I was put in mind of this travesty by the current Tour de France.
Three years ago, as this list was being compiled and the "countdown" was underway, I started a pool with some friends to try to name the top 20, with the top 10 in exact order. I expected to see Greg LeMond somewhere in the top 20. In the event, he didn't even make the top *100*.
I couldn't believe it. This was a guy who won 3 Tours de France, arguably the most arduous athletic *and* sporting event in the world of organized sports; the second and third he won with some shotgun pellets in the lining of his heart. It simply was not believable that he wasn't in the top 20; staggering that he wasn't in the top 100. Making it into the top 100 were some running sacks of dog food (Man O'War, Secretariat, Citation), two little guys who rode the sacks of dog food (Shoemaker, Arcaro (!!! where the fuck was Pincay?! He had *already* broken Shoemaker's record in 1999), and some pizza delivery drivers (Petty, Foyt, Andretti). But no Greg LeMond.
It began to dawn on me. The stench of political correctness blowing out of the list was overpowering. Babe Didrickson was number 10; LeMond couldn't crack the top 100. Jackie Fucking Joyner-Kersee, a good athlete in a sport no one cares about, got in at NUMBER TWENTY FUCKING THREE! Martina Navratilova makes it all the way to 19 (wouldn't have made the top 50 except that she preferred the sushi bar to the sausage platter). Greg Pouncing Homo Louganis, a *diver* ferchristallfuckingmighty, at #54 beats out Dick Butkus (#70), Roberto Clemente (#71), Maurice "Rocket" Richard (#85), and 43 other mostly legitimate athletes.
Michael Jordan, with close ties to ESPN, of course got #1. Babe Ruth (#2) should have had it; he is the most mythic figure ever in North American sports, and probably always will be. Muhammed Ali, the most world renowned athlete ever, was #3, but should have been #2. Jordan shouldn't even have been in the top 5, and for certain there's no fucking way the guy beats Wilt Chamberlain (#13) in any legitimate poll. (Playing against Chamberlain in his prime would lead Shaquille O'Neil to become a grocery store bagger.)
But why THE FUCK was LeMond left off the list entirely? No one seriously wants to contend that Bonnie Blair (#69) merits a place in the top 100, while a guy who wins the hardest sports event in the world three times, twice with shotgun pellets in the lining of his heart, doesn't deserve to be included?
If the year 2000 were still a couple of years off, Lance Armstrong would deservedly be in the top 10. LeMond ought to have been somewhere in the top 50, at least.
> I was put in mind of this travesty by the current Tour > de France.
> Three years ago, as this list was being compiled and > the "countdown" was underway, I started a pool with > some friends to try to name the top 20, with the top 10 > in exact order. I expected to see Greg LeMond > somewhere in the top 20. In the event, he didn't even > make the top *100*.
Neither did Lance Armstrong, whose accomplishments in The Tour may even surpass Le Monde's. They both rank as top 25 all-time athletes in sport, but not in a North American sport. Bike racing isn't an important North American sport, therefore not considered relevant to this particular list. I think it's a bit of myopia on the part of the list's creators.
>>I was put in mind of this travesty by the current Tour >>de France.
>>Three years ago, as this list was being compiled and >>the "countdown" was underway, I started a pool with >>some friends to try to name the top 20, with the top 10 >>in exact order. I expected to see Greg LeMond >>somewhere in the top 20. In the event, he didn't even >>make the top *100*.
> Neither did Lance Armstrong, whose accomplishments in The Tour may even > surpass Le Monde's.
The voting was done in 1999, the year Armstrong won his first Tour. One win in the Tour de France doesn't make for a superstar. Note that I said that if the vote were held today, Armstrong would undoubtedly be in the top 20.
> They both rank as top 25 all-time athletes in sport, but > not in a North American sport.
LeMond actually was listed in the second 100, so he was at least considered by the ignorant buffoon sportswriters who got to vote.
> Bike racing isn't an important North American > sport, therefore not considered relevant to this particular list. I think > it's a bit of myopia on the part of the list's creators.
> I was put in mind of this travesty by the current Tour de France.
> Three years ago, as this list was being compiled and the "countdown" was > underway, I started a pool with some friends to try to name the top 20, > with the top 10 in exact order. I expected to see Greg LeMond somewhere > in the top 20. In the event, he didn't even make the top *100*.
> I couldn't believe it. This was a guy who won 3 Tours de France, > arguably the most arduous athletic *and* sporting event in the world of > organized sports; the second and third he won with some shotgun pellets > in the lining of his heart. It simply was not believable that he wasn't > in the top 20; staggering that he wasn't in the top 100. Making it into > the top 100 were some running sacks of dog food (Man O'War, Secretariat, > Citation), two little guys who rode the sacks of dog food (Shoemaker, > Arcaro (!!! where the fuck was Pincay?! He had *already* broken > Shoemaker's record in 1999), and some pizza delivery drivers (Petty, > Foyt, Andretti). But no Greg LeMond.
> It began to dawn on me. The stench of political correctness blowing out > of the list was overpowering. Babe Didrickson was number 10; LeMond > couldn't crack the top 100. Jackie Fucking Joyner-Kersee, a good > athlete in a sport no one cares about, got in at NUMBER TWENTY FUCKING > THREE! Martina Navratilova makes it all the way to 19 (wouldn't have > made the top 50 except that she preferred the sushi bar to the sausage > platter). Greg Pouncing Homo Louganis, a *diver* > ferchristallfuckingmighty, at #54 beats out Dick Butkus (#70), Roberto > Clemente (#71), Maurice "Rocket" Richard (#85), and 43 other mostly > legitimate athletes.
> Michael Jordan, with close ties to ESPN, of course got #1. Babe Ruth > (#2) should have had it; he is the most mythic figure ever in North > American sports, and probably always will be. Muhammed Ali, the most > world renowned athlete ever, was #3, but should have been #2. Jordan > shouldn't even have been in the top 5, and for certain there's no > fucking way the guy beats Wilt Chamberlain (#13) in any legitimate > poll. (Playing against Chamberlain in his prime would lead Shaquille > O'Neil to become a grocery store bagger.)
> But why THE FUCK was LeMond left off the list entirely? No one > seriously wants to contend that Bonnie Blair (#69) merits a place in the > top 100, while a guy who wins the hardest sports event in the world > three times, twice with shotgun pellets in the lining of his heart, > doesn't deserve to be included?
> If the year 2000 were still a couple of years off, Lance Armstrong would > deservedly be in the top 10. LeMond ought to have been somewhere in the > top 50, at least.
Gotta agree with you, especially when I see horses listed (only skimmed the list). I've nothing against horses or horse racing, but when do humans and animals compete against EACH OTHER? Same, too, with auto racers like AJ Foyt or jockeys like Shoemaker.
One thing about Lance: he was already a top triathlete before devoting his energies and time to bicycling in the '90s. He could've conceivably been included on the list, but LeMond damn sure should've been.
Other surprises in the top 50: JIM BROWN at #4. Great player, not-so-great actor. His records have almost all been broken by players who show up much lower in the list. I would have Walter Payton (#39) ahead of Brown on my list.
WILLIE MAYS at #8. Yes, he's a great player and in my own top 20 in baseball, but in the last century of baseball is he second only to the Babe? Surely Ty Cobb or Cy Young would deserve higher ranking than Mays. Or Hank Aaron, who's listed six spots behind Mays.
BABE DIDRIKSON-ZAHARIAS at #10. Yes, she was a great golfer. Yes, she was a Texan. Yes, her career was cut short by cancer. She's definitely in the top 10 female athletes of the last century, but overall? Top 20.
CARL LEWIS at #12. Carl is a great athlete, but I'd probably have him between 11-20 in my list.
JACKIE ROBINSON at #15. True, the guy overcame obstacles to make it to MLB, but his stats are marginally above average. His lifetime AVG is .311, which isn't shabby, but lower than other players (e.g., Ted Williams at #16) ranked below him in this survey.
Speaking of TED WILLIAMS, I suspect he'd be higher on this list had he not developed so much friction between himself and the media.
GORDIE HOWE at #21. The guy gets in on longevity, but his stats seem inadequate given that Gretzky broke his records in far less time than it took Howe to set them.
ARNOLD PALMER at #29. Arnie was a good golfer in his prime, but better than Ben Hogan (#38) in his? I think not.
LARRY BIRD at #30. Great player, no doubt. Would probably be in the 80-90 range in my list.
LAWRENCE TAYLOR at #40. LT was probably the scariest LB in football. Maybe it had something to do with withdrawl. But did he do more for football than Dr J (#43) did for basketball?
JULIUS ERVING at #43. Dr J belongs way ahead of other ABA/NBA stars on this list, including Larry Bird (#30). So, too, does Elgin Baylor (#58).
ERIC HEIDEN at #46. It's fun to watch people skate around in circles very quickly. No doubt the dude was fast, but I don't think his legacy is greater than those of Cy Young, Bobby Hull, or Mario LeMieux.
---- I could go on (and on) with the second half of the list, especially the damn horses and car racers and divers. If divers qualify (speaking here of Louganis NOT Navratilova), why shouldn't gymnasts like Mary Lou Retton? Finally, Deion Sanders wouldn't be on any list of mine -- certainly not ahead of Dan Marino, Barry Sanders, Jimmy Connors, Cy Young, Gale Sayers, Bobby Hull, Michael Johnson, Greg LeMond, or Lance Armstrong.
>> I was put in mind of this travesty by the current Tour de France.
[...] >> But why THE FUCK was LeMond left off the list entirely? No one >> seriously wants to contend that Bonnie Blair (#69) merits a place in >> the top 100, while a guy who wins the hardest sports event in the >> world three times, twice with shotgun pellets in the lining of his >> heart, doesn't deserve to be included?
>> If the year 2000 were still a couple of years off, Lance Armstrong >> would deservedly be in the top 10. LeMond ought to have been somewhere >> in the top 50, at least.
> Gotta agree with you, especially when I see horses listed (only skimmed > the list). I've nothing against horses or horse racing, but when do > humans and animals compete against EACH OTHER? Same, too, with auto > racers like AJ Foyt or jockeys like Shoemaker.
> One thing about Lance: he was already a top triathlete before devoting > his energies and time to bicycling in the '90s. He could've conceivably > been included on the list, but LeMond damn sure should've been.
> Other surprises in the top 50: > JIM BROWN at #4. Great player, not-so-great actor. His records have > almost all been broken by players who show up much lower in the list. I > would have Walter Payton (#39) ahead of Brown on my list.
Brown still holds the record for yards per carry. If he had played as long as Payton and stayed healthy, he would probably still hold the total yards record. But I definitely don't have him at #4; possibly in or near the top 10, though.
> WILLIE MAYS at #8. Yes, he's a great player and in my own top 20 in > baseball, but in the last century of baseball is he second only to the > Babe? Surely Ty Cobb or Cy Young would deserve higher ranking than Mays. > Or Hank Aaron, who's listed six spots behind Mays.
Mays was a superior defensive to Aaron, and if he hadn't played a dozen years in windswept Candlestick Park, he'd hold the home run record. If he only "lost" 5 home runs a year at the 'Stick, that's still 60 home runs, which would have put him at 720, breaking Ruth's record. In fact, he undoubtedly lost more than that. He also lost nearly 2 years early in his career to the Army. In 1951, his rookie year, he hit 20 HR playing in 121 games. He only played 34 games in 1952, hitting 4 HR, and he lost the entire 1953 season. In 1954, in 151 games, he hit 41 HR, and 51 in 1955 (152 games). Let's conservatively give him 35 home runs each year for 1952 and 1953, plus the conservative 60 "lost" ones due to playing at the 'Stick, and we can add 130 hypthetical home runs to his actual total of 660, giving him 790 - a record the steroid-pumped asshole Barry Bonds can only dream about.
Having said all that...Ty Cobb is the greatest baseball player ever. Since the rankings were based not only on pure sports achievement but also the degree of celebrity, Ruth legitimately outranks Cobb. As long as it's acknowledged that being a legend is part of the equation, and I think it implicitly was, then I put Ruth at #1. He clearly is the most legendary figure in American sports. Fifty-some-odd years after his death, and more than that after the end of his career, Michael Jordan will not be spoken of as Ruth has been.
> BABE DIDRIKSON-ZAHARIAS at #10. Yes, she was a great golfer. Yes, she > was a Texan.
Shouldn't that move her *down* the list? ;-)
> Yes, her career was cut short by cancer. She's definitely > in the top 10 female athletes of the last century, but overall? Top 20.
If even. The high ranking given to *any* of the women is pure PC.
> CARL LEWIS at #12. Carl is a great athlete, but I'd probably have him > between 11-20 in my list.
> JACKIE ROBINSON at #15. True, the guy overcame obstacles to make it to > MLB, but his stats are marginally above average. His lifetime AVG is > .311, which isn't shabby, but lower than other players (e.g., Ted > Williams at #16) ranked below him in this survey.
> Speaking of TED WILLIAMS, I suspect he'd be higher on this list had he > not developed so much friction between himself and the media.
The guy who should be ranked much, MUCH higher is Musial.
> GORDIE HOWE at #21. The guy gets in on longevity, but his stats seem > inadequate given that Gretzky broke his records in far less time than it > took Howe to set them.
It was a very different league when Howe played. For most of his career, there were only SIX - count 'em, SIX - teams in the NHL. The talent was far more concentrated. Howe was his own goon, but he had to prove it. Gretzky was coddled (legitimately so; I suspect the league would have suspended for a whole season anyone who injured Gretzky; he was just too valuable to hockey to allow anyone to hurt him.) I think Howe actually should be in the top 20.
> ARNOLD PALMER at #29. Arnie was a good golfer in his prime, but better > than Ben Hogan (#38) in his? I think not.
Again, it is about celebrity. Palmer is almost singlehandedly responsible for the popularization of golf.
> LARRY BIRD at #30. Great player, no doubt. Would probably be in the > 80-90 range in my list.
Yep.
> LAWRENCE TAYLOR at #40. LT was probably the scariest LB in football. > Maybe it had something to do with withdrawl. But did he do more for > football than Dr J (#43) did for basketball?
> JULIUS ERVING at #43. Dr J belongs way ahead of other ABA/NBA stars on > this list, including Larry Bird (#30). So, too, does Elgin Baylor (#58).
Dr. J once said there was nothing he ever did that Baylor hadn't already done, in terms of soaring, acrobatic moves; Baylor just didn't get to do it on TV.
> ERIC HEIDEN at #46. It's fun to watch people skate around in circles > very quickly. No doubt the dude was fast, but I don't think his legacy > is greater than those of Cy Young, Bobby Hull, or Mario LeMieux.
More PC.
> ---- > I could go on (and on) with the second half of the list, especially the > damn horses and car racers and divers. If divers qualify (speaking here > of Louganis NOT Navratilova), why shouldn't gymnasts like Mary Lou > Retton? Finally, Deion Sanders wouldn't be on any list of mine --
Really?! The guy was an accomplished two-sport athlete, a superstar in football and a legitimate star in baseball. Michael Jordan couldn't even hit a major league *fastball*; Sanders could hit the curveball, too. I think he makes the list, but about 1/3 down into the second 50.
Retton should have been on the list, likely top 40. When my friends and I were doing our pool, I had her somewhere around 17-20. I *wouldn't* have ranked her that highly on my own, but it was inconceivable to me she'd be left off entirely, and the point of the pool was not to select who we thought ought to be on the list, but to identify who we thought *would* be on it. Since the bottom 80 had already been named, and since I was sure she'd be listed, I had to guess it would be 17-20.
No freaking way Wilt Chamberlain is only #13, just one spot ahead of Aaron. Aaron set ONE major league record, although perhaps its most visible one. Chamberlain set well over a dozen NBA records, many of which he still holds. I doubt anyone will break his single season scoring average of 50.4 any time soon, if ever. I had him in the top 5 or 6, as I recall.
> certainly not ahead of Dan Marino, Barry Sanders, Jimmy Connors, Cy > Young, Gale Sayers, Bobby Hull, Michael Johnson, Greg LeMond, or Lance > Armstrong.
> Thanks for the interesting post, Jon.
You're welcome. I *still* think it's a travesty that LeMond didn't make the list, given that Armstrong would be a no-brainer top 20 pick if it were done today.
>> WILLIE MAYS at #8. Yes, he's a great player and in my own top 20 in >> baseball, but in the last century of baseball is he second only to the >> Babe? Surely Ty Cobb or Cy Young would deserve higher ranking than >> Mays. Or Hank Aaron, who's listed six spots behind Mays.
> Mays was a superior defensive to Aaron, and if he hadn't played a dozen > years in windswept Candlestick Park, he'd hold the home run record. If > he only "lost" 5 home runs a year at the 'Stick, that's still 60 home > runs, which would have put him at 720, breaking Ruth's record. In fact, > he undoubtedly lost more than that. He also lost nearly 2 years early in > his career to the Army. In 1951, his rookie year, he hit 20 HR playing > in 121 games. He only played 34 games in 1952, hitting 4 HR, and he > lost the entire 1953 season. In 1954, in 151 games, he hit 41 HR, and > 51 in 1955 (152 games). Let's conservatively give him 35 home runs each > year for 1952 and 1953, plus the conservative 60 "lost" ones due to > playing at the 'Stick, and we can add 130 hypthetical home runs to his > actual total of 660, giving him 790 - a record the steroid-pumped > asshole Barry Bonds can only dream about.
All good points.
> Having said all that...Ty Cobb is the greatest baseball player ever. > Since the rankings were based not only on pure sports achievement but > also the degree of celebrity, Ruth legitimately outranks Cobb. As long > as it's acknowledged that being a legend is part of the equation, and I > think it implicitly was, then I put Ruth at #1. He clearly is the most > legendary figure in American sports. Fifty-some-odd years after his > death, and more than that after the end of his career, Michael Jordan > will not be spoken of as Ruth has been.
Unless he's still peddling Gatorade, Hanes, and Nike from beyond the grave (he may have sold rights in perpetuity since he DID sell his soul).
>> BABE DIDRIKSON-ZAHARIAS at #10. Yes, she was a great golfer. Yes, she >> was a Texan.
> Shouldn't that move her *down* the list? ;-)
No. :-p
>> Yes, her career was cut short by cancer. She's definitely in the top >> 10 female athletes of the last century, but overall? Top 20.
> If even. The high ranking given to *any* of the women is pure PC.
I left out her track and field career. Some women, like Jackie Joyner-Kersey and Babe Didrikson, make my list; horses, though, don't.
<..>
>> Speaking of TED WILLIAMS, I suspect he'd be higher on this list had he >> not developed so much friction between himself and the media.
> The guy who should be ranked much, MUCH higher is Musial.
Yeah, I meant to add him.
>> GORDIE HOWE at #21. The guy gets in on longevity, but his stats seem >> inadequate given that Gretzky broke his records in far less time than >> it took Howe to set them.
> It was a very different league when Howe played. For most of his > career, there were only SIX - count 'em, SIX - teams in the NHL. The > talent was far more concentrated. Howe was his own goon, but he had to > prove it. Gretzky was coddled (legitimately so; I suspect the league > would have suspended for a whole season anyone who injured Gretzky; he > was just too valuable to hockey to allow anyone to hurt him.) I think > Howe actually should be in the top 20.
Most points accepted, except the number of teams. He was in the NHL during much of its growth. I got to see him play in Houston when I was little. I'd put him in my top 50 (but Gretzky would go higher).
<snip>
>> I could go on (and on) with the second half of the list, especially >> the damn horses and car racers and divers. If divers qualify (speaking >> here of Louganis NOT Navratilova), why shouldn't gymnasts like Mary >> Lou Retton? Finally, Deion Sanders wouldn't be on any list of mine --
> Really?! The guy was an accomplished two-sport athlete, a superstar in > football and a legitimate star in baseball. Michael Jordan couldn't > even hit a major league *fastball*; Sanders could hit the curveball, > too. I think he makes the list, but about 1/3 down into the second 50.
Yes, really, because he wasn't accomplished at baseball (I take exception to your statement that he could hit fastballs; he could hit curves and change-ups). Deion's career batting average is only .263 with a .319 on-base percentage. He had two seasons in which he had more than 100 hits. He struck out more than twice for every walk. He only had one "good" season, 1992, when he hit .304 and had 14 triples. The rest he was below average.
> Retton should have been on the list, likely top 40. When my friends and > I were doing our pool, I had her somewhere around 17-20. I *wouldn't* > have ranked her that highly on my own, but it was inconceivable to me > she'd be left off entirely, and the point of the pool was not to select > who we thought ought to be on the list, but to identify who we thought > *would* be on it. Since the bottom 80 had already been named, and since > I was sure she'd be listed, I had to guess it would be 17-20.
Guess they *had* to make room for auto racers, horses, and jockeys.
> No freaking way Wilt Chamberlain is only #13, just one spot ahead of > Aaron. Aaron set ONE major league record, although perhaps its most > visible one. Chamberlain set well over a dozen NBA records, many of > which he still holds. I doubt anyone will break his single season > scoring average of 50.4 any time soon, if ever. I had him in the top 5 > or 6, as I recall.
>> certainly not ahead of Dan Marino, Barry Sanders, Jimmy Connors, Cy >> Young, Gale Sayers, Bobby Hull, Michael Johnson, Greg LeMond, or Lance >> Armstrong.
>> Thanks for the interesting post, Jon.
> You're welcome. I *still* think it's a travesty that LeMond didn't make > the list, given that Armstrong would be a no-brainer top 20 pick if it > were done today.
Definitely. I'd put him above Jordan, but I'm biased.
usual suspect wrote: > Jonathan Ball wrote: > <snip>
>>> WILLIE MAYS at #8. Yes, he's a great player and in my own top 20 in >>> baseball, but in the last century of baseball is he second only to >>> the Babe? Surely Ty Cobb or Cy Young would deserve higher ranking >>> than Mays. Or Hank Aaron, who's listed six spots behind Mays.
>> Mays was a superior defensive to Aaron, and if he hadn't played a >> dozen years in windswept Candlestick Park, he'd hold the home run >> record. If he only "lost" 5 home runs a year at the 'Stick, that's >> still 60 home runs, which would have put him at 720, breaking Ruth's >> record. In fact, he undoubtedly lost more than that. He also lost >> nearly 2 years early in his career to the Army. In 1951, his rookie >> year, he hit 20 HR playing in 121 games. He only played 34 games in >> 1952, hitting 4 HR, and he lost the entire 1953 season. In 1954, in >> 151 games, he hit 41 HR, and 51 in 1955 (152 games). Let's >> conservatively give him 35 home runs each year for 1952 and 1953, plus >> the conservative 60 "lost" ones due to playing at the 'Stick, and we >> can add 130 hypthetical home runs to his actual total of 660, giving >> him 790 - a record the steroid-pumped asshole Barry Bonds can only >> dream about.
> All good points.
>> Having said all that...Ty Cobb is the greatest baseball player ever. >> Since the rankings were based not only on pure sports achievement but >> also the degree of celebrity, Ruth legitimately outranks Cobb. As >> long as it's acknowledged that being a legend is part of the equation, >> and I think it implicitly was, then I put Ruth at #1. He clearly is >> the most legendary figure in American sports. Fifty-some-odd years >> after his death, and more than that after the end of his career, >> Michael Jordan will not be spoken of as Ruth has been.
> Unless he's still peddling Gatorade, Hanes, and Nike from beyond the > grave (he may have sold rights in perpetuity since he DID sell his soul).
>>> BABE DIDRIKSON-ZAHARIAS at #10. Yes, she was a great golfer. Yes, she >>> was a Texan.
>> Shouldn't that move her *down* the list? ;-)
> No. :-p
>>> Yes, her career was cut short by cancer. She's definitely in the top >>> 10 female athletes of the last century, but overall? Top 20.
>> If even. The high ranking given to *any* of the women is pure PC.
> I left out her track and field career. Some women, like Jackie > Joyner-Kersey and Babe Didrikson, make my list; horses, though, don't.
Nor do pizza delivery drivers (Foyt, Andretti, Petty).
>>> Speaking of TED WILLIAMS, I suspect he'd be higher on this list had >>> he not developed so much friction between himself and the media.
>> The guy who should be ranked much, MUCH higher is Musial.
> Yeah, I meant to add him.
>>> GORDIE HOWE at #21. The guy gets in on longevity, but his stats seem >>> inadequate given that Gretzky broke his records in far less time than >>> it took Howe to set them.
>> It was a very different league when Howe played. For most of his >> career, there were only SIX - count 'em, SIX - teams in the NHL. The >> talent was far more concentrated. Howe was his own goon, but he had >> to prove it. Gretzky was coddled (legitimately so; I suspect the >> league would have suspended for a whole season anyone who injured >> Gretzky; he was just too valuable to hockey to allow anyone to hurt >> him.) I think Howe actually should be in the top 20.
> Most points accepted, except the number of teams. He was in the NHL > during much of its growth.
Sorry; that just isn't correct. He played for the Red Wings from 1946-47 through 1970-71. The league was comprised of six teams up until the 1967-68 season, when it *doubled*. That's 21 years in a six-team league, longer than Gretzky's whole career. Indicating the effect of talent dilution, his points totals jumped dramatically the first two years following the expansion, from 65 in 1966-67 to 82 and 103 the next two years; of course, he also played in 5, 7 and 7 more games in the 3 years following the expansion, but I'd argue that also was an effect of talent dilution.
> I got to see him play in Houston when I was > little. I'd put him in my top 50 (but Gretzky would go higher).
Given the fame angle, I'd probably put Gretzky higher, too, but not by much. Gretzky was a one-dimensional player (but *what* a player!) Howe was more complete. He flattened guys in a sport where that's important. Gretzky directly made his teammates better, by focusing on feeding them the puck in scoring situations. Howe indirectly made his teammates better by being intimidating; he also did the direct thing. Gretzky's points totals, though, particularly in the early and mid 1980s, are simply staggering.
If you're a baseball fan - if you're a North American and claim to be a sports fan, but aren't a baseball fan, then you're not *really* a sports fan - go to http://www.baseball-reference.com. It's a stupendous site.
>>> I could go on (and on) with the second half of the list, especially >>> the damn horses and car racers and divers. If divers qualify >>> (speaking here of Louganis NOT Navratilova), why shouldn't gymnasts >>> like Mary Lou Retton? Finally, Deion Sanders wouldn't be on any list >>> of mine --
>> Really?! The guy was an accomplished two-sport athlete, a superstar >> in football and a legitimate star in baseball. Michael Jordan >> couldn't even hit a major league *fastball*; Sanders could hit the >> curveball, too. I think he makes the list, but about 1/3 down into >> the second 50.
> Yes, really, because he wasn't accomplished at baseball (I take > exception to your statement that he could hit fastballs; he could hit > curves and change-ups). Deion's career batting average is only .263 with > a .319 on-base percentage. He had two seasons in which he had more than > 100 hits. He struck out more than twice for every walk. He only had one > "good" season, 1992, when he hit .304 and had 14 triples. The rest he > was below average.
>> Retton should have been on the list, likely top 40. When my friends >> and I were doing our pool, I had her somewhere around 17-20. I >> *wouldn't* have ranked her that highly on my own, but it was >> inconceivable to me she'd be left off entirely, and the point of the >> pool was not to select who we thought ought to be on the list, but to >> identify who we thought *would* be on it. Since the bottom 80 had >> already been named, and since I was sure she'd be listed, I had to >> guess it would be 17-20.
> Guess they *had* to make room for auto racers, horses, and jockeys.
>> No freaking way Wilt Chamberlain is only #13, just one spot ahead of >> Aaron. Aaron set ONE major league record, although perhaps its most >> visible one. Chamberlain set well over a dozen NBA records, many of >> which he still holds. I doubt anyone will break his single season >> scoring average of 50.4 any time soon, if ever. I had him in the top >> 5 or 6, as I recall.
>>> certainly not ahead of Dan Marino, Barry Sanders, Jimmy Connors, Cy >>> Young, Gale Sayers, Bobby Hull, Michael Johnson, Greg LeMond, or >>> Lance Armstrong.
>>> Thanks for the interesting post, Jon.
>> You're welcome. I *still* think it's a travesty that LeMond didn't >> make the list, given that Armstrong would be a no-brainer top 20 pick >> if it were done today.
> Definitely. I'd put him above Jordan, but I'm biased.
Who? LeMond, or Armstrong? Armstrong maybe; not LeMond (I guess I should have been writing "Lemond" all this time; he doesn't capitalize the 'm'.)
Although bicycle racing is abominably grueling, there's no detracting from Jordan's six championships. Basketball is more physical than it looks, and I've always thought that of all the major North American sports, it's the most athletically complete. I think I maybe put Jordan just a bit above Armstrong, but maybe not if Lance wins the Tour this year. Think he can make it six?
> If you're a baseball fan - if you're a North American and claim to be a > sports fan, but aren't a baseball fan, then you're not *really* a sports > fan - go to http://www.baseball-reference.com. It's a stupendous site.
That's where I get most of my baseball stats, including the numbers I posted for Deion Sanders.
>>> You're welcome. I *still* think it's a travesty that LeMond didn't >>> make the list, given that Armstrong would be a no-brainer top 20 pick >>> if it were done today.
>> Definitely. I'd put him above Jordan, but I'm biased.
> Who? LeMond, or Armstrong? Armstrong maybe; not LeMond (I guess I > should have been writing "Lemond" all this time; he doesn't capitalize > the 'm'.)
Sorry, I meant Lance Armstrong. LeMond (or Lemond or leMond or whatever) was great, but Lance has surpassed him.
> Although bicycle racing is abominably grueling, there's no detracting > from Jordan's six championships. Basketball is more physical than it > looks, and I've always thought that of all the major North American > sports, it's the most athletically complete. I think I maybe put Jordan > just a bit above Armstrong, but maybe not if Lance wins the Tour this > year. Think he can make it six?
I think so, barring injury or another crash or mechanical trouble anyway. Lance is only 2:37 behind overall, and Petacchi retired from the race today. Virenque, who took the yellow jersey today, was grimacing and looked relieved just to have finished. Lance looked cool, calm, and collected. Two more days climbing the Alps -- Lance has what it takes but I think Virenque blew his wad. The real man steps up tomorrow.
usual suspect wrote: > Jonathan Ball wrote: > <snip>
>> If you're a baseball fan - if you're a North American and claim to be >> a sports fan, but aren't a baseball fan, then you're not *really* a >> sports fan - go to http://www.baseball-reference.com. It's a >> stupendous site.
> That's where I get most of my baseball stats, including the numbers I > posted for Deion Sanders.
>>>> You're welcome. I *still* think it's a travesty that LeMond didn't >>>> make the list, given that Armstrong would be a no-brainer top 20 >>>> pick if it were done today.
>>> Definitely. I'd put him above Jordan, but I'm biased.
>> Who? LeMond, or Armstrong? Armstrong maybe; not LeMond (I guess I >> should have been writing "Lemond" all this time; he doesn't capitalize >> the 'm'.)
> Sorry, I meant Lance Armstrong. LeMond (or Lemond or leMond or whatever) > was great, but Lance has surpassed him.
>> Although bicycle racing is abominably grueling, there's no detracting >> from Jordan's six championships. Basketball is more physical than it >> looks, and I've always thought that of all the major North American >> sports, it's the most athletically complete. I think I maybe put >> Jordan just a bit above Armstrong, but maybe not if Lance wins the >> Tour this year. Think he can make it six?
> I think so, barring injury or another crash or mechanical trouble > anyway. Lance is only 2:37 behind overall, and Petacchi retired from the > race today. Virenque, who took the yellow jersey today, was grimacing > and looked relieved just to have finished. Lance looked cool, calm, and > collected. Two more days climbing the Alps -- Lance has what it takes > but I think Virenque blew his wad. The real man steps up tomorrow.
|
