Jordan vs Brady

Who is the greater player all time right now?


  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
Wanted to post this in here because I am curious of the posters in this forum's opinion over the general sports one(I know these people through writing more). Say Brady's career ended today, who will go down as the greater player all time and/or greater player in their own sport respectively?
 

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
42,846
10,367
Toronto
Beauty question.

Correct answer: Roger Federer

Very hard to pick between those two guys. Just on the basis of entertainment value, they both have provided so many magnificent performances. I think some of those Patriot defenses could have won a couple of Super Bowls with any really good quarterback on offense (no disrespect to Brady who has been the epitome of clutch time and time again). The Bulls weren't going to win any NBA championships without Jordan. Sort of like comparing a Ferrari to a Maserati, though. I voted Jordan.
 

Jumptheshark

Rebooting myself
Oct 12, 2003
99,877
13,868
Somewhere on Uranus
Wanted to post this in here because I am curious of the posters in this forum's opinion over the general sports one(I know these people through writing more). Say Brady's career ended today, who will go down as the greater player all time and/or greater player in their own sport respectively?


welcome to the ENTERTAINMENT board
 

Babe Ruth

Don't leave me hangin' on the telephone..
Feb 2, 2016
1,447
620
I voted Brady.. but my subjective opinion, Babe Ruth dominated his (major) sport more than any other American athlete.
Ruth was a dominant pitcher turned dominant hitter. Hit more home runs than entire teams. That'll never happen again..
 
  • Like
Reactions: rfournier103

Deen

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
12,608
4,994
It's Jordan. I don't feel there is much debate if you were around in Jordan's prime. Guy was a Maverick.
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,318
3,714
Ottabot City
I voted Brady.. but my subjective opinion, Babe Ruth dominated his (major) sport more than any other American athlete.
Ruth was a dominant pitcher turned dominant hitter. Hit more home runs than entire teams. That'll never happen again..
Because players aren't coal miners in the off season anymore.
 

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,569
4,698
So California
Out of these 2 its Jordan quite easily. Once he got over the Pistons hump, he never looked back. Dude never needed a Finals game 7 to get it done either.
 

Babe Ruth

Don't leave me hangin' on the telephone..
Feb 2, 2016
1,447
620
Because players aren't coal miners in the off season anymore.

Forgive me if I misinterpret your response.. Does it means u believe that pro baseball of the 20s didn't possess elite athletes bcuz of their pay, so Ruth's dominance is illegit (?)

My counter: baseball drew the best athletes of that era, football & basketball weren't nearly as popular.. Ruth was that much better than his peers. And working physical, blue collar work in the off-season may seem quaint but I think it bolsters how innately durable they were.. compared to modern players surviving on carefully crafted nutrional, rest, & steroid plans. peace
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,318
3,714
Ottabot City
Forgive me if I misinterpret your response.. Does it means u believe that pro baseball of the 20s didn't possess elite athletes bcuz of their pay, so Ruth's dominance is illegit (?)

My counter: baseball drew the best athletes of that era, football & basketball weren't nearly as popular.. Ruth was that much better than his peers. And working physical, blue collar work in the off-season may seem quaint but I think it bolsters how innately durable they were.. compared to modern players surviving on carefully crafted nutrional, rest, & steroid plans. peace

Baseball didn't attract the best athlete's because the pay was so poor and the proximity to teams for most of America was out of reach seeing as it was mostly in the North Eastern US. Most of the 1923 Yankees were made up of players from that region.

I would say people who played sports in the 20's weren't professional athletes. They were people who were good at playing baseball. They all had other careers to fall back on so having one guy better than the rest was great for the time but I would say half of the athletes at that time were recreationally talented.

It's like hockey in the 80's. Guys smoked, drank heavy and used the preseason/early season to get into shape. That's one of the reasons Gretzky was far ahead of them. Listening to him as a kid and how he processed hockey was on another level and it led him to being far superior than what was the standard at the time. He wasn't superior in physicality but the mental side of the game is where he out performed nearly everyone around him.

As good as Babe Ruth was compared to his peers, his peers were not necessarily worthy of being considered top professional athletes. These guys didn't train like Olympic athletes.

Like Jordan said in the doc when he came into the league his team was full of coke head partiers. It took him a few weeks to be the man.

In the CFL most athletes have off season work and it doesn't mean the are innately durable. They just have to do what they have to do in order to provide and play a game they love.

No hockey player will ever eclipse Gretzky's points record because it is impossible in today's game to have that type of separation talent wise. Everyone is a well oiled machine. Ovechkin is probably one of if not the greatest goal scorer and would have destroyed it in 99's era.

Ruth had great hand eye coordination and excelled. There was probably at least 1 black guy who was as talented but was never allowed to play.

As great as the phonograph was it doesn't compare to a CD in quality.
 

Babe Ruth

Don't leave me hangin' on the telephone..
Feb 2, 2016
1,447
620
Baseball didn't attract the best athlete's because the pay was so poor and the proximity to teams for most of America was out of reach seeing as it was mostly in the North Eastern US. Most of the 1923 Yankees were made up of players from that region.

I would say people who played sports in the 20's weren't professional athletes. They were people who were good at playing baseball. They all had other careers to fall back on so having one guy better than the rest was great for the time but I would say half of the athletes at that time were recreationally talented.

It's like hockey in the 80's. Guys smoked, drank heavy and used the preseason/early season to get into shape. That's one of the reasons Gretzky was far ahead of them. Listening to him as a kid and how he processed hockey was on another level and it led him to being far superior than what was the standard at the time. He wasn't superior in physicality but the mental side of the game is where he out performed nearly everyone around him.

As good as Babe Ruth was compared to his peers, his peers were not necessarily worthy of being considered top professional athletes. These guys didn't train like Olympic athletes.

Like Jordan said in the doc when he came into the league his team was full of coke head partiers. It took him a few weeks to be the man.

In the CFL most athletes have off season work and it doesn't mean the are innately durable. They just have to do what they have to do in order to provide and play a game they love.

No hockey player will ever eclipse Gretzky's points record because it is impossible in today's game to have that type of separation talent wise. Everyone is a well oiled machine. Ovechkin is probably one of if not the greatest goal scorer and would have destroyed it in 99's era.

Ruth had great hand eye coordination and excelled. There was probably at least 1 black guy who was as talented but was never allowed to play.

As great as the phonograph was it doesn't compare to a CD in quality.

The core of your argument is that because baseball players of the 20s made less money, trained less scientifically in the off season, and didn't have access to steroids.. their natural athleticism/competition is less valid.
I strongly disagree w/that.. because even without those modern advantages u cite, guys like Ruth and Gehrig were able to hit home runs (at incredible rates) out of the same parks guys who followed them, couldn't.. And pitchers had greater advantages back then.. higher mounds, scuffed up balls, etc.
You're right, CDs are technologically superior to vinyl. But that doesn't mean an old record doesn't contain better music.. peace
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,318
3,714
Ottabot City
The core of your argument is that because baseball players of the 20s made less money, trained less scientifically in the off season, and didn't have access to steroids.. their natural athleticism/competition is less valid.
I strongly disagree w/that.. because even without those modern advantages u cite, guys like Ruth and Gehrig were able to hit home runs (at incredible rates) out of the same parks guys who followed them, couldn't.. And pitchers had greater advantages back then.. higher mounds, scuffed up balls, etc.
You're right, CDs are technologically superior to vinyl. But that doesn't mean an old record doesn't contain better music.. peace
At the time the competition level varied drastically compared to that of today. being good at a sport and being a superb athlete are two different things.

I'm not talking about steroids you are. I'm talking about the vessel to present music on and you are talking about the quality of the music.

Babe Ruth was great against people.
 

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
Babe Ruth was great against people.

But isn't that the point? Dominance against one's own era is the only way we will ever be able to determine or evaluate greatness? And I think it goes completely without saying that the farther you go back, the more raw the players and training were on average. So I honestly don't get your debate, relative to your competition in your era is the only way to be even remotely fair in these debates. Relative to competition, Cobb was the best pure hitter, Ruth the best power hitter, Ryan the best strikeout pitcher, etc. Same goes for hockey, Gretzky is the greatest player of all time, Hasek/Plante were the 2 greatest goalies of all time(regular season at minimum), Orr the greatest defenseman of all time, etc. Jordan is the greatest scorer of all time, Jordan is the greatest playoff performer of all time, and given his regulars season stats/awards, there's an easy argument for him being the greatest basketball player of all time(especially if you want to add "team awards" into the equation). Doesn't matter the era, it's the dominance of that era that matters, because that's the only way we can gauge anything. It's not fair to flip flop any player into any era, nor is it logical to. Right? Once you start going with level of competition/other intangibles, equipment used, training styles, team/player systems, nutrition, etc, the debates and conclusiveness get grayer and grayer. Which makes one's argument weaker and weaker.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TB12

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad