Kosher Ham Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I gotta go with Magic over Bird too. But I could care less how many rings OJ has. He was a much more defining player than Bradshaw who is one of the most over-rated QBs in the history of the game. Same with Favre, the guy had some great moment, but Emmitt was as consistent as anyone that ever played the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'd replace Williams with Dimaggio. I might replace Kareem with Dr. J (just cause I think Kareem is prob best remembered these days for his time with ShowTime.) And i'd go with Magic over Bird. That's neck and neck but, unfortunately, I think Magic's HIV makes him more lasting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yeah, because he's a free murderer. OJ was a monster. He ran wild, caught out of the backfield and averaged 30 yards per kick return. I mean, Bradshaw is an ok choice. But as for 80's basketball, no single player defined it. It has to be Bird/Magic. I'm fine with every other category f every other sport being one player but it's gotta be both. No, the rules of the game are you gotta pick one. Everyone knows that 80's basketball belonged to Bird and Magic, they're forever linked at the hip and saying you're picking both is still a cop out. Anyone can pick both but that's not the point here. No, even before OJ was a murderer you never saw his highlight reels. You saw more of him on TV in commercials, commentating on football and in the Naked Gun movies before you saw any highlights of him running a football. He by and large played on crap teams. For myself, I take into account: Dominance Records Titles Iconic/unforgettable moments And to a lesser degree endorsements and media hype Yes, OJ was dominant and held some records But you can't show me an iconic moment of his from his football days. Everyones seen the highlight reel of Walter Payton setting the rushing record for example. I think I've actually seen more tape of OJ playing football at USC than on the Bills and 49ers. He doesn't have any titles, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'd replace Williams with Dimaggio. I might replace Kareem with Dr. J (just cause I think Kareem is prob best remembered these days for his time with ShowTime.) And i'd go with Magic over Bird. That's neck and neck but, unfortunately, I think Magic's HIV makes him more lasting. I think you can make an argument for DiMaggio but I took Williams for being the last to hit .400 and two triple crowns. DiMaggio won more rings but I think lost more time to WW2. Those guys are pretty close though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Their mutual rivalry defined the decade it was always Bird/Magic, Magic/Bird; Celtics/Lakers, Lakers/Celtics, neither one out shined the other, at least not in the way that would allow you to choose one over the other. Dude, but we all know that white men can't jump, so bird loses easily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I think you can make an argument for DiMaggio but I took Williams for being the last to hit .400 and two triple crowns. DiMaggio won more rings but I think lost more time to WW2. Those guys are pretty close though. When I think defining I'm thinking what player people think of when the close their eyes and think about that time period. I think what happened on the field/court is just a part of it and Dimaggio is definitely more iconic than Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I dunno about Pujols for baseball for the 2000s. And I also don't agree with Barry Bonds, mostly because he's retired and it's not 2010 yet, but also because I don't think guys with 'roid controversies should be considered. For baseball in the 2000s....someone on the Yankees would probably fit better. Not because anyone on the Yankees is technically better than Pujols (and we know Pujols' HR count cannot be contested), but I think the word "definitive" also includes popularity. I think if you put up a picture of Jeter/ARod/Damon next to a pic of Pujols, a lot more people would know the former three more than the latter. I think that needs to be taken into account when you talk about a "definitive" player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Dude, but we all know that white men can't jump, so bird loses easily Bird couldn't jump for ****. Oh and I gotta put Bonds as the 00-10 guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 When I think defining I'm thinking what player people think of when the close their eyes and think about that time period. I think what happened on the field/court is just a part of it and Dimaggio is definitely more iconic than Williams. I agree. When I close my eyes and think of 2000-2010 baseball, I don't think Pujols. I think Jeter, or Manny, or ARod, or Damon. I mean, Pujols is a crazy beast, but I wouldn't say he defined this decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 When I think defining I'm thinking what player people think of when the close their eyes and think about that time period. I think what happened on the field/court is just a part of it and Dimaggio is definitely more iconic than Williams. I agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Bird couldn't jump for ****.Oh and I gotta put Bonds as the 00-10 guy. Yep, Bird couldn't jump. That IMMEDIATELY disqualifies him! :doh: Magic IS the reason I started liking and playing basketball. I am, to this day, a Laker fan because of him. But how far has sports knowledge become that how high a man can jump is included in how good he is or was??? And after much thought, Emmitt is way beyond Favre in the '90's. Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yep, Bird couldn't jump. That IMMEDIATELY disqualifies him! :doh:Magic IS the reason I started liking and playing basketball. I am, to this day, a Laker fan because of him. But how far has sports knowledge become that how high a man can jump is included in how good he is or was??? And after much thought, Emmitt is way beyond Favre in the '90's. Not even close. Dude, put your shirt back on. GACOLB was being sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yep, Bird couldn't jump. That IMMEDIATELY disqualifies him! :doh:Magic IS the reason I started liking and playing basketball. I am, to this day, a Laker fan because of him. But how far has sports knowledge become that how high a man can jump is included in how good he is or was??? It was a joke, buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 It was a joke, buddy. Wow, never heard of that movie before. And I was quoting someone else. I try not to discuss sports with women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Dude, put your shirt back on. GACOLB was being sarcastic. Need the smiley! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 Wow, never heard of that movie before. And I was quoting someone else. I try not to discuss sports with women. Now now, no need for sexist remarks. MissU is good at discussing sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Wow, never heard of that movie before. And I was quoting someone else. I try not to discuss sports with women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Now now, no need for sexist remarks. MissU is good at discussing sports. Well...that went over well. See the smiley. Have a good night guys. Didn't mean to offend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I dunno about Pujols for baseball for the 2000s. And I also don't agree with Barry Bonds, mostly because he's retired and it's not 2010 yet, but also because I don't think guys with 'roid controversies should be considered.For baseball in the 2000s....someone on the Yankees would probably fit better. Not because anyone on the Yankees is technically better than Pujols (and we know Pujols' HR count cannot be contested), but I think the word "definitive" also includes popularity. I think if you put up a picture of Jeter/ARod/Damon next to a pic of Pujols, a lot more people would know the former three more than the latter. I think that needs to be taken into account when you talk about a "definitive" player. The Yankees haven't won the World Series since 2000. Maybe you can give Jeter the 90's.I think I would go with Bonds for the 2000's. He broke the two biggest records in baseball in the past decade. Bonds might be hated by just about everyone, but that's kind of what baseball has been in recent years. We went through the pinnacle of the steroid era, and Bonds defines it better than anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 The Yankees haven't won the World Series since 2000. Maybe you can give Jeter the 90's.I think I would go with Bonds for the 2000's. He broke the two biggest records in baseball in the past decade. Bonds might be hated by just about everyone, but that's kind of what baseball has been in recent years. We went through the pinnacle of the steroid era, and Bonds defines it better than anyone. You could arguably give Bonds the 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Has to be Bird/Magic. Just like 60s is Russell AND Wilt. EDIT: This decade either Shaq OR Kobe; too hard to decide between. No argument with MJ in the 90s (hell, six titles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Let's see, who would be the defining athlete for the 2000's? To represent us, we need someone slow, indulgent, quick to anger, great at self-marketing, and who produces nothing yet somehow convinces people that he has changed the world. Perhaps, the athlete of the decade is Etan Thomas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.