that causes HIV/AIDS

Alfred Russel Wallace-Also came up with the theory of evolution, but Darwin got his book published first
IMO as a biologist - Venter doesn't belong in this list. He was part of a huge collective of scientists that worked on mapping the genome. He implemented 'shotgun sequencing,' (a technique that he did not develop) to compete with the NIH's Human Genome Project, which had been ongoing for some time. Although his technique produced sequence faster, the quality of the sequence has been shown to be less than that generated by the NIH project. And he did it all with an eye on profit, as he infamously has tried multiple times to patent gene sequences. On the other hand, the goal of the NIH project was to provide a publically available tool for scientists worldwide.

Gallo- I don't know much about him, but I'd think that others that came before him in virology and apparently weren't drafted (such as Jonas Salk) would have a much better case. As with Venter, the collaborative nature of science now also hurts him, because I imagine he was not alone in this discovery.

Wallace - a good case could be made that he could be on this list, but Darwin had been developing his theory for 30 years before Wallace, ever since his trip on the HMS Beagle. And while Wallace had many of the same conclusions as Darwin, his evidence was not as complete as Darwin's. For example, Darwin quite brilliantly used domestication of animals as an example of selection, while Wallace did not. So Darwin's work was published first and had stronger evidence.

IMO I also think neither Crick nor Watson individually belong on the list. Their report of the structure of DNA was indeed a huge development, but there is significant controversy about how much of the work was their own and how much was lifted (uncredited) from the data of Rosalind Franklin. No matter what, their work was primarily theoretical and they relied heavily on the data of others (Franklin, Wilkins) and also the published failed attempts of others to devise a DNA structure (most notably Pauling). So since this was a group effort, I'd hesitate to put Crick above all others as a top 20 greatest ever scientist.

In addition to Jonas Salk, and Linus Pauling, one notable omission for me is Gregor Mendel, basically the father of genetics. All of these guys have a very strong case for being on this list.

ETA: Fleming is another choice that I think may be overrated. His biggest discovery was quite famously an accidental one, and although it resulted in penicillin, he never advanced penicillin to the point of usability in humans. That work was done by others, after he had given up. However, I understand the critical importance of his discovery in human history, so my objection is less to his selection than to his ranking.
Thanks for this. I considered Mendel, but ultimately went with Fleming. I knew the discovery of penicillian was an accident, but I thought he'd done more with developing it. I also strongly considered Wallace, mainly because he seemed to do much more field work in some pretty remote and exotic places than Darwin, who other than the Beagle expedition, never left England again I don't think. I also thought the Wallace Line was pretty cool.As a sort of joke, I also thought about Trofim Lysenko, because he'd have fit in with my Team Pinko theme. His "genetic theories" set back Soviet agriculture by 50 years.

 
I tend to agree. Tut should be 20th, right behind Mary. ANS at 20 is ridiculous, she's 1000 times the celebrity as Mary and should be several spots higher since the category is plum ripe with ineligibles. However, neither Tut nor Mary were celebrities. They are posthumously famous, absolutely NOT the same thing.
The original category description didn't say anything like that. When anyone thinks of Ancient Egypt, the first thing they see (after the Pyramids) is the death mask of King Tut. If the Tut relics were to make another tour of America, there would be absoulte and total coverage on Entertainment Tonight and millions would try to get tickets.If the intent was to select living or recently deceased (say past 30 years) people, then that should have been established upfront.
Yes it did. People who are recognized wherever they go. No one outside of Tuts region ever recognized him. Even less for Mary. Neither are celebrities. They are simply very famous after their death. Being famous is not the category. Being a celebrity is. Half the drafters are completely disregarding the definition if celebrity.
The bolded doesn't matter. The description didn't say "celebrity in their OWN time". It meant "celebrity in OUR time." And Tut is a celebrity in OUR time.
 
I get into arguments about this with my Jewish relatives all the time. We all know a LOT about the Holocaust, and they think that American children should as well. But though there is some complicity (as Flysack pointed out) the Holocaust did not take place in America. I would like American children to learn a little more American history. For instance, we had our own little shameful crime during World War II- the treatment of Japanese Americans. Not that this compares to the Holocaust, but it should be taught more than it is.

And I think that Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, which chronicles the treatment of the American Indians during the 19th century, should be required reading in all high schools.
Interestingly enough, my wife has taught both in NY State and Los Angeles. In NY the Japanese internment wasn't part of the high school curriculum. In Los Angeles, she as required to do a massive interdisciplinary unit with the social studies teacher. Her English classes read a memoir by the son (or daughter) of an internment victim. Location really does play a large role in teaching these things.

My friend is a social studies teaching in New Hampshire. For years now he's been fighting tooth and nail to get the Darfur genocide included in the social studies curriculum and nobody ever supports him. They think there's more important stuff to cover than a "holocaust" going on RIGHT NOW.

:mellow:
Is your friend covering the genocide in Rwanda of 15 years ago too by the Hutus? Or the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans by the Serbs?
 
Just curious where some of these scientists would have been randed:

Dr. J. Craig Venter-mapped the human genome

Dr. Robert Gallo-one of the guys who discovered the retrovirus that causes HIV/AIDS

Alfred Russel Wallace-Also came up with the theory of evolution, but Darwin got his book published first
IMO as a biologist - Venter doesn't belong in this list. He was part of a huge collective of scientists that worked on mapping the genome. He implemented 'shotgun sequencing,' (a technique that he did not develop) to compete with the NIH's Human Genome Project, which had been ongoing for some time. Although his technique produced sequence faster, the quality of the sequence has been shown to be less than that generated by the NIH project. And he did it all with an eye on profit, as he infamously has tried multiple times to patent gene sequences. On the other hand, the goal of the NIH project was to provide a publically available tool for scientists worldwide.

Gallo- I don't know much about him, but I'd think that others that came before him in virology and apparently weren't drafted (such as Jonas Salk) would have a much better case. As with Venter, the collaborative nature of science now also hurts him, because I imagine he was not alone in this discovery.

Wallace - a good case could be made that he could be on this list, but Darwin had been developing his theory for 30 years before Wallace, ever since his trip on the HMS Beagle. And while Wallace had many of the same conclusions as Darwin, his evidence was not as complete as Darwin's. For example, Darwin quite brilliantly used domestication of animals as an example of selection, while Wallace did not. So Darwin's work was published first and had stronger evidence.

IMO I also think neither Crick nor Watson individually belong on the list. Their report of the structure of DNA was indeed a huge development, but there is significant controversy about how much of the work was their own and how much was lifted (uncredited) from the data of Rosalind Franklin. No matter what, their work was primarily theoretical and they relied heavily on the data of others (Franklin, Wilkins) and also the published failed attempts of others to devise a DNA structure (most notably Pauling). So since this was a group effort, I'd hesitate to put Crick above all others as a top 20 greatest ever scientist.

In addition to Jonas Salk, and Linus Pauling, one notable omission for me is Gregor Mendel, basically the father of genetics. All of these guys have a very strong case for being on this list.

ETA: Fleming is another choice that I think may be overrated. His biggest discovery was quite famously an accidental one, and although it resulted in penicillin, he never advanced penicillin to the point of usability in humans. That work was done by others, after he had given up. However, I understand the critical importance of his discovery in human history, so my objection is less to his selection than to his ranking.
Thanks for this. I considered Mendel, but ultimately went with Fleming. I knew the discovery of penicillian was an accident, but I thought he'd done more with developing it. I also strongly considered Wallace, mainly because he seemed to do much more field work in some pretty remote and exotic places than Darwin, who other than the Beagle expedition, never left England again I don't think. I also thought the Wallace Line was pretty cool.As a sort of joke, I also thought about Trofim Lysenko, because he'd have fit in with my Team Pinko theme. His "genetic theories" set back Soviet agriculture by 50 years.
I think Edward Jenner is a notable omission. We owe smallpox vaccination to him, and it probably killed more people than the plague. He led Pasteur by almost 100 years, although Pasteur understood "why" better, because he came along much later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
10. Alhazen -- made major advances in optics, described the finite speed of light and first stated that light was made of particles and traveled in a straight line, and developed the concept of momentum.
You left out his very significant contributions to developing scientific method.
:lmao: That is why I believe he should without question be in the top 3. If he was European he would be talked about in the same context as Newton and Einstein. (I don't mean that as a knock on the judge, more how he is overlooked in Western teaching in general).

 
Humanitarian - Martyr - Saint rankings (continued)

20. Warren Buffett

19. John The Baptist

18. Maurice Pate

17. St. Nicholas

16. Andrei Sakharov

Tier 4

Unranked Oskar Schindler

Humanitarian

(BobbyLayne 11.18/218th pick, 9th of category) post #4206

Wiki bio

“To more than 1200 Jews Oscar Schindler was all that stood between them and death at the hands of the Nazis. A man full of flaws like the rest of us - the unlikeliest of all role models who started by earning millions as a war profiteer and ended by spending his last pfennig and risking his life to save his Jews. An ordinary man, who even in the worst of circumstances, did extraordinary things, matched by no one. He remained true to his Jews, the workers he referred to as my children. In the shadow of Auschwitz he kept the SS out and everyone alive.

"I am the conscience of all those who knew something - but did nothing."

- Oskar Schindler”

I'm not one to pimp my own team; my GB said it well at the time of the pick:

If I was judging the category he would be top 3. He is the very embodiment of what the category means. He sacrificed everything against unspeakable evil to do what he could once he realized what the right thing was. He is every bit the hero that he has been honored as. He wasn't always, but in that moment of decision and years following in carrying it out and sticking to his guns about it, he became a truly great man.
The actual judge of this particular pick holds a differing viewpoint. Then again, his criteria would hold the three medical professionals at the top 3 spots, and (I suspect) would minimize the contributions of the 8 (or 9, as we will see) religious figures in this category who were picked. It's not for me to say where he belongs in these rankings.14. St Francis of Assisi

Saint

(Larry Boy 44 11.02/202nd pick - 6th of category) post #3901

Wiki Bio

"A friar and the founder of the Order of Friars Minor, more commonly known as the Franciscans. He is known as the patron saint of animals, the environment and Italy, and it is customary for Catholic churches to hold ceremonies honoring animals around his feast day of 4 October.”

One of the most beloved Catholic Saints, most people know Francis as a middle-ages ascetic who loved animals. He was a powerful, authentic Bible preacher in an era when this was rare. Francis traveled to North Africa to try to stop the crusades. He met with The Sultan, who let him tour the historical sites in the Holy Land, which were off-limits to Christians. To this day, many of these sites are maintained by Franciscans. His Muslim friends gave him a prayer horn, which he sounded at the beginning of his sermons for the rest of his career. He gave specific orders that while Mosley areas were targets for evangelism, no Franciscan had any reason ever to speak ill of Mohamed or the Koran. Ahead of his time IMO.

13. Helen Keller

Humanitarian

(Arsenal of Doom 18.18/358th pick - 17th of category) post #5947

Wiki bio

“...a world-famous speaker and author. She is remembered as an advocate for people with disabilities amid numerous other causes. She was a suffragist, a pacifist, a Wilson opposer, a radical Socialist, and a birth control supporter. In 1915, Helen Keller and George Kessler founded the Helen Keller International (HKI) organization. This organization is devoted to research in vision, health and nutrition. In 1920, she helped to found the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Keller and Sullivan traveled to over 39 countries, making several trips to Japan and becoming a favorite of the Japanese people. Keller met every US President from Grover Cleveland to Lyndon B. Johnson and was friends with many famous figures, including Alexander Graham Bell, Charlie Chaplin, and Mark Twain.

Keller was a member of the Socialist Party and actively campaigned and wrote in support of the working classes from 1909 to 1921. She supported Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs in each of his campaigns for the presidency.

Keller and her friend Twain were both considered radicals in the socio-political context present in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century, and as a consequence, their political views have been forgotten or glossed over in popular perception. Newspaper columnists who had praised her courage and intelligence before she expressed her socialist views now called attention to her disabilities. The editor of the Brooklyn Eagle wrote that her "mistakes sprung out of the manifest limitations of her development." Keller responded to that editor, referring to having met him before he knew of her political views:

“At that time the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them. But now that I have come out for socialism he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error. I must have shrunk in intelligence during the years since I met him...Oh, ridiculous Brooklyn Eagle! Socially blind and deaf, it defends an intolerable system, a system that is the cause of much of the physical blindness and deafness which we are trying to prevent.”



She is, quite simply, one of the most remarkable human beings to ever grace the planet. She is a stark reminder to all - not just the afflicted - that there are no limitations to maximizing our human potential, except those which we place upon ourselves.

12. St Peter

Saint/Martyr

(Usual21 11.14/214th pick, 8th of category) post #4144

Wiki bio

“Saint Peter was a leader of the early Christian church, who features prominently in the New Testament Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. According to Biblical accounts, he was one of Twelve Apostles, chosen by Jesus from his first disciples. He was a Galilean fisherman assigned a leadership role by Jesus (Matthew 16:18), and was with Jesus during events witnessed by only a few apostles, such as the Transfiguration. Early Christian writers provided more details about his life. Catholic tradition claims that he was the first Pope, the author of two canonical epistles, and a martyr under Nero, crucified head down, and buried in Rome. His memoirs are traditionally cited as the source of the Gospel of Mark.

The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Anglican Communion consider Peter a saint. According to Catholic tradition Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, therefore the Pope is Peter's successor and the rightful superior of all other bishops”

Suffice to say your view of Peter, or the apostle Peter, or Saint Peter, is in large measure determined by your individual prism as a non-believer, a protestant Christian, or a Catholic. I was all over the map on where to put him. Ranking him this high is an acknowledgment of his venerated status within the largest denomination in Christendom.

The temperamental fisherman depicted in the four gospels is one of my favorite Biblical characters. His thrice denial of Jesus on the night of his arrest, and the subsequent story of redemption, is a classic sermon topic. He authored two epistles that were canonized into the New Testament. Tradition holds he was crucified upside because he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as his master and teacher. I'll leave the rest of the discussion to the theologians among us.

11. Eleanor Roosevelt

Humanitarian

(Herbert The Hippo 17.17/337th pick - 15th of category) post #5697

Wiki bio

“Even without her marriage to Franklin D. Roosevelt, through whose presidency she revolutionized the position of first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt very likely would have still become one of the greatest women of the 20th Century. As a humanitarian and civic leader (among other roles), her work for the welfare of youth, black Americans, the poor, and women, at home and abroad (through the United Nations that she helped to develop) has yet to be equaled. ”

One of my all-time favorite Americans, and one of the most admired women of the century. She is perhaps best known internationally as a prominent author, speaker, politician, and activist. She is often depicted as serving as FDR's 'eyes and ears'; while that is far short of her actual accomplishment, with respect to her husband, her greatest role was serving as his moral conscience; she was the one championed civil rights issues, and convinced him the time had finally come to repeal the Chinese Exlusion Act. As UN delegate, in the early 1950s, she favored disbanding UNICEF because she felt its chief aims had been accomplished. The Pakistani delegate responded that the malnourished, poor and suffering children depicted in organizational films 'is the norm for my country.' Shamed - and publicly willing to admit her error - she became one its strongest supporters. I have respect for great leaders, but doubly so for one who acknowledges their own failings.

The two venerated Saints and two accomplished women were all considered for higher spots. I agonized over a lot of these rankings, but if not nothing else, I think the Tiers are correct.

Sorry for the delay, I was tied up in a long meeting this morning. I will post the Top Ten after lunch; the separation is meant to encourage discussion. I can answer a few posts now, and will be available further discussion later in the day.

ETA: formatting

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry I haven't had a chance to post write-ups yet.

I'm getting blasted at work.

Will try to get 'em up this weekend (Could use some critique viagra . . .)

 
As for methodology, chief considerations were 1) their impact on the world in the time they lived, 2) their lasting impact on the world since they passed from existence. Measuring impact is imperfect, but for this category, the tombstone epithet of a great (undrafted) American, Jackie Robinson, was kept in mind:

The value of a life is measured by its impact on other lives
In addition to those primary elements, also taken under advisement were intangible qualities such as iconography, popularity, and their continued remembrance. Included in the latter are Saintly figures within the Roman Catholic Church or as important saints in protestant tradition (note: the capitalization and lower case are intended). While any notions of 'miracles' was immediately discounted, it is both pedantic and unnaturally restrictive to completely ignore the role of faith and tradition in the history of Western civilization.17. St. Nicholas

Saint

(FUBAR 14.17/277th pick 11th of category) post #5054

Nikolaus, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Santa Claus, San Nicola, Sinterklaas, Sveti Nikola, Szent Miklós - this guy is represented in a lot of different forms in different cultures. Much of it, however, is steeped in folklore, legend, myth, and tradition.The last point is the chief reason. All five of these men are great, revered figures of significant accomplishment or legendary status; the folks who will come in the following posts loom somewhat larger in my view.
If you're judging on lasting impact, iconography, popularity, and their continued remembrance, IMO Nicholas has to be higher than 17th. No St. Nicholas, no Santa Claus, Christmas is nowhere near the secular holiday it has become. If you're dropping him mostly because it's the legend we remember, I can respect that, but he was in fact a huge influence in the world. Maybe there are 16 greater, but IMO there were only 10 or so.
The verifiable details of his actual life were the biggest limiting factor in attempting to place him higher. There is no denying his ubiquitous influence and cultural impact. The issue I had with ranking him above this Tier had to do with what he actually did during his life. I loved the pick at the time it was made, I thought it was creative, and I expected it to place higher myself. But once I began comparing him, that turned out not to be the case.
 
As for methodology, chief considerations were 1) their impact on the world in the time they lived, 2) their lasting impact on the world since they passed from existence. Measuring impact is imperfect, but for this category, the tombstone epithet of a great (undrafted) American, Jackie Robinson, was kept in mind:

The value of a life is measured by its impact on other lives
In addition to those primary elements, also taken under advisement were intangible qualities such as iconography, popularity, and their continued remembrance. Included in the latter are Saintly figures within the Roman Catholic Church or as important saints in protestant tradition (note: the capitalization and lower case are intended). While any notions of 'miracles' was immediately discounted, it is both pedantic and unnaturally restrictive to completely ignore the role of faith and tradition in the history of Western civilization.17. St. Nicholas

Saint

(FUBAR 14.17/277th pick 11th of category) post #5054

Nikolaus, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Santa Claus, San Nicola, Sinterklaas, Sveti Nikola, Szent Miklós - this guy is represented in a lot of different forms in different cultures. Much of it, however, is steeped in folklore, legend, myth, and tradition.The last point is the chief reason. All five of these men are great, revered figures of significant accomplishment or legendary status; the folks who will come in the following posts loom somewhat larger in my view.
If you're judging on lasting impact, iconography, popularity, and their continued remembrance, IMO Nicholas has to be higher than 17th. No St. Nicholas, no Santa Claus, Christmas is nowhere near the secular holiday it has become. If you're dropping him mostly because it's the legend we remember, I can respect that, but he was in fact a huge influence in the world. Maybe there are 16 greater, but IMO there were only 10 or so.
The verifiable details of his actual life were the biggest limiting factor in attempting to place him higher. There is no denying his ubiquitous influence and cultural impact. The issue I had with ranking him above this Tier had to do with what he actually did during his life. I loved the pick at the time it was made, I thought it was creative, and I expected it to place higher myself. But once I began comparing him, that turned out not to be the case.
ah well, at least he might gain me a few popular votes. :coffee:
 
Uncle. since you're here:

Once you blessed Art Tatum, I knew what direction you were going in and immediately thought of some virtuosos. How would you have ranked the following (not specifically, just "highly", "well", "mediocre", "low", etc. will suffice)?

Andrés Segovia

Ella Fitzgerald

John Coltrane

Duke Ellington

 
17. St. Nicholas

Saint

(FUBAR 14.17/277th pick 11th of category) post #5054

Nikolaus, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Santa Claus, San Nicola, Sinterklaas, Sveti Nikola, Szent Miklós - this guy is represented in a lot of different forms in different cultures. Much of it, however, is steeped in folklore, legend, myth, and tradition.

The last point is the chief reason. All five of these men are great, revered figures of significant accomplishment or legendary status; the folks who will come in the following posts loom somewhat larger in my view.
ah well, at least he might gain me a few popular votes. :goodposting:
He's a category killer in that aspect. :shrug:

 
Since I'll be gone for awhile, I'll leave a comment for larry_boy_44, as I am sure he will be disappointed at the lack of value for his guy.

Great pick, and I enjoyed learning more about him. The writeup you posted was darn near incoherent, the worst one by far I had to wade through. I didn't downgrade specifically for that, but I would have been justified in doing so. I thought some of the things you chose to highlight (stigmata, legend of the baptism of the wolf, etc) hurt you more than it helped. Feel fortunate I took the time to learn more about his actual accomplishments, since in this draft, divinity and miracles must be discounted.

That said, he was a good choice, if a bit of a reach at the time. Fascinating character, and it is easy to see why he is held in high esteem. There has been a resurgence in Franciscan studies, and we continue to learn more about him and his contributions as a writer. I doubt I would have taken the time to learn about him on my own, so I am grateful you picked him.

 
Unfortunately, I'm not going to be at a computer today long enough to debate this, but I have to say that I don't understand the Darwin ranking and love. Tim argues that his biggest influence is on religion? That's the measure of the scientist? This isn't a question about evolution (I believe in evolution). My question is why does he rank above most of the people on that list? The theory hasn't led to new inventions, cured diseases, or improved the lives of the people of the world. At best he should be 10th, but I still can't see him above Fleming, de Lavoisier or Crick.
:thumbup: What about actually getting stuff done? Improving the quality of life for one's fellow human beings?

 
Uncle. since you're here:Once you blessed Art Tatum, I knew what direction you were going in and immediately thought of some virtuosos. How would you have ranked the following (not specifically, just "highly", "well", "mediocre", "low", etc. will suffice)?Andrés SegoviaElla FitzgeraldJohn ColtraneDuke Ellington
Also Maynard Furgeson if you don't mind. I asked before but it got buried.
 
While write-ups are being formulated:

There are a few artists I was disappointed to not see selected. To name but a few:

Charlie "Bird" Parker

Oscar Peterson

John Coltrane

Django Reinhardt

Ella Fitzgerald

Jimi Hendrix

Eddie Van Halen

Lots of classical

Also, wanted to reiterate that it was very difficult to judge groups using my criteria

(perhaps this simply illustrates that I completely missed the mark on the intent of the category!

- My criteria would have been much more condusive to only individual musicians.)

The hardest part about judging the groups was trying to take into consideration the "group dynamic" factor.

This is pretty hard to describe, but one of the things that makes certain groups great, is the result of their chemistry and interactions, which produces a certain "groove" or "vibe" that is at the heart of what makes music such an enjoyable thing to experience.

I tried to take this "groove" into consideration in my judging, but it didn't fit nicely into any of the criteria (the closest probably being the ability to "emote"). This is why some of the groups are ranked higher than others. I'm sure that instead of clarifying the thinking behind my choices, I have just muddied the water and probably opened myself to "judge-bashing" (which by the way, doesn't bother me in the least and is expected as part of the position).

On a side note, REALLY wish someone had taken advantage of the "group" loophole in the jazz realm.

Some of these would have ended up VERY high in the rankings:

Miles' 1st great quintet (w/Coltrane, Red Garland, Philly Joe Jones, Paul Chambers)

Miles' 2nd great quintet (w/Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter and Tony Williams)

Coltrane's great quartet (w/McCoy Tyner, Jimmy Garrison and Elvin Jones)

One of the Bird/Diz quintets

Max Roach/Clifford Brown quintet

Duke Ellington Orchestra

etc.

etc.

:goodposting:

 
:goodposting:

Right on queue.

Uncle. since you're here:

Once you blessed Art Tatum, I knew what direction you were going in and immediately thought of some virtuosos. How would you have ranked the following (not specifically, just "highly", "well", "mediocre", "low", etc. will suffice)?

Andrés Segovia VERY HIGH

Ella Fitzgerald MID

John Coltrane HIGH

Duke Ellington LOW (A decent musician, but not one of the greats. As a group, his orchestra would have been ranked pretty well. Would have REALLY liked to see him chosen in the composer category).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uncle. since you're here:Once you blessed Art Tatum, I knew what direction you were going in and immediately thought of some virtuosos. How would you have ranked the following (not specifically, just "highly", "well", "mediocre", "low", etc. will suffice)?Andrés SegoviaElla FitzgeraldJohn ColtraneDuke Ellington
Also Maynard Furgeson if you don't mind. I asked before but it got buried.
To be honest, I'm not as familiar with MF's work, and will have to do some homework before I can provide an answer . . .
 
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.
Apologies JML.I'm afraid you did get screwed here (my fault for not posting my criteria before you picked, or perhaps I shouldn't have listed them at all!).

I DID see the writing on the wall though, and tried to respectfully pull out before others drafted with my criteria more in mind. Unfortunately, got talked into staying and you got stuck (partially because the group rule prevented you from moving the Beatles to say, the Celebrity category, where they would have been highly ranked).

Sorry dude.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With Tim's placement of Galileo, the final scientist rankings are:

Isaac Newton
Albert Einstein
Galileo Galilei
Charles Darwin
James Maxwell
Niels Bohr
Louis Pasteur
Michael Faraday
Andreas Vesalius
Leonhard Euler
Alhazen
Euclid
Alexander Fleming
Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier
Francis Crick
Johann Carl Gauss
Muhammad ibn Musa Khwarizmi
Dmitri Mendeleev
Archimedes
Hippocrates
Hippocrates last isn't fair. There is no one of this list whose impact is felt more on a daily basis then him, and his changes to what medicine was is the equivelent of actually discovering a new universe of science. His work was so admired and honored during his life that the advancement of medicine actually stopped upon his death because it was generally agreed that no one could do it better or come close to his efforts.Even if he wasn't my guy I'd be annoyed at this ranking. He's a clear top 10 given his effect on medicine.

 
OK, I have heard no objections to Yankee being the intellectual judge, so I'm going to assign it to him. I'll pm him now and ask him to let us know when we can expect his rankings. If we can get them and BL by tommorow, we can start the FFA voting on Monday. (So long as someone is still keeping score...)
I'm catching up now. I'll have them done as soon as possible.
 
While write-ups are being formulated:There are a few artists I was disappointed to not see selected. To name but a few:Charlie "Bird" ParkerOscar PetersonJohn ColtraneDjango ReinhardtElla FitzgeraldJimi HendrixEddie Van HalenLots of classicalAlso, wanted to reiterate that it was very difficult to judge groups using my criteria(perhaps this simply illustrates that I completely missed the mark on the intent of the category!- My criteria would have been much more condusive to only individual musicians.)The hardest part about judging the groups was trying to take into consideration the "group dynamic" factor.This is pretty hard to describe, but one of the things that makes certain groups great, is the result of their chemistry and interactions, which produces a certain "groove" or "vibe" that is at the heart of what makes music such an enjoyable thing to experience. I tried to take this "groove" into consideration in my judging, but it didn't fit nicely into any of the criteria (the closest probably being the ability to "emote"). This is why some of the groups are ranked higher than others. I'm sure that instead of clarifying the thinking behind my choices, I have just muddied the water and probably opened myself to "judge-bashing" (which by the way, doesn't bother me in the least and is expected as part of the position).On a side note, REALLY wish someone had taken advantage of the "group" loophole in the jazz realm.Some of these would have ended up VERY high in the rankings:Miles' 1st great quintet (w/Coltrane, Red Garland, Philly Joe Jones, Paul Chambers)Miles' 2nd great quintet (w/Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter and Tony Williams)Coltrane's great quartet (w/McCoy Tyner, Jimmy Garrison and Elvin Jones) One of the Bird/Diz quintetsMax Roach/Clifford Brown quintetDuke Ellington Orchestraetc.etc. :lmao:
Yeah, I only realized what you were truly looking for through the discussions in the draft. After picking Miles (and I never considered picking anyone else), I wondered how these groups would have fared. The Basie Orchestra too, or maybe Django's Quintette du Hot Club de France, which was just on fire for as long as they were togeteher. Blakey's Jazz Messengers were a powerhouse in any incarnation, but the lineup probably changed too often to merit a high ranking here. If it came down to picking a group, I probably would've gone with the second Miles quintet, but there's a lot of great stuff to pick from. :lmao:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MisfitBlondes said:
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
Was disappointed that George Gershwin and Duke Ellington went undrafted here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since I'll be gone for awhile, I'll leave a comment for larry_boy_44, as I am sure he will be disappointed at the lack of value for his guy.

Great pick, and I enjoyed learning more about him. The writeup you posted was darn near incoherent, the worst one by far I had to wade through. I didn't downgrade specifically for that, but I would have been justified in doing so. I thought some of the things you chose to highlight (stigmata, legend of the baptism of the wolf, etc) hurt you more than it helped. Feel fortunate I took the time to learn more about his actual accomplishments, since in this draft, divinity and miracles must be discounted.

That said, he was a good choice, if a bit of a reach at the time. Fascinating character, and it is easy to see why he is held in high esteem. There has been a resurgence in Franciscan studies, and we continue to learn more about him and his contributions as a writer. I doubt I would have taken the time to learn about him on my own, so I am grateful you picked him.
really?I just remember copy/pasting a bunch of stuff from wikipedia... and the stigmata was just something I noted happened...

and I honestly don't remember mentioning baptising a wolf at all.. lol

but I do know that I mentioned him visiting the Sultan during the Crusades, I know I mentioned his contributions to Italian literature, and I mentioned his founding of the Franciscans...

either way, I'm interested in seeing the top 10, because if Peter & Francis are in the 11-15 range, who's 1-10?

 
Uncle, the problem I'd have with drafting Duke's or Basie's orchestra is why not then the entire New York Philharmonic under Bernstein or the Berlin Symphony under von Krajan or the house orchestra from the Metropolitan Opera under the baton of Rudolph Bing or James Levine? Or if you want to stay in jazz, Woody' Herman's Thundering Herd or Benny Goodman's band? Lots of interchangeable parts in those ensembles.

As for composers, after Irving Berlin got pummeled by commenters following his pick, there's no way picking Cole Porter or Gershwin or Steven Sondheim was going to fly, even if they were excellent songwriters and composers.

 
Uncle, the problem I'd have with drafting Duke's or Basie's orchestra is why not then the entire New York Philharmonic under Bernstein or the Berlin Symphony under von Krajan or the house orchestra from the Metropolitan Opera under the baton of Rudolph Bing or James Levine? Or if you want to stay in jazz, Woody' Herman's Thundering Herd or Benny Goodman's band? Lots of interchangeable parts in those ensembles.As for composers, after Irving Berlin got pummeled by commenters following his pick, there's no way picking Cole Porter or Gershwin or Steven Sondheim was going to fly, even if they were excellent songwriters and composers.
:lmao: I strongly considered drafting the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra or London. According to the rules, I think we could have.
 
MisfitBlondes said:
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
Was disappointed that George Gershwin and Duke Ellington went undrafted here.
They'd have gotten bottom-tiered by the judge, and probably would get ripped apart in the FFA voting, too. Unfairly or not, Chopin vs. Gershwin goes to Chopin because he's "old". Vivaldi or Handel trumps Ellington.And as we've seen, Gershwin and Ellington would even have been especially poor Wild Cards. So ... :lmao:

 
Can some of the drafters help me out with the intellectual category.

My initial review of the people chosen is complete. After that initial review, wherein I looked at each person through the lense of the actual rules of the draft (people who have written/argued about politicis, human culture and human interactions not necessarily broad theory but practical things) combined with what an intellectual really is (a significant intellect that pursues things in the interest of intellect based on reason and engaged in the mental labors such as teaching or writing). With that as the initial backdrop, these are bottom tier guys:

Hammurabi - did not create his code of laws, but instead ordered them be codified into what we know of the Hammurabi Code. He is similar to King James in that way, and we don't give King James the honor of writer of the bible.

Justinian - again, the laws he is known for were not his, but were codified and collected by his order.

Garry Kasparov - a supreme intellect in terms of actually using the mind to do something - play chess - but not exactly someone that has affected the world over, nor been a leader as defined by the rules).

Frederick Douglas - a true great in American history, but does that spread to the world? We weren't the only land dealing with slavery, and some still have vestiges of it.

Umberto Eco - a novelist who writings seemt to touch of philosophical and intellectual topics, but mainly for novelistic necessity. And of course, being a modern person whereas everyone else here has decades or centuries to review, hurts him.

My next tier after this contains:

Pythagorus, Trotsky, Blackstone, Thucydides, von Claucswitz, Jefferson, Blackstone

And then my last tier is:

Keyes, Smith, Malthus, Freud, Jung, Machiavelli, Locke and Hobbes.

These final two tiers, as of now, can be in almost any order within themselves, and obviously there is room for movement. I will say this, this a collection of a pretty damn impressive 20 people and I wouldn't be ashamed of drafting any of them. Basically, from 1-15 you have a solid absolutely interesting and category perfect selection who an argument can be made should be higher.

 
Humanitarian - Martyr - Saint rankings (continued)

20. Warren Buffett

19. John The Baptist

18. Maurice Pate

17. St. Nicholas

16. Andrei Sakharov

xx. Oskar Schindler (UNRANKED)

14. St Francis of Assisi

13. Helen Keller

12. St Peter

11. Eleanor Roosevelt

Tier 3

10. Henry Dunant

Humanitarian

(Mario Kart 15.01/281st pick - 12th of category) post #5205

Wiki bio

“Swiss businessman and social activist. During a business trip in 1859, he was witness to the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino in modern day Italy. He recorded his memories and experiences in the book A Memory of Solferino which inspired the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863.

After returning to Geneva early in July, Dunant decided to write a book about his experiences, which he titled Un Souvenir de Solferino (A Memory of Solferino). It was published in 1862 in an edition of 1,600 copies and was printed at Dunant's own expense. Within the book, he described the battle, its costs, and the chaotic circumstances afterwards. He also developed the idea that in the future a neutral organization should exist to provide care to wounded soldiers. He distributed the book to many leading political and military figures in Europe.”

The President of the Geneva Society for Public Welfare, jurist Gustave Moynier, made the book and its suggestions the topic of the February 9, 1863 meeting of the organization. Dunant's recommendations were examined and positively assessed by the members, who created a five-person Committee to further pursue the possibility of their implementation. Their first meeting on February 17, 1863 is now considered the founding date of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

In 1901, Dunant was awarded the first-ever Nobel Peace Prize for his role in founding the International Red Cross Movement and initiating the Geneva Convention.

Up until the middle of the 19th century, there were no organized and well-established army nursing systems for casualties and no safe and protected institutions to accommodate and treat those who were wounded on the battlefield. The ICRC a unique role in the world, based on international humanitarian law of the Geneva Conventions as well as customary international law, to protect the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. Such victims include war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants.

9. Simon Wiesenthal

Humanitarian

(Big Rocks 15.11/ 291st pick - 13th of category) post #5262

Wiki bio

“Austrian-Jewish architectural engineer and Holocaust survivor who became famous after World War II for his work as a Nazi hunter who pursued Nazi war criminals in an effort to bring them to justice.

Following four and a half years in the German concentration camps of Janowska, Plaszow, and Mauthausen during World War II, Wiesenthal dedicated most of his life to tracking down and gathering information on fugitive Nazis so that they could be brought to justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity. As soon as his health improved, Wiesenthal began working for the U.S. Army gathering documentation for the Nazi war crimes trials. In 1947, he and 30 other volunteers founded the Jewish Historical Documentation Center in Linz, Austria, in order to gather information for future trials. Later he opened Jewish Documentation Center in Vienna. Wiesenthal wrote The Sunflower, which describes a life-changing event he experienced when he was in the camp. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, located in Los Angeles in the United States, is named in his honor”

The dynamic of gentiles and Jews discussing the Holocaust is fascinating; it is reminiscent of the stark contrast of 'white guilt' and actual experience when race is brought up in mixed racial company. My generation felt it was important to never forget, to understand what brought about these horrors, to be vigilant in our civic duty, and to persevere in seeking justice. Simon Wisenthal was a childhood hero of mine, and perhaps my personal admiration and bias is showing a bit, but I believe this spot is wholly justifiable and appropriate. The Holocaust remains one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever perpretated, and his dogged pursuit of Nazi war ciminals was both necessary and noble. As my GB Wikkidpissah might say, Nufced.

8. Martin Luther King

Humanitarian

(Acer FC 7.05/125th pick - 5th of category) post #2872

Wiki Bio

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

The arc of the moral universe is long; but it bends towards justice. Well along with my gentile guilt, I must bear the burden of the sins of my ancestors (actually, my guys fought for in the American Revolution and to keep the Union in tact, but I digress). I won't justify this placement other than to say that Dr. King is widely admired and jusftifiably so; all Americans, whatever your background, should be proud of the Civil Rights movement as one of the greatest endeavors in the history of our great country.

7. William Wilberforce

Humanitarian

(Doug B - 4.12/72nd pick - 2nd of category) post #2063

Wiki bio

I would prefer not to parse the succinct but effective writeup that accompanied this pick:

“William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780 and became the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785 he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787 he came into contact with ... a group of anti-slave-trade activists ... They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade until the eventual passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality, and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as ... British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

In later years, Wilberforce supported the campaign for the complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because of his failing health. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire; Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to his friend William Pitt.”

Wilburforce has been held up as a great moral Christian hero since the time of his passing. A closer examination reveals that his was hardly a lonely crusade, though it take some time for the momentum of the movement to take hold. There may have also been ancillary economic considerations that made the banning of slave trade more palpable (it's debatable). As long as the history of England is told, however, he will be remembered as one that nations greatest heroic figures, and deservedly so. While the ranking may not reflect a good value pick, he is most assuredly one of the ten greatest humanitarians selected.

6. Desmond Tutu

Humanitarian

((Yankee23fan 19.06/366th pick - 18th of category) post #2592

Wiki bio

“South African cleric and activist who rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid. In 1984, Tutu became the second South African to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Tutu was the first black South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa, and primate of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (now the Anglican Church of Southern Africa). Tutu chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and is currently the chairman of The Elders. Tutu is vocal in his defence of human rights and uses his high profile to campaign for the oppressed. Tutu also campaigns to fight AIDS, homophobia, poverty and racism. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, and the Gandhi Peace Prize in 2005. Tutu has also compiled several books of his speeches and sayings.

Tutu is widely regarded as "South Africa's moral conscience" and has been described by former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, as "sometimes strident, often tender, never afraid and seldom without humor, Desmond Tutu's voice will always be the voice of the voiceless".”

Shockingly great value pick.

Bishop Tutu was raised in an atmosphere of tolerance and sympathy where, he later says, "I never learnt to hate." In 1948, when he was 17, the National Party instituted a system of "apartheid". All South Africans are legally assigned to one racial group - white, African, coloured or Asian. All races have separate living areas and separate amenities (such as toilets, parks and beaches). Signs enforcing the separation are erected throughout the country. Only white South Africans are allowed full political rights. It would be 25 years (1973) before the UN would declare this policy "a crime against humanity", and another 20 years beyond that before a new constitution guarantees all South Africans "equality before the law and equal protection of the law", full political rights, freedom of expression and assembly, and the right to "choose a place of residence anywhere in the national territory."

No man is more responsible for that shift than Desmond Tutu. At the presentation of his 1984 Nobel Peace prize, the chairman of the Nobel Committee says, "Some time ago television enabled us to see this year's laureate in a suburb of Johannesburg. A massacre of the black population had just taken place - the camera showed ruined houses, mutilated human beings and crushed children's toys. Innocent people had been murdered. Women and children mortally wounded. But, after the police vehicles had driven away with their prisoners, Desmond Tutu stood and spoke to a frightened and bitter congregation: 'Do not hate', he said, 'let us choose the peaceful way to freedom'."

That is a measure of love and compassion I am unfamiliar with; he is truly a remarkable man.

Ranking these just got tougher and tougher. Learning about these men and women was very humbling.

 
Can some of the drafters help me out with the intellectual category....These final two tiers, as of now, can be in almost any order within themselves, and obviously there is room for movement. I will say this, this a collection of a pretty damn impressive 20 people and I wouldn't be ashamed of drafting any of them. Basically, from 1-15 you have a solid absolutely interesting and category perfect selection who an argument can be made should be higher.
Looks like you've got a handle on it to me. What kind of feedback are you looking for?
 
:lmao:

Right on queue.

Uncle. since you're here:

Once you blessed Art Tatum, I knew what direction you were going in and immediately thought of some virtuosos. How would you have ranked the following (not specifically, just "highly", "well", "mediocre", "low", etc. will suffice)?



Andrés Segovia VERY HIGH

Ella Fitzgerald MID

John Coltrane HIGH

Duke Ellington LOW (A decent musician, but not one of the greats. As a group, his orchestra would have been ranked pretty well. Would have REALLY liked to see him chosen in the composer category).
:shrug: And yet you disrespect McLaughlin?!?! McLaughlin has done far more forms of music than Segovia, has worked with more far reaching musicians, and has a rep equal to or above Segovia. The only thing that Segovia has that McLaughlin doesn't is an older, European credibility, which has zero to do with music.



THAT'S IT, UH -- I'M THROUGH WITH YOU!!! BE GONE!!!!

 
6. Desmond Tutu

Humanitarian

((Yankee23fan 19.06/366th pick - 18th of category) post #2592

Wiki bio

“South African cleric and activist who rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid. In 1984, Tutu became the second South African to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Tutu was the first black South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa, and primate of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (now the Anglican Church of Southern Africa). Tutu chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and is currently the chairman of The Elders. Tutu is vocal in his defence of human rights and uses his high profile to campaign for the oppressed. Tutu also campaigns to fight AIDS, homophobia, poverty and racism. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, and the Gandhi Peace Prize in 2005. Tutu has also compiled several books of his speeches and sayings.

Tutu is widely regarded as "South Africa's moral conscience" and has been described by former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, as "sometimes strident, often tender, never afraid and seldom without humor, Desmond Tutu's voice will always be the voice of the voiceless".”

Shockingly great value pick.

Bishop Tutu was raised in an atmosphere of tolerance and sympathy where, he later says, "I never learnt to hate." In 1948, when he was 17, the National Party instituted a system of "apartheid". All South Africans are legally assigned to one racial group - white, African, coloured or Asian. All races have separate living areas and separate amenities (such as toilets, parks and beaches). Signs enforcing the separation are erected throughout the country. Only white South Africans are allowed full political rights. It would be 25 years (1973) before the UN would declare this policy "a crime against humanity", and another 20 years beyond that before a new constitution guarantees all South Africans "equality before the law and equal protection of the law", full political rights, freedom of expression and assembly, and the right to "choose a place of residence anywhere in the national territory."

No man is more responsible for that shift than Desmond Tutu. At the presentation of his 1984 Nobel Peace prize, the chairman of the Nobel Committee says, "Some time ago television enabled us to see this year's laureate in a suburb of Johannesburg. A massacre of the black population had just taken place - the camera showed ruined houses, mutilated human beings and crushed children's toys. Innocent people had been murdered. Women and children mortally wounded. But, after the police vehicles had driven away with their prisoners, Desmond Tutu stood and spoke to a frightened and bitter congregation: 'Do not hate', he said, 'let us choose the peaceful way to freedom'."

That is a measure of love and compassion I am unfamiliar with; he is truly a remarkable man.
Incredible figure, and I definitely considered taking him. Bonus points for having Miles' Tutu album named after him. :shrug:
 
Humanitarian - Martyr - Saint rankings (continued)

20. Warren Buffett

19. John The Baptist

18. Maurice Pate

17. St. Nicholas

16. Andrei Sakharov

xx. Oskar Schindler (UNRANKED)

14. St Francis of Assisi

13. Helen Keller

12. St Peter

11. Eleanor Roosevelt

10. Henry Dunant

9. Simon Wiesenthal

8. Martin Luther King

7. William Wilberforce

6. Desmond Tutu

Tier 2

5. Humanitarian Mother Teresa

Humanitarian (possible future Saint)

(higgins - 2.09/29th pick - 1st of category) post #2063

Wiki Bio

"By topic definition (Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr), this pick should be tops. Noble Peace Prize for humanitarian work, who was beatified by Pope John Paul II and given the title Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.

By the 1970s she was internationally famed as a humanitarian and advocate for the poor and helpless.

She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

Following her death she was beatified by Pope John Paul II and given the title Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.

Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity at the time of her death was operating 610 missions in 123 countries, including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children's and family counseling programs, orphanages, and schools.”

We can take up the topic of Christopher Hitchens criticisms during discussion. I struggled mightily with this ranking, as Blessed Sister Teresa of Calcutta has attracted a great deal of controversy in the last two decades.

4. Joan of Arc

Saint

(DCThunder - 5.08/88th pick - 3rd of category) post #2510

Wiki bio

“Joan of Arc is national heroine of France and a Catholic saint. A peasant girl born in eastern France, she led the French army to several important victories during the Hundred Years' War, claiming divine guidance, and was indirectly responsible for the coronation of Charles VII. She was captured by the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court, and burned at the stake when she was nineteen years old. Twenty-four years later, the Holy See reviewed the decision of the ecclesiastical court, found her innocent, and declared her a martyr. She was beatified in 1909 and later canonized in 1920.

Joan asserted that she had visions from God that told her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the siege at Orléans as part of a relief mission. She gained prominence when she overcame the dismissive attitude of veteran commanders and lifted the siege in only nine days. Several more swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Reims and settled the disputed succession to the throne.

Joan of Arc has remained an important figure in Western culture. From Napoleon to the present, French politicians of all leanings have invoked her memory. Major writers and composers who have created works about her include Shakespeare (Henry VI), Voltaire (La Pucelle d'Orléans), Schiller (Die Jungfrau von Orléans ), Verdi (Giovanna d'Arco), Tchaikovsky (Орлеанская дева), Mark Twain (Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc), Jean Anouilh (L'Alouette), Bertolt Brecht (Die heilige Johanna der Schlachthöfe) and Shaw (Saint Joan). Depictions of her continue in film, television, video games, song, and dance.”

National heroine of France, the peasant girl burning at the stake is the epitome of a martyr. Her biography is in part a product of the need for a national ethos following the Revolution and the reign of Napoleon. The ranking reflects, in part, her popularity, not only in her home country, but throughout Europe and all of Western Civilization. We need heroes and heroines.

OK...I HATE ADMITTING I WAS WRONG.

I MEAN I REALLY, REALLY HATE IT.

BUT TIMSCHOCHET (AND OTHERS) ARE CORRECT ABOUT WHO SHOULD BE THE TOP THREE.

It took me all week, and half of today, before I realized I should just admit that.

I wanted to give one or more of the Martyrs and Saints a Top 3 ranking; but honestly, the lasting contributions of the three medical professionals cannot be ignored.

3. Jonas Salk

Humanitarian

(Abrantes 16.01/301st pick - 14th of category) post #5362

Wiki bio

“Until 1955, when the Salk vaccine was introduced, polio was considered the most frightening public health problem of the postwar era. Annual epidemics kept getting worse and victims were usually children. By 1952 it was killing more of them than any other communicable disease with over 57,000 cases reported that year. The "public reaction was to a plague," said historian William O'Neill. "Citizens of urban areas were to be terrified every summer when this frightful visitor returned." As a result, scientists were in a frantic race to find a cure. President Franklin Roosevelt was the world's most recognized victim of the disease and founded the institute to fund and create a vaccine.

In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. While working there, with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, Salk saw an opportunity to develop a vaccine against polio, and devoted himself to this work for the next eight years. The field tests Salk set up were, according to O'Neill, "the most elaborate program of its kind in history, involving 20,000 physicians and public health officers, 64,000 school personnel, and 220,000 volunteers." When news of the discovery was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a "miracle worker," and the day "almost became a national holiday." He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine, as he had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible.”

This ranking will surprise some, and disappoint others. Dr. Salk's decision to not patent his miracle cure was one of the noblest gestures by any human being in history.

Now for the final two...I'll be back after 3 p.m., after another meeting, to post. We can have discussion at that time if necessary.

:shrug:

 
Can some of the drafters help me out with the intellectual category.

My initial review of the people chosen is complete. After that initial review, wherein I looked at each person through the lense of the actual rules of the draft (people who have written/argued about politicis, human culture and human interactions not necessarily broad theory but practical things) combined with what an intellectual really is (a significant intellect that pursues things in the interest of intellect based on reason and engaged in the mental labors such as teaching or writing). With that as the initial backdrop, these are bottom tier guys:

Hammurabi - did not create his code of laws, but instead ordered them be codified into what we know of the Hammurabi Code. He is similar to King James in that way, and we don't give King James the honor of writer of the bible.

Justinian - again, the laws he is known for were not his, but were codified and collected by his order.

Garry Kasparov - a supreme intellect in terms of actually using the mind to do something - play chess - but not exactly someone that has affected the world over, nor been a leader as defined by the rules).

Frederick Douglas - a true great in American history, but does that spread to the world? We weren't the only land dealing with slavery, and some still have vestiges of it.

Umberto Eco - a novelist who writings seemt to touch of philosophical and intellectual topics, but mainly for novelistic necessity. And of course, being a modern person whereas everyone else here has decades or centuries to review, hurts him.

My next tier after this contains:

Pythagorus, Trotsky, Blackstone, Thucydides, von Claucswitz, Jefferson, Blackstone

And then my last tier is:

Keyes, Smith, Malthus, Freud, Jung, Machiavelli, Locke and Hobbes.

These final two tiers, as of now, can be in almost any order within themselves, and obviously there is room for movement. I will say this, this a collection of a pretty damn impressive 20 people and I wouldn't be ashamed of drafting any of them. Basically, from 1-15 you have a solid absolutely interesting and category perfect selection who an argument can be made should be higher.
here's a vote for Pythagoras to top, if not move up from, his tier. i often wonder how different the world would be if the ways of the commune set up by him in Crotona had become the alternative to Roman ways instead of Christianity (pretty DAM sure Jesus would have enjoyed it). vegetarian, egalitarian (most of the mathematical corps was female) but, most importantly, intent on solving both the mathematics & musicality of everyday living. and, considering this all took place in the 6th C BC, it's all the more extraordinary. i know this all is right up YankeeFan's alley, so i thought i'd mention it....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can some of the drafters help me out with the intellectual category....These final two tiers, as of now, can be in almost any order within themselves, and obviously there is room for movement. I will say this, this a collection of a pretty damn impressive 20 people and I wouldn't be ashamed of drafting any of them. Basically, from 1-15 you have a solid absolutely interesting and category perfect selection who an argument can be made should be higher.
Looks like you've got a handle on it to me. What kind of feedback are you looking for?
That's basically it - am I coming out of left field or ont he ball, so to speak.
 
Can some of the drafters help me out with the intellectual category.

My initial review of the people chosen is complete. After that initial review, wherein I looked at each person through the lense of the actual rules of the draft (people who have written/argued about politicis, human culture and human interactions not necessarily broad theory but practical things) combined with what an intellectual really is (a significant intellect that pursues things in the interest of intellect based on reason and engaged in the mental labors such as teaching or writing). With that as the initial backdrop, these are bottom tier guys:

Hammurabi - did not create his code of laws, but instead ordered them be codified into what we know of the Hammurabi Code. He is similar to King James in that way, and we don't give King James the honor of writer of the bible.

Justinian - again, the laws he is known for were not his, but were codified and collected by his order.

Garry Kasparov - a supreme intellect in terms of actually using the mind to do something - play chess - but not exactly someone that has affected the world over, nor been a leader as defined by the rules).

Frederick Douglas - a true great in American history, but does that spread to the world? We weren't the only land dealing with slavery, and some still have vestiges of it.

Umberto Eco - a novelist who writings seemt to touch of philosophical and intellectual topics, but mainly for novelistic necessity. And of course, being a modern person whereas everyone else here has decades or centuries to review, hurts him.

My next tier after this contains:

Pythagorus, Trotsky, Blackstone, Thucydides, von Claucswitz, Jefferson, Blackstone

And then my last tier is:

Keyes, Smith, Malthus, Freud, Jung, Machiavelli, Locke and Hobbes.

These final two tiers, as of now, can be in almost any order within themselves, and obviously there is room for movement. I will say this, this a collection of a pretty damn impressive 20 people and I wouldn't be ashamed of drafting any of them. Basically, from 1-15 you have a solid absolutely interesting and category perfect selection who an argument can be made should be higher.
Might as well rank Umberto #20, I'm used to it......
 
3. Jonas Salk

Humanitarian

(Abrantes 16.01/301st pick - 14th of category) post #5362

Wiki bio

“Until 1955, when the Salk vaccine was introduced, polio was considered the most frightening public health problem of the postwar era. Annual epidemics kept getting worse and victims were usually children. By 1952 it was killing more of them than any other communicable disease with over 57,000 cases reported that year. The "public reaction was to a plague," said historian William O'Neill. "Citizens of urban areas were to be terrified every summer when this frightful visitor returned." As a result, scientists were in a frantic race to find a cure. President Franklin Roosevelt was the world's most recognized victim of the disease and founded the institute to fund and create a vaccine.

In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. While working there, with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, Salk saw an opportunity to develop a vaccine against polio, and devoted himself to this work for the next eight years. The field tests Salk set up were, according to O'Neill, "the most elaborate program of its kind in history, involving 20,000 physicians and public health officers, 64,000 school personnel, and 220,000 volunteers." When news of the discovery was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a "miracle worker," and the day "almost became a national holiday." He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine, as he had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible.”

This ranking will surprise some, and disappoint others. Dr. Salk's decision to not patent his miracle cure was one of the noblest gestures by any human being in history.
:confused: Really impressive write-ups overall.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top