okay, puppet ads - we get it. lebron is amazing. he's the king. blah, blah, blah.
but as lebron spends yet another ringless offseason, let's pause to compare him to the next great one: sid the kid.
last night, 21-year-old sidney crosby led - nay, captained - the pittsburgh penguins to a victory in the stanley cup finals over the perennially dominant detroit red wings, with the pens coming back from deficits of 2-0 and 3-2. sure, malkin took home the conn smythe, but any true hockey fan knows that crosby is the heart and soul of that team.
meanwhile, lebron's nba-best cavs flopped in the playoffs, not even making it to the nba finals. and while lebron may be dominant on the court, i'm sure at least a teammate or two is sick of all the talk about him going to new york.
so who is the true king? in his fourth season, crosby celebrates with a stanley cup after making the finals for two consecutive years. meanwhile, in his sixth season, lebron is a superstar who has but an mvp title to his name - a trophy that surely looks bare in the case without an nba finals shiner standing next to it.
lebron gets paid $14 million a year, has innumerable endorsements, and is already prompting talk of unseating jordan (and his six championships). meanwhile, the humble crosby is actually one national title closer to filling the gigantic shoes left behind by wayne gretzky.
lebron, SHMEBRON. it's time to give credit where credit is due.
Showing posts with label the greatest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the greatest. Show all posts
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Re: Re: The Greatest Athlete of All Time
I find it necessary to similarly weigh in on this topic, in the wake of Phelps winning his 7th gold medal in 7 tries.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with both of you. Phelps? Greatest swimmer of all time, that's certainly possible. Greatest athlete? Hold the phone. We don't even know what the term means.
D.R.W. contends that in order to be considered the greatest athlete of all time, you must be competing against something other than simply the game itself. That is, you need to beat "someone" as opposed to "something" to hold that title. I consider that a valid argument, but I again respectfully disagree.
Phelps and Tiger Woods would both be eliminated from discussion here simply because their games don't involve direct competition, when clearly, these names deserve to be included in the debate simply because, as K.L. said of Phelps "everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time." This can, of course, also be applied to Woods with respect to winning golf tournaments. Very rarely does he fail to deliver. Their presence makes the rest of the field nervous--and perform differently.
However, does that make these athletes the "greatest of all time"? Maybe, but it's not that simple.
As D.R.W. argued, Michael Jordan must stare down the defense before he drives the lane, Barry Bonds must hit that 90 mph fastball, and Wayne Gretzky must get the puck past the aggressive goalie, but then again, their successes also tend to rely on not only their teammates' performance but also the ability of their defenders. When the defense plays miserably, does that mean the Jordans and Gretzkys of the world are truly the best?
While this may not hold true for the baseball players in the group (Ruth and Bonds, for example) baseball's comparatively low standards put it in a different tier, in my opinion (that is, more than 65% of the time, Bonds made an out, yet he's regarded as perhaps the greatest hitter ever).
So, what does it all mean?
All I'm saying is that it's a difficult, slippery slope of an argument to get into. The fact that these people all compete in different events, with different factors contributing to their success and failure makes this debate nearly impossible to have.
Phelps and Woods are in a category of their own: most intimidating, perhaps most successful individual athletes of all time.
Jordan, Gretzky, Bonds, Ruth, Brady, etc. join them in the category in contention for the title of "greatest athlete of all time" due to their successes and outstanding abilities.
But, do we have an answer? Of course not. As D.R.W. said, "greatest athlete of all time" can mean many things. Each of these athletes are indeed incredibly successful and all ought to be regarded for the things they've done. One can't quite stand above the other, because the comparisons across sports are impossible.
Not quite the satisfying answer everyone was hoping for, but it had to be said.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with both of you. Phelps? Greatest swimmer of all time, that's certainly possible. Greatest athlete? Hold the phone. We don't even know what the term means.
D.R.W. contends that in order to be considered the greatest athlete of all time, you must be competing against something other than simply the game itself. That is, you need to beat "someone" as opposed to "something" to hold that title. I consider that a valid argument, but I again respectfully disagree.
Phelps and Tiger Woods would both be eliminated from discussion here simply because their games don't involve direct competition, when clearly, these names deserve to be included in the debate simply because, as K.L. said of Phelps "everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time." This can, of course, also be applied to Woods with respect to winning golf tournaments. Very rarely does he fail to deliver. Their presence makes the rest of the field nervous--and perform differently.
However, does that make these athletes the "greatest of all time"? Maybe, but it's not that simple.
As D.R.W. argued, Michael Jordan must stare down the defense before he drives the lane, Barry Bonds must hit that 90 mph fastball, and Wayne Gretzky must get the puck past the aggressive goalie, but then again, their successes also tend to rely on not only their teammates' performance but also the ability of their defenders. When the defense plays miserably, does that mean the Jordans and Gretzkys of the world are truly the best?
While this may not hold true for the baseball players in the group (Ruth and Bonds, for example) baseball's comparatively low standards put it in a different tier, in my opinion (that is, more than 65% of the time, Bonds made an out, yet he's regarded as perhaps the greatest hitter ever).
So, what does it all mean?
All I'm saying is that it's a difficult, slippery slope of an argument to get into. The fact that these people all compete in different events, with different factors contributing to their success and failure makes this debate nearly impossible to have.
Phelps and Woods are in a category of their own: most intimidating, perhaps most successful individual athletes of all time.
Jordan, Gretzky, Bonds, Ruth, Brady, etc. join them in the category in contention for the title of "greatest athlete of all time" due to their successes and outstanding abilities.
But, do we have an answer? Of course not. As D.R.W. said, "greatest athlete of all time" can mean many things. Each of these athletes are indeed incredibly successful and all ought to be regarded for the things they've done. One can't quite stand above the other, because the comparisons across sports are impossible.
Not quite the satisfying answer everyone was hoping for, but it had to be said.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Re: The Greatest Athlete of All Time
In an earlier post, esteemed sportsblogger K.L. raised the possibility that Michael Phelps may be the greatest athlete of all time. This is an extremely legitimate position, and there's no way that I could ever poke too many holes in its logic. The best that I can do is humbly disagree.
No one would even think of denying that Michael Phelps is great. Few would argue he is anything less than the greatest swimmer ever, and once these Olympics are over, it may be pretty mucha foregone conclusion that, based on total medal count, that he is, in fact, the greatest Olympian in the history of time.
No, the problem is not with Michael Phelps, but with his sport, which focuses on indirect rather than direct competition with his peers. When Michael Phelps stands on the platform and stares at the other end of the pool as he prepares to shatter another world record, his greatest foes at that moment are 1) time, and 2) the swimming pool he's about to dive into. He does, of course, face off against other swimmers, but it seems more accurate to say that the athletes are all competing against time, rather than competing against each other. After all, you could just as easily race them individually and compare the times to determine the world's best swimmer.
Put simply, no one tries to stop Michael Phelps from doing what he does, they just try to keep up. My opinion is that to be the best athlete in the world, you have to compete more directly with other athletes, and overcome their best effort to slow you down. When Michael Phelps stands on that platform and stares down that pool, he sees a pristine, wide-open swimming lane. But when Michael Jordan stands at the top of the key and prepares to drive, he sees a lane clogged with elite defenders, just as Barry Bonds sees Randy Johnson staring him down, or Peyton Manning sees Shawne Merriman gunning for him. We are, of course, free to define the greatest athlete ever however we wish. For me, however, all-time greatness comes from staring the best of your era directly in the eyes and then making it look as though you don't even belong in the same league. And unless he sneaks a glance into the next lane over during one of his record-breaking races, that's something Michael Phelps can never do.
No one would even think of denying that Michael Phelps is great. Few would argue he is anything less than the greatest swimmer ever, and once these Olympics are over, it may be pretty mucha foregone conclusion that, based on total medal count, that he is, in fact, the greatest Olympian in the history of time.
No, the problem is not with Michael Phelps, but with his sport, which focuses on indirect rather than direct competition with his peers. When Michael Phelps stands on the platform and stares at the other end of the pool as he prepares to shatter another world record, his greatest foes at that moment are 1) time, and 2) the swimming pool he's about to dive into. He does, of course, face off against other swimmers, but it seems more accurate to say that the athletes are all competing against time, rather than competing against each other. After all, you could just as easily race them individually and compare the times to determine the world's best swimmer.
Put simply, no one tries to stop Michael Phelps from doing what he does, they just try to keep up. My opinion is that to be the best athlete in the world, you have to compete more directly with other athletes, and overcome their best effort to slow you down. When Michael Phelps stands on that platform and stares down that pool, he sees a pristine, wide-open swimming lane. But when Michael Jordan stands at the top of the key and prepares to drive, he sees a lane clogged with elite defenders, just as Barry Bonds sees Randy Johnson staring him down, or Peyton Manning sees Shawne Merriman gunning for him. We are, of course, free to define the greatest athlete ever however we wish. For me, however, all-time greatness comes from staring the best of your era directly in the eyes and then making it look as though you don't even belong in the same league. And unless he sneaks a glance into the next lane over during one of his record-breaking races, that's something Michael Phelps can never do.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
the greatest athlete of all time
this is how you know michael phelps comes to play.
he is in the pool for multiple races on most days. his goggles slip off his face and fill up with water. he finishes the race anyway. in fact, he wins it. no wait... he sets a world record.
and he's still disappointed.
there are no words to describe the nature of michael phelps' accomplishments. he is already the winningest olympian of all time, and he's only halfway through his second summer games. he has won a race by several seconds - in a sport that usually sees separation between competitors of just hundredths of a second.
everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time.
who else in the history of sports has been that great a performer?
the babe? clutch, yes. multi-talented, yes - a great pitcher and a great hitter in one. but phelps is no less special. he hits a home run every time he hits the pool. and multi-talented? how about swimming the fastest freestyle leg ever in the four-man relay when that's not even his specialty? as gold medalist melvin stewart told espn.com columnist pat forde, "It's good to see Kobe Bryant is there to see the greatest athlete in the world. If Kobe goes out and wins a gold medal in badminton, that's what it's like to see this guy win the 200 fly and swim that leg in the 400 free."
how about air jordan? six rings, and some of the greatest clutch moments in nba history. but jordan lost, too. and he didn't dominate from day one. the closest phelps has come to a "loss" at the olympics is when he finished behind ian thorpe and pieter van den hoogenband in the 200 free in athens. boo-hoo for bronze. and he broke his own record by a full second at beijing to stifle any ghosts lingering from his past.
tiger? if anyone comes close to phelps, it's probably eldrick woods. the man goes out and wins golf tournaments even when everyone expects him to - and even when he's behind after 36 holes. but tiger isn't invincible. he finished 2nd at the masters this year, with south african trevor immelman holding him off. and while tiger is clearly the best golfer in the world - and probably in history - there have been years when vijay singh has robbed him of the title of the pga's best.
yes, phelps is young, and he hasn't proved himself over as long a time period as the above-mentioned athletes. but this guy is practically a lock to win every time he dives into the water. there is nothing more discouraging to another swimmer than to see phelps lining up on the block next to him.
his opponents can't stop him. water in his googles can't either. having to swim 17 races during beijing 2008 doesn't even seem to have an effect. and he breaks records with every stroke.
improved swimsuit or not, this man is the real deal. is he already the greatest athlete of all time?
---------------
UPDATE: to be fair, one person who should be mentioned in this discussion is lance armstrong. he went to the tour de france year after year with all the burden in the world, and he delivered seven years in a row. while he did have some helps from his teammates, so does phelps in relays, so maybe the debate needs to be about which one of those two is the greater athlete.
he is in the pool for multiple races on most days. his goggles slip off his face and fill up with water. he finishes the race anyway. in fact, he wins it. no wait... he sets a world record.
and he's still disappointed.
there are no words to describe the nature of michael phelps' accomplishments. he is already the winningest olympian of all time, and he's only halfway through his second summer games. he has won a race by several seconds - in a sport that usually sees separation between competitors of just hundredths of a second.
everyone expects him to win gold every day... and he goes out and does it, every time.
who else in the history of sports has been that great a performer?
the babe? clutch, yes. multi-talented, yes - a great pitcher and a great hitter in one. but phelps is no less special. he hits a home run every time he hits the pool. and multi-talented? how about swimming the fastest freestyle leg ever in the four-man relay when that's not even his specialty? as gold medalist melvin stewart told espn.com columnist pat forde, "It's good to see Kobe Bryant is there to see the greatest athlete in the world. If Kobe goes out and wins a gold medal in badminton, that's what it's like to see this guy win the 200 fly and swim that leg in the 400 free."
how about air jordan? six rings, and some of the greatest clutch moments in nba history. but jordan lost, too. and he didn't dominate from day one. the closest phelps has come to a "loss" at the olympics is when he finished behind ian thorpe and pieter van den hoogenband in the 200 free in athens. boo-hoo for bronze. and he broke his own record by a full second at beijing to stifle any ghosts lingering from his past.
tiger? if anyone comes close to phelps, it's probably eldrick woods. the man goes out and wins golf tournaments even when everyone expects him to - and even when he's behind after 36 holes. but tiger isn't invincible. he finished 2nd at the masters this year, with south african trevor immelman holding him off. and while tiger is clearly the best golfer in the world - and probably in history - there have been years when vijay singh has robbed him of the title of the pga's best.
yes, phelps is young, and he hasn't proved himself over as long a time period as the above-mentioned athletes. but this guy is practically a lock to win every time he dives into the water. there is nothing more discouraging to another swimmer than to see phelps lining up on the block next to him.
his opponents can't stop him. water in his googles can't either. having to swim 17 races during beijing 2008 doesn't even seem to have an effect. and he breaks records with every stroke.
improved swimsuit or not, this man is the real deal. is he already the greatest athlete of all time?
---------------
UPDATE: to be fair, one person who should be mentioned in this discussion is lance armstrong. he went to the tour de france year after year with all the burden in the world, and he delivered seven years in a row. while he did have some helps from his teammates, so does phelps in relays, so maybe the debate needs to be about which one of those two is the greater athlete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
