@ Game of Thrones (TV Show) A Human for Scale on Size of The Mountain's Actor

Whenever I was watching the TV show and The Mountain shows up, he looked small or at least approximately normal human size. But in the video where he is sparring with McGregor, The Mountain looks like the proper huge bastard my mind imagined while reading the books

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbaNRhfizsQ

I wonder if they scaled him down in the TV show now.

Conor McGregor is approximately 5'9", 155 pounds for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conor_McGregor

So that is a good comparison for what a working human would look like in comparison to the actor. In the real world, I would expect the relative difference between the Game of Thrones era people and The Mountain to be even greater though due to poorer health and resource availability.

Keep in mind that McGregor is a featherweight (that 5'9" listed height is most likely bullshit; most fighters, like many pro athletes, exaggerate their height a bit). Put the Mountain next to your average NBA player and he wouldn't look tall (still thick, though).

Size comparisons.

JJ Watt is 6' 5", Hafthór Júlíus Björnsson is 6' 9".

This is JJ Watt next to Yao Ming:

Spoiler for BIG people:

Attachment 4529

So The Mountain would fit somewhere between those guys. He's a _very_ large human :grinyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawlin

This is JJ Watt next to Yao Ming:

Spoiler for BIG people:

Attachment 4529

So The Mountain would fit somewhere between those guys. He's a _very_ large human :grinyes:

---

Yes, but he would be much closer to Watt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PPatty

Yes, but he would be much closer to Watt.

---

That is true.
Yao Ming is 7' 6", so a good bit taller than The Mountain.

This is one of my favorite images to compare just how HUGE some basketball players are:

Spoiler for Pau Gasol chatting with David Beckham:

Attachment 4530

Beckam is 6' tall, Pau Gasol is 7'. Crazy. It looks like an adult talking to two kids - and it's not just the height. It's the sheer mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawlin

Size comparisons.

JJ Watt is 6' 5", Hafthór Júlíus Björnsson is 6' 9".

This is JJ Watt next to Yao Ming:

Spoiler for BIG people:

Attachment 4529

So The Mountain would fit somewhere between those guys. He's a _very_ large human :grinyes:

---

JJ Watt is a pretty huge bastard. I am guessing The Mountain is quite a bit bulkier though. I was surprised how quick The Mountain is in that video. He is pretty agile. I wonder what workouts he does to stay flexible. Doing things like pilates or brazilian jiu-jitsu is a good exercise to maintain flexibility. Plus dem yoga pants.

JJ Watt is a rare super freak athlete though. Love his attitude and work ethic that was on display whenever the Texans were on Hard Knocks. An organization cannot ask for a better employee attitude wise and work ethic wise than JJ Watt. Even though Watt is on a shit ass team and organization he doesn't complain ever and gives 100% every game unlike a lot of super stars (looking at you Carmelo, Harden, and Dwight Howard).

Players who take plays off or in the context of Basketball think only participating in one side of the game is acceptable drive me nuts. I would never keep someone like that on my roster. Even at the NBA level players rarely keep hustling without the ball. It fucks up offensive schemes and makes everything harder when they don't do that. I fucking love watching the Spurs. Popovich would ruin anyone who took plays off. Popovich is my favorite coach all-time next to Belichick. They are the kind of boss that are the best to work for and get the most out of the people available. I never complained about any request they would make even when we were working ungodly amounts of hours.

http://nypost.com/2015/10/07/7-foot-...n-high-school/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merkus

http://nypost.com/2015/10/07/7-foot-...n-high-school/

---

Wow.

Off topic: What do you guys feel about the change that players like Steph Curry brings to basketball ? I don't follow it at all, but I heard a fascinating podcast on the topic of three-pointers. Go listen to it :)

I just wanted to ask you guys how you felt about it. Personally, I like variation in a game. Three-pointers give different guys a chance to shine :grinyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawlin

Wow.

Off topic: What do you guys feel about the change that players like Steph Curry brings to basketball ? I don't follow it at all, but I heard a fascinating podcast on the topic of three-pointers. Go listen to it :)

I just wanted to ask you guys how you felt about it. Personally, I like variation in a game. Three-pointers give different guys a chance to shine :grinyes:

---

As apparently the only person on the board who still watches basketball, Steph Curry is amazing. IMO he is already the greatest of all-time. He is like a combination of Reggie Miller (minus Reggie's awesome shit-talking), Ray Allen, and Chris Paul the Third.

All facets of Curry's game are amazing and his situational awareness is some of the best in the game right now. There is this great clip where Curry totally fakes out and breaks CP3's ankles using one of Hakeem's moves, it is awesome and shows how much Curry is in a league of his own right now without any peers whatsoever.

Lebron is great and an amazing athlete, the difference is Curry takes advantages of every opportunity he has instead of choking or giving up. The only thing anyone gives a fuck about in the world is how someone finishes, getting close is great but no one gives a fuck about getting close. When it comes to greatness it is all about rings.

Steph Curry is in some ways realizing the potential Grant Hill had before Hill had his ankle injury and was never a super star level player again. Hill was a great role player but never dominant in the way he had the potential to be before the injury.

In the 1990s Steph Curry would get eaten alive due to being so small but in today's basketball where they do not bang in the paint and if you drive the lane come heavy or not at all is not allowed, Curry is incredibly dominant. It is tremendously high praise when greats like Reggie are praising and in awe of your game. Nothing but respect for Steph Curry as far as I am concerned. Curry is more or less the ideal prototype for today's game. Curry is so silky smooth with the ball and so excellent at anticipating the reactions his opponents will have that it is unreal. No one comes to mind in any period of the NBA that compares to how smooth Curry is with the ball.

I think one thing that is really missing in today's NBA is a star player who also has a great personality. Players like Lebron and Curry, athletically they are tremendous and amongst the greatest of all-time, but they lack the charisma and flair that players like Reggie Miller, Shaq, and Michael Jordan had. I love players who are great and project that onto other players getting in their mind and dominating them psychologically. It is tons of fun to watch as a fan. The only player who comes close to this is Rondo but he is on a shit team that is not competitive. Kevin Garnett had that kind of personality but his shit talking would be all bleeps so is not really airable lol.

I wish people would figure out a way to magically improve the fidelity of the 1990s basketball games so we could see MJ et al. in HD. The old games are way better gameplay and competitiveness with no bitchassness allowed but it is like watching a potato quality capture of their greatness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawlin

Off topic: What do you guys feel about the change that players like Steph Curry brings to basketball?

---

I'm not a fan of the three-point shot, but we're 30 years into it -- I'm counting from when the NCAA adopted it in 1986 (as opposed to the NBA, which actually started with it in 1979), because basketball skills and individual play styles are largely set in college -- so it's not going anywhere. Bitching about the 3-point line is akin to complaining about the DH in baseball or whining about pass interference and defensive holding in football.

Once the 3-pointer was firmly entrenched in the game, someone like Steph Curry was bound to come along, just as liberalized passing rules in the NFL were inevitably going to lead to QBs putting up Manning/Brees/Brady statistics. Unless the rule (or at least the officiating) changes, I suspect that almost every NBA team 20 years from now will have at least one guy who plays like Curry, even if he doesn't quite match his numbers.

Greatest NBA starting five of all time (individual teams), since 2000, and single best player. Begin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PPatty

I'm not a fan of the three-point shot, but we're 30 years into it -- I'm counting from when the NCAA adopted it in 1986 (as opposed to the NBA, which actually started with it in 1979), because basketball skills and individual play styles are largely set in college -- so it's not going anywhere. Bitching about the 3-point line is akin to complaining about the DH in baseball or whining about pass interference and defensive holding in football.

Once the 3-pointer was firmly entrenched in the game, someone like Steph Curry was bound to come along, just as liberalized passing rules in the NFL were inevitably going to lead to QBs putting up Manning/Brees/Brady statistics. Unless the rule (or at least the officiating) changes, I suspect that almost every NBA team 20 years from now will have at least one guy who plays like Curry, even if he doesn't quite match his numbers.

---

IDK why anyone would complain about the 3 pointer. It is a harder shot and forces the defense to play at a higher level to cover a larger area of the court. Curry would dominate even without the 3 pointer though. At his position, he is the all around best player, great leadership, doesn't take plays off, doesn't bitch, and gets the best shot. He doesn't suffer from Kobe Bryant syndrome where the pass hasn't made it to the NBA yet. His ball handling abilities are the best in the league, and Curry can cut through every defense without problems. Curry is unguardable. The only reason Lebron James edges him out is that LJ can play any position on the court effectively, even center when necessary. I would still draft Curry over LJ though.

I lose some versatility but if I don't fill out the remaining roster well we aren't going to be winning any championships anyways as demonstrated by LJ's ability to carry a broke down team with a busted face to the finals but not clinch a title without comparable help. The way Stephen Curry plays he is going to get injured less also due to avoiding traffic instead of going into it for the foul. Also Curry doesn't flop which is one of my main issues with today's game.

Things that make the NBA suck at the moment are
1) Rewarding players for playing the refs instead of the opponents (flopping, rewarding people jumping into a defender with fouls which is a bullshit call)

2) Terrible refs. Three refs is not enough to cover the entire court.

3) They should remove the charge/block, refs cannot call it correctly routinely anymore at any level and it affects game outcomes, especially late in the playoffs.

4) I don't have any problems with the "hack a Shaq" strategy. It is completely legitimate and works sometimes. Make your fucking free throws. It is super easy free points, suck it up. No excuses on missing free throws.

5) Allowing the players to enter the draft early has ruined the overall talent pool compared to 90s era basketball. IDC if they defect to some off-brand league in the interim.

6) The Spurs are the only team that drafts well and utilizes the D-league effectively. Just an observation on that front, nothing the front office can really change there that comes to mind.

7) They should instate a 4-point line, somewhere between the current 3 point line and the half-court line. Make the half-court line a 5-point shot.

8) Remove over and back, they very rarely call it when it happens in the first place and it doesn't make sense in the modern era to have around.

9) Figure out a way to determine who touched the ball last and when players step on the 3-point and out of bounds line automatically. It is impossible to tell frequently without the NBA installing high speed cameras.

10) Refs should be able to retroactively call a penalty during reviews. We saw Virginia fall to Duke when the player traveled before getting the shot off before the buzzer. That was a missed call and unreasonable to expect to refs to be able to watch both the clock, the rim, and the player's feet simultaneously with 2 of the refs always out of view of the play.

11) Rain down fines and suspensions on refs who fuck up majorly. There are too may situations entirely contributable to a NBA ref being butthurt and a crotchety old bastard that don't get called out properly.

12) Automate the 5 second penalty when bringing the ball in play. They hardly ever call this and it happens a lot more than they do, sometimes in critical game situations.

13) Remove the salary cap. It is total bullshit that players have to get paid much less than they are worth in the real world due to the cap being in place. It is very exploitative, and the cap does not work in the NBA in the first place. It is still routinely the same handful of teams that go deep in the playoffs. It has not helped balance teams in any way, only made the logistics byzantine.

14) Reduce the trade deadline window by half. Drafting players near the deadline never works out because they cannot integrate into the team effectively before the playoffs arrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daxil Solshok

Greatest NBA starting five of all time (individual teams), since 2000, and single best player. Begin:

---

Is this in their prime or are we looking at their entire careers for ranking?

PG: Stephen Curry
SG: Kobe Bryant
SF: Lebron James
PF: Kevin Garnett
C: Tim Duncan

There are a lot of great players that got left out there due to positions Dwayne Wade, Paul Pierce, Pau Gasol, Ray Allen amongst others. Dwight Howard should be on the list if he had not wasted all of his potential being a lazy ass fuck drama queen. Howard and Stoudemire are people whom are so insanely talented then just don't put in the work necessary to be at a championship level. They should be dominating every game with their physicality but they don't. They are routinely disappointing. It would be interesting to see how Howard would end up if he had played for a great coach early on that would have rode him hard to change his approach to the game and life, but that never happened so he continues to be mediocre, overpaid, and make horrible life decisions.

Pop is the coach of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI Redeux

Is this in their prime or are we looking at their entire careers for ranking?

PG: Stephen Curry
SG: Kobe Bryant
SF: Lebron James
PF: Kevin Garnett
C: Tim Duncan

There are a lot of great players that got left out there due to positions Dwayne Wade, Paul Pierce, Pau Gasol, Ray Allen amongst others. Dwight Howard should be on the list if he had not wasted all of his potential being a lazy ass fuck drama queen. Howard and Stoudemire are people whom are so insanely talented then just don't put in the work necessary to be at a championship level. They should be dominating every game with their physicality but they don't. They are routinely disappointing. It would be interesting to see how Howard would end up if he had played for a great coach early on that would have rode him hard to change his approach to the game and life, but that never happened so he continues to be mediocre, overpaid, and make horrible life decisions.

Pop is the coach of course.

---

I was just joking but that is very good. Standard Graffe' derail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daxil Solshok

I was just joking but that is very good. Standard Graffe' derail.

---

The main thing is I can't really remember many players from 2000-2006 that were aging and how good they still were. I considered putting David Robinson on there and some others but from what I recall the Admiral was pretty reliant on a young Duncan for his championship. The same deal with Hakeem Olajuwon. Hakeem in his prime someone would have to be retarded to not put on their starting 5 at center. He is without any peers at center. I don't think we will ever see someone comparable at center again.

And Hakeem was doing it during the most difficult era of basketball as well for a very long time. Rodman technically was an option and he is one of my favorite all-time players but I cannot remember how good his defense was in his last year. Also a negative for Rodman is while he is insanely great over his career, he is a drama queen also which I don't like.

Alan Iverson is tough to leave out of my roster but PG/SG is so deep in Hall of Fame talent that it is difficult to push out Kobe or Curry for AI. I think I would select Wade in his prime over AI still due to better defense even ignoring attitude problems. AI is also in the pool of players who did not get the most out of their talent along with Howard et al.

I am definitely having Robert Horry on my bench though and put him in whenever I need some clutch plays. I really wanted to put Rondo on there also because of how creative he is and how he leaves it all out on the floor but he's just not comparable to Kobe and many other players at his position. Chris Paul is a tremendous talent also but Curry literally runs circles around him during the game so doesn't make the cut.

Kevin Durant is also very good but I really don't like his personality in the context of championship ball. I want every person on my team to have some grit to them and throw down on the court when the situation calls for it.

Basically, this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE5avOC6Hgg

I really like Westbrook as well and personality wise is something I am looking for in my roster but as much as I like his fierceness he's just not on the same level as my other options. If I could have Kobe play every position I probably would except for center. Passing on Old Man Riverwalk would be unwise.

If I could select young Shaq before he became a refridgerator I would but that is pre-2000.

I really like Paul Pierce especially when it comes to crunch time but I like KG a little bit better personality wise. It is a coin toss on Pierce v. KG in their prime for me. Pierce would give me a bit more versatility on defensive matchups though, tough call. I don't think either is a bad decision.

The only negative for Kobe IMO is letting his ego force out Shaq instead of focusing on what was best for the team. But, after Kobe matured a lot and got the rape scandal behind him, he's pretty much the prototype for dedication to his craft and always playing to win.

Stuff like this is why I love Pop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFFvShURQ5k

He runs a bullshit free team where if you get lit up you had it coming and expects perfect execution out of all of his players. The Spurs team is always improving over time as a result. He's not just arbitrarily screaming at people or couching his response in how big of a star the player is like a lot of coaches do across sports. People are just going to tune you out doing the latter.

I think I may select Scottie Pippen on my bench also. Even though it was the twilight of his career, he was still really good with the Trailblazers and very nearly won another title with them. The Lakers once again pulled out victory from the jaws of defeat in the 12th hour though. I wonder if people would put Pippen over MJ though had Pippen won another title with the Trailblazers.

Steve Nash is another player that is insanely good that doesn't make the starting 5 due to his position. An All-Star team really does not need someone who is just a distributor like Nash and Kidd are.

It is criminal how poorly paid Pippen was during his stay with the Bulls due to the cap. No one got paid what they were worth during the Pippen/MJ era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottie_Pippen#Salaries

http://i.imgur.com/kRavBah.png

Yeah, no one is going to cry tears that a gross millionaire isn't making more money, but it is exploitative due to the NBA and the Bulls earning proportional to the team while the players never are in the NBA due to the cap preventing them from doing so and having any hope of winning games.

In the US the only league that does the cap well is the MLB which does not have one, as a result the player's value is reflected in how much they pay generally, unless it is the Yankees then they hemorrage cash with old famous people who are not worth what they are being paid (except for Rivera who was god).


And while Tayshaun Prince doesn't have the talent for the team we are talking about, this block still gets me fully erect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QJ4iwqnLKc

I remember watching that on TV when it was live and it was the greatest play I had ever seen in a playoff game. It remains the goat block for me due to the stakes and complete commitment on Prince's part, giving up his body completely to make it happen.

This is still my favorite all-time play though because of how fucking mad Ewing and Spike Lee get over it and how boisterous Pippen and the rest of the Bulls are after the dunk (skip to 4:37 for the play)

https://youtu.be/-go6B_OxpoY?t=254

Runner up is Shaq dunking on the Chris Dudley and teabagging him while hanging onto the rim. Worth the technical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ICBi-ku-G0

If we are considering international play, Vince Carter's "Dunk of Death" has to be conceded as goat on the basis that it was so devastatingly nasty that it ended the guy's NBA prospects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZsj9ceoHO4

If your dunk ends someone's career it wins by default IMO. I think it's my favorite dunk all-time even considering the dunk contests. It was in game, ended someone's career, and over a monstrously huge dude that VC uses like an EZ-chair.

Outside the game, Craig Sager interviewing Popovich is the best: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ch+craig+sager

goat there though is KG telling Craig Sager to burn his clothes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltpqPd3t5V0

This fight is fucking insane also (skip to 15:50)
https://youtu.be/3oH6ktHACTs?t=950

That doesn't have anything on the fights that break out in soccer but worst one in the NBA all-time I think. Looked like the entire arena descended on the NBA players by the end of it all.

@PPatty, 2:39 where Chris Paul, a well respected defender at his position, cannot keep up with Curry's ball handling and awareness. Oh yeah, then he drains a 3 in his fucking face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFN0F6VPKCU

Stephen Curry reminds me of a much, much, much better and refined version of The Professor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vglS7j0c4To
Curry has yet to incorporate the stare down while you blow past them taunt of The Professor though. It's the last element he needs to move to most entertaining as that is hilarious to me everytime.

Re: NBA fight: amateurs. Skip to 1:30 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ef1YVXM9IU

Or this one from the minors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAyYK-Mdlt0

Even though I don't like goons in hockey, I don't blame Tie Domi for this one, which wins the fan the karma award:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS_92eKcGMI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI Redeux

IDK why anyone would complain about the 3 pointer. It is a harder shot and forces the defense to play at a higher level to cover a larger area of the court.

---

You don't have to work as hard on offense with the three-pointer. You don't need as much ball movement and don't need as much variety on offense; mid-range jumpers and low post skill have largely disappeared from the game, now that offense has been reduced largely to variations on drive-and-kick and high screens.

It's also kind of silly. How about nine-point touchdowns if they're scored from outside the red zone? Or 1.5 runs for homers that travel more than 400 feet?

Since you mentioned Gregg Popovich:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBS Sports, 2015

Gregg Popovich hates 3-pointers. The San Antonio Spurs head coach said as much during the 2014 NBA Finals, despite the fact that much of his team's success was based on spreading the floor with long-range shooters. In Toronto on Wednesday he reiterated his stance: You have to shoot 3s, but he'd rather not.

"I still hate it," Popovich said. "I'll never embrace it. I don't think it's basketball. I think it's kind of like a circus sort of thing. Why don't we have a 5-point shot? A 7-point shot? You know, where does it stop, that sort of thing. But that's just me, that's just old-school. To a certain degree, you better embrace it or you're going to lose. And every time we've won a championship, the 3-point shot was a big part of it. Because it is so powerful and you've gotta be able to do it. And nobody does it better than Golden State, and you know where they're at. So it's important. You can't ignore it."

---

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...ver-embrace-it

The ones who pushed for adoption of the three-pointer knew how it would change things:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCAA.com, 2012

Newton, who is now running the NIT, was the basketball coach at Vanderbilt and later head of USA Basketball. In 1986, he was also chairman of the NCAA basketball rules committee.

“It’s interesting and the reason I laugh, the basketball coaches, when they were polled, there was only about 20 percent in favor of changing the rule,” Newton said. “Basketball coaches are basically very traditional when it comes to rules.”

Never was that more apparent than the day before the 1987 national championship game when then-Indiana coach Bob Knight scoffed at the 3-point shot and derisively referred to the late Ed Steitz, secretary of the rules committee, as “the father of the 19-foot, 9-inch rule.”

He wasn’t complaining, however, the next night after Steve Alford hit seven 3-pointers to lead the Hoosiers’ 74-73 victory against Syracuse.

Said Knight, “and we make three more points from the 3-point shot than Syracuse does, and that’s the difference in the game. So, uh, thanks, Ed.”

Newton’s Vanderbilt team capitalized on the new rule right away. Behind shooters like Barry Booker, Barry Goheen, Derek Wilcox and Scott Draud, the relatively diminutive Commodores hit 43.6 percent beyond the arc.

“I was a little bit ahead of the curve because I had experienced it and knew it was coming in and I knew the impact it was going to have on the game,” Newton said. “We recruited shooters and shot more 3s than anybody.”

That mid-range jumper?

“We did away with it totally,” Newton admitted. “We told them there will be no 12- to 15-foot jump shots. We’re either going to shoot it from 3-point range or in closer … We absolutely just took that out of our offense.”

---

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-...e-changed-game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ESPN, 2011

Data was Ed Steitz's backbone. In looking at the numbers, he immediately deemed the ACC's experimental 3-point line of 17 feet, 9 inches too short. He believed that a team should make between 36 and 38 percent of its shots beyond the arc. Anything less would be ugly; anything more would damage the integrity of the game.

"The distance," Bob Steitz said, "was critical. He knew you had to protect the delicate balance between offense and defense."

But in the numbers, Ed Steitz also saw why the game had to be changed. Dominated by post play, basketball was turning into a scrum, with guys huddled and bottlenecked underneath the basket. The little men -- the guards -- had been virtually eliminated from the game.

By the time he got around to actually implementing the 3, at 19 feet, 9 inches, the brute Big East had gone to six fouls in an attempt to keep guys on the court.

"It's going to force teams to play more defense away from the basket," Ed Steitz said when the 3-pointer was adopted. "People will say, 'You're putting the little man back in the game,' and that's good."

---

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...ege-basketball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Associated Press, 1982

The three-point field goal, used by the National Basketball Association and adopted for next season on a trial basis by the Big Ten Conference, is getting a chilly reception from many college coaches around the country, although some large Eastern schools welcomed the innovation.

"Basketball has always been a game of strategy," said Grant, whose team made it to the Final 16 this year. "I don't want to see it get into the pro style of run and gun. I'm not for gimmicks."

---

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,3355299&hl=en

But again, it's a moot point now. It's in the game and as Pop pointed out, coaches just have to deal with it.

Those 5 defenders don't vanish above the 3-point line. Before the 3 point shot defenses can sit behind the semi-circle all day and don't have to play as effectively as a unit to be in a position to contest shots and get in the passing lanes. Basketball is better for it because it exposes terrible defenses and enables new strategies on both sides. On the offensive side, strategies are more open because if they cannot defend your perimeter players well they are going to have easy drives to the basket all day or when the PF/C switch off a team mate is available to dump off to.

I would not blame the absence of low post skill on the 3-point change. You cannot play an interior game anymore because of how they call fouls. You go to post up on someone and the defender flops and you just had a turnover. Even if they don't flop but the defender is about 150 pounds less than the big man trying to play a post game, the defender inadvertently gets annihilated and it is a foul. It is an all around softer game nowadays.

Another factor is that that style of gameplay is reliant on having reached maturity physically, freshman/sophomore draft picks are still growing into their bodies by the time they get to the NBA, they have never played high level ball before due to lack of competition and are wholly unprepared for the NBA compared to the 90s where you could not come into the draft until the junior year. New draft picks look like they are still in High School compared to a NBA player that is not on a rookie contract anymore. That did not use to be the case. Physically they are outmatched.

The changes in points based on distance does not make sense in the context of football. In baseball I would just settle for allowing a consistent strike zone. You cannot have variant homeruns like that until you enforce a consistent ballpark dimension. Then you also have to take into account the atmosphere of the ballpark.

And unlike the baseball scenario, in the NBA you can defend every shot [1]. A center fielder cannot catch a baseball in the upper decks no matter the skill.

[1] Except for a Rajon Rondo tip-in from an out of bounds pass @ 1:39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUn5eQSUBKc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI Redeux

PG: Stephen Curry
SG: Kobe Bryant
SF: Lebron James
PF: Kevin Garnett
C: Tim Duncan

---

Any list like this that does not include Michael Jordan cannot be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI Redeux

Those 5 defenders don't vanish above the 3-point line. Before the 3 point shot defenses can sit behind the semi-circle all day and don't have to play as effectively as a unit to be in a position to contest shots and get in the passing lanes. Basketball is better for it because it exposes terrible defenses and enables new strategies on both sides. On the offensive side, strategies are more open because if they cannot defend your perimeter players well they are going to have easy drives to the basket all day or when the PF/C switch off a team mate is available to dump off to.

---

You're basically making the same philosophical argument that was used to justify neutering defenses in the NFL. People like to see scoring, so make it easier for the offense and harder for the defense. Offenses are more wide open, yes, but they're simpler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI Redeux

I would not blame the absence of low post skill on the 3-point change. You cannot play an interior game anymore because of how they call fouls.

---

The problem with this argument is that the 1970s and early 1980s happened. You could hardly breathe on a guy in the NBA back then without being called for a foul, yet Kareem, Reed, Walton, Unseld, Lanier and Parish thrived in that era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI Redeux

Another factor is that that style of gameplay is reliant on having reached maturity physically

---

True to a point, but the style also isn't taught much at the lower levels these days and wouldn't be even if guys were staying in college three to four years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerkahia

Any list like this that does not include Michael Jordan cannot be taken seriously.

---

Yeah, he's the Babe Ruth of basketball. I would rank him as identical to Kobe in terms of game, but he blows him away on legend status.

I haven't paid any attention to whatever the fuck is happening this thread, but the Babe Ruth of basketball is Wilt Chamberlain. A superstar before there were dozens of superstars in the sport.

I'm going to use "first really awesome competitor to transcend the sport" definition (if we just use "first big superstar" as the definition, then the Babe Ruth of baseball is Ty Cobb), so the Babe Ruths of various sports (at least from an American point of view) are:

Baseball - Babe Ruth
Basketball - Wilt Chamberlain
Football - Jim Thorpe
Hockey - Gordie Howe (Bobby Orr has a case)
Soccer - Pele
Men's golf - Arnold Palmer
Women's golf - Babe Didrikson Zaharias
Boxing - Joe Louis (Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey have valid arguments)
Women's tennis - Billie Jean King
Men's tennis - Bjorn Borg
Horse racing - Man O' War
Stock car racing - Richard Petty
Indy car racing - Mario Andretti
MMA - Ronda Rousey
Sprinting - Jesse Owens
Gymnastics - Nadia Comaneci
Speed skating - Eric Heiden
Downhill skiing - Lindsey Vonn
Skateboarding - Tony Hawk
Snowboarding - Shaun White
Swimming - Mark Spitz
Cycling - Lance Armstrong (I know, I know, but still. Anyway, there's a case for Greg LeMond)
Chess - Bobby Fischer

Most of the breakdowns of Cobb vs Babe Ruth are indeterminate. It kind of depends how you want to judge the differences in rules, balls and bats of the time.

For hockey, assuming you exclude goalies (the early goalies have some insane numbers), I'd go with someone else: Maurice "Rocket" Richard. Howe was rarely a league leader during his career. What he had was insane longevity, playing at a high level for decades, and getting the career numbers to match. Richard was someone who did things that were exceptionally rare. In '44-'45 he scored 50 goals in 50 games (the length of the season). It took almost two decades before any other player in the league scored 50 goals, and that person did it in 70 games. To this day, there are only four other players that have managed to get 50 goals in the first 50 games of a team's season, and three more that managed to get 50 goals in their first 50 games of the season. Richard was someone so insanely popular that his suspension by the league in 1955 led to a riot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Riot

...which is considered a precursor to the rise of Quebecois nationalism in the 1960's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution

That is "transcending one's sport", even from an American perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

For hockey, assuming you exclude goalies (the early goalies have some insane numbers), I'd go with someone else: Maurice "Rocket" Richard. Howe was rarely a league leader during his career. What he had was insane longevity, playing at a high level for decades, and getting the career numbers to match. Richard was someone who did things that were exceptionally rare. In '44-'45 he scored 50 goals in 50 games (the length of the season). It took almost two decades before any other player in the league scored 50 goals, and that person did it in 70 games. To this day, there are only four other players that have managed to get 50 goals in the first 50 games of a team's season, and three more that managed to get 50 goals in their first 50 games of the season. Richard was someone so insanely popular that his suspension by the league in 1955 led to a riot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Riot

...which is considered a precursor to the rise of Quebecois nationalism in the 1960's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution

That is "transcending one's sport", even from an American perspective.

---

Yeah I would put Richard over anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PPatty

I'm going to use "first really awesome competitor to transcend the sport" definition (if we just use "first big superstar" as the definition, then the Babe Ruth of baseball is Ty Cobb), so the Babe Ruths of various sports (at least from an American point of view) are:

Baseball - Babe Ruth
Basketball - Wilt Chamberlain
Football - Jim Thorpe
Hockey - Gordie Howe (Bobby Orr has a case)
Soccer - Pele
Men's golf - Arnold Palmer
Women's golf - Babe Didrikson Zaharias
Boxing - Joe Louis (Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey have valid arguments)
Women's tennis - Billie Jean King
Men's tennis - Bjorn Borg
Horse racing - Man O' War
Stock car racing - Richard Petty
Indy car racing - Mario Andretti
MMA - Ronda Rousey
Sprinting - Jesse Owens
Gymnastics - Nadia Comaneci
Speed skating - Eric Heiden
Downhill skiing - Lindsey Vonn
Skateboarding - Tony Hawk
Snowboarding - Shaun White
Swimming - Mark Spitz
Cycling - Lance Armstrong (I know, I know, but still. Anyway, there's a case for Greg LeMond)
Chess - Bobby Fischer

---

The Babe Ruth of Women's tennis is Serena Williams if it isn't Martina Navratilova. King was great, but not the greatest. And Rousey isn't the Babe Ruth of MMA any more than Christie Martin is the Babe Ruth of boxing, please. Otherwise it's a fine list.

The greatest team of 5 players of all time is the 1964 Celtics. Everyone else listed their favorite five players, which isn't what the original question asked.

Best 5 players?
Guards: Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan
Forwards: Tim Duncan, Karl Malone
Center: Wilt Chamberlain

Your lists are moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PPatty

I'm going to use "first really awesome competitor to transcend the sport" definition (if we just use "first big superstar" as the definition, then the Babe Ruth of baseball is Ty Cobb), so the Babe Ruths of various sports (at least from an American point of view) are:

Baseball - Babe Ruth
Basketball - Wilt Chamberlain
Football - Jim Thorpe
Hockey - Gordie Howe (Bobby Orr has a case)
Soccer - Pele
Men's golf - Arnold Palmer
Women's golf - Babe Didrikson Zaharias
Boxing - Joe Louis (Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey have valid arguments)
Women's tennis - Billie Jean King
Men's tennis - Bjorn Borg
Horse racing - Man O' War
Stock car racing - Richard Petty
Indy car racing - Mario Andretti
MMA - Ronda Rousey
Sprinting - Jesse Owens
Gymnastics - Nadia Comaneci
Speed skating - Eric Heiden
Downhill skiing - Lindsey Vonn
Skateboarding - Tony Hawk
Snowboarding - Shaun White
Swimming - Mark Spitz
Cycling - Lance Armstrong (I know, I know, but still. Anyway, there's a case for Greg LeMond)
Chess - Bobby Fischer

---

Pretty good list imho. I'd consider Jack Nicklaus over Arnold Palmer, but not vehemently.

I think Rousey is fair for MMA. Her fame is far beyond what past mixed martial artists could claim, and the record she compiled before Holly Holm rearranged her face was very dominant. Apparently the UFC was shocked by how popular her PPV's were - Rousey/Holm had the third highest number of buys in company history, with relatively low promotion. There's even going to be a "Do Nothing Bitches" comedy with Tina Fey:

http://deadline.com/2016/01/ronda-ro...es-1201684099/

What does popularity have to do with any of it? OK, Kim Kardashian is the Babe Ruth of MMA because she has more twitter followers.

Rousey is the Mike Tyson of female MMA - Really good at a couple of things during a weak era but powerless against someone with reach and skill. Did people actually watch the whole fight where she lost? It wasn't even competitive. I get the hype machine and "OMFG body paint I can't wait to see that ugly duckling get her swan on" but that's called marketing, not ability. Silva or St.-Pierre are much more accomplished over the course of their career, and if Jones manages to find some way to take his game to Heavyweight (and not flame out personally) then it won't even be an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

What does popularity have to do with any of it?

---

If you're talking about someone transcending their sport, it's not enough that they're good. They have to be so good that people outside of the usual fans of the sport know who they are. That's why I'd disqualify someone like Anderson Silva, even though he was an excellent fighter.

I think it's also worth, in the case of MMA, looking at how those people won. GSP was, for most of his career, a decision fighter. Some of those fights were much more dominant that "decision" would otherwise indicate - just ask Josh Koscheck how he feels about that second decision loss at UFC 124, or about the jab in general. But it's still a big difference compared to "I defended the title four times in a total of two minutes", even if one of those fights (Correia) had no business being a title fight. That's a display of dominance that sticks out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

Did people actually watch the whole fight where she lost? It wasn't even competitive.

---

She couldn't compare to Holm in striking, and it was embarrassing that she even tried for so long. This is what the striking looked like all night (image too large, linking it instead): https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xp...xXLG/giphy.gif

There were one or two close spots for Holm in the grappling exchanges, though. I wish the original hadn't been taken down because of the UFC being dicks about copyright, but here's the repost of Firas Zahabi's breakdown of the fight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8FKKxM3OpE

If Holm doesn't break even one of those attempts, the fight is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

...if Jones manages to find some way to take his game to Heavyweight (and not flame out personally) then it won't even be an argument.

---

I'd put Jones and Rousey at about the same point in their careers. Roughly the same age, both trying to regain their belts after a significant personal setback. The big difference is dedication. Jones seems serious about getting back on track, even with that minor kerfuffle this past week. Rousey is being pulled in the same direction Gina Carano went in, which is too bad. If Rousey went to a real gym to plug the holes in her game, instead of to movie sets and photo shoots, she could have an MMA career like Silva's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

I think Rousey is fair for MMA. Her fame is far beyond what past mixed martial artists could claim, and the record she compiled before Holly Holm rearranged her face was very dominant. Apparently the UFC was shocked by how popular her PPV's were - Rousey/Holm had the third highest number of buys in company history, with relatively low promotion. There's even going to be a "Do Nothing Bitches" comedy with Tina Fey:

http://deadline.com/2016/01/ronda-ro...es-1201684099/

---

Not really surprising. They're pretty good fighters and it also hinges on soft porn when they get entangled.

And this is my entire point about Rousey - she's an OK fighter but she's known outside of MMA circles for the same reason Danica Patrick is - because she has boobs. It's crude but let's be honest and not sugarcoat things here. She's hyped up because hey here's this MMA fighter WHO HAS BOOBS, let's put her in everything! That doesn't make you the Babe Ruth of your sport - dominating people the way Silva did before age caught up with him makes you the Babe Ruth of your sport. A fair number of people in Ppatty's list don't have movie deals or endorsements either and still are the very pinnacle of their sport.

For MMA, I would have gone with Royce Gracie.

When UFC was still new and I was still watching MMA, he was "the man".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PPatty

You're basically making the same philosophical argument that was used to justify neutering defenses in the NFL. People like to see scoring, so make it easier for the offense and harder for the defense. Offenses are more wide open, yes, but they're simpler.



The problem with this argument is that the 1970s and early 1980s happened. You could hardly breathe on a guy in the NBA back then without being called for a foul, yet Kareem, Reed, Walton, Unseld, Lanier and Parish thrived in that era.



True to a point, but the style also isn't taught much at the lower levels these days and wouldn't be even if guys were staying in college three to four years.

---

On point [1] I can see how that is unclear. I am actually coming from the opposite direction though in terms of what I enjoy, I love watching great defenses, in the NBA in particular. Anyone can come down the court and throw up a shot and make it, but it takes excellent defensive strategy and defensive execution to reduce the succes rate a fragile offense has. An example are the 2011 NBA Finals with the Mavericks v. Heat. I was rooting for the Heat, but the Mavericks played better as a team and executed a defensive strategy that wrecked havoc on the Heat despite the Mavericks being overwhelmingly outmatched with respect to talent.

So, I like that the 3-pointer exposes defenses in new ways that makes composing a great team rather than individual players even more important for that reason. It makes the great defensive teams even more impressive because they are doing it with the cards stacked against them further.

On point [2] I was not watching basketball back then, so I'll take your word for it.

On point [3] I think the interior game that was successful in the 90s, especially in the case of Hakeem, is underrated in how difficult it is to execute at a dominant level. There is no question that Hakeem is the goat center and is without any peer. How difficult is Hakeem's gameplay to replicate? The most talented person in the NBA in recent memory is Lebron James and he has only been able to incorporate a small part of Hakeem's game. Shaq and Howard could not pull it off either. Both James and Howard were directly instructed by Hakeem yet cannot pull it off in a real-game.

Another factor on playing an interior game is that aside from people like Nowitzki who utilize fade away jumpers successfully to get separation, there is as much anticipation and situational awareness necessary to play a post game against a great defender as there is for a point guard or shooting guard starting out on the perimeter. What makes doing so from a low post position is that you have less room to maneuver, less starting separation, and the player is very reliant on having a SG/PG that can get them the ball in the first place aside from the rare player who dominates rebounds so heavily that they can rack up significant points off of second chances.

And they never call over the back anymore, I cannot remember actually ever having seen that called at the NBA level, so big men are constantly having to carry smaller sized people when they are trying to score. Staying healthy as a big man is harder even ignoring problems associated with being that big in the first place as far as even more frequent knee problems etc.

So, with how difficult executing the post game is and how reliant it is on perimeter players and how reliant it is on having the right attributes to start with, it is much harder to have an opportunity to transfer those skills in the first place, and then someone who could be taught has to have luck in finding a coach who can instill that into them as well, so a lot has to go right. A perimeter player can work on his game much easier in isolation compared to someone who has to train to work the low post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerkahia

Any list like this that does not include Michael Jordan cannot be taken seriously.

---

Any person that cannot read the constraints the list was made under and realize Jordan was with the Wizards in 2000+ cannot be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daxil Solshok

Yeah, he's the Babe Ruth of basketball. I would rank him as identical to Kobe in terms of game, but he blows him away on legend status.

---

MJ said that Kobe stole his game from him. I think that holds up upon inspection. MJ meant it in a complementary way. He has been consistent in stating that Kobe is the one player in the NBA since MJ's retirement that he may get beaten by in his prime because Kobe has incorporated so much of MJ's game into his own game. It is hard to defeat your mirror is part of that I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PPatty

I'm going to use "first really awesome competitor to transcend the sport" definition (if we just use "first big superstar" as the definition, then the Babe Ruth of baseball is Ty Cobb), so the Babe Ruths of various sports (at least from an American point of view) are:

Baseball - Babe Ruth
Basketball - Wilt Chamberlain
Football - Jim Thorpe
Hockey - Gordie Howe (Bobby Orr has a case)
Soccer - Pele
Men's golf - Arnold Palmer
Women's golf - Babe Didrikson Zaharias
Boxing - Joe Louis (Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey have valid arguments)
Women's tennis - Billie Jean King
Men's tennis - Bjorn Borg
Horse racing - Man O' War
Stock car racing - Richard Petty
Indy car racing - Mario Andretti
MMA - Ronda Rousey
Sprinting - Jesse Owens
Gymnastics - Nadia Comaneci
Speed skating - Eric Heiden
Downhill skiing - Lindsey Vonn
Skateboarding - Tony Hawk
Snowboarding - Shaun White
Swimming - Mark Spitz
Cycling - Lance Armstrong (I know, I know, but still. Anyway, there's a case for Greg LeMond)
Chess - Bobby Fischer

---

This is a pretty damn good list, possibly your best post of all-time. The only one I do not have tremendous confidence in is the NASCAR one. I think Bobby Allison may qualify over Petty here. Petty definitely has the stronger legacy but Bobby Allison is very significant as well and has a popular persona and was a participant in the most notorious event in NASCAR history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_...rborough_fight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

The Babe Ruth of Women's tennis is Serena Williams if it isn't Martina Navratilova. King was great, but not the greatest.

---

Babe Ruth also isn't the greatest hitter ever. Billie Jean King is not the best women's tennis player of all time, but she was the best for a decent period and was certainly the first female tennis star to punch way beyond the boundaries of that sport.

Serena Williams is the Barry Bonds of tennis, complete with unproven steroid suspicions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

And this is my entire point about Rousey - she's an OK fighter but she's known outside of MMA circles for the same reason Danica Patrick is - because she has boobs.

---

Except that Rousey until her last fight was annihilating the competition, while Danica was mostly just going around in circles. Rousey isn't even the first not-bad-looking woman to compete in MMA.

On a broader note, Rousey is the Babe Ruth of her sport because she's the first MMA fighter who dominated for a stretch AND busted through to widespread, mainstream recognition. Some (mainly Chuck Liddell) made minor inroads. Brock Lesnar achieved some modicum of mainstream fame through non-MMA channels. Jon Jones almost broke through, but coke, booze, women and cars derailed that one.

Now if we're talking about things from a non-American point of view, then maybe Anderson Silva or GSP gets the Babe Ruth tag; from what I understand, they're pretty well known in his home country. But he's still just a niche figure in the USA.

Billie Jean King broke barriers but she never was a transcendent superstar like Serena Williams is. That is not what your list was about, if you are going by people who broke through barriers baseball should have been Jackie Robinson.

Tiger Woods is the first golfer who made normal people care about golf. When he was good is the only time I ever watched golf. I don't watch it anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI Redeux

Billie Jean King broke barriers but she never was a transcendent superstar like Serena Williams is. That is not what your list was about, if you are going by people who broke through barriers baseball should have been Jackie Robinson.

Tiger Woods is the first golfer who made normal people care about golf. When he was good is the only time I ever watched golf. I don't watch it anymore.

---

Agreed, you're arbitrarily manipulating your criteria, Ppatty. Babe Ruth didn't need to break through anything, baseball was already America's pastime when he dominated the game. He didn't put baseball on the map. Rousey (who's actually rather homely without the glamour treatment, which is fine she could absolutely kick my ass in seconds) didn't put MMA on the map either, and did not face the sort of competition the male fighters faced, because c'mon. She's the Mike Tyson of female MMA, which is great, but she's not some once in a lifetime talent. Great marketing crew though.

It wouldn't be impossible to argue that Babe Ruth is the Barry Bonds of baseball either, if Bonds had been a serviceable pitcher. Ruth and Bonds are A and A1. Rousey is neither A nor A1 in MMA, although she's absolutely A in women's MMA. Nobody's going to argue that Lisa Leslie is the Babe Ruth of basketball, but her career and popularity were similar to Rousey's. Don't let the sparklies of the marketing machine trip you up. Great female fighter, absolutely, not the greatest MMA fighter of all time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

Rousey (who's actually rather homely without the glamour treatment, which is fine she could absolutely kick my ass in seconds) didn't put MMA on the map either, and did not face the sort of competition the male fighters faced, because c'mon.

---

You're right about the competition she faced: she faced better competition than the men, for her weight class (which is the only measure that matters). At one point she'd defended her title against every person in the top five in her class, something no other UFC fighter could claim. Didn't put MMA on the map?

http://mmapayout.com/category/pay-per-view/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

Rousey’s popularity is not limited just to the UFC or MMA. Google and Yahoo! Search engines reflect that she is a popular search item. She was the top trending athlete for Google in 2015 and the 5th rated overall trending search in the United States. She was also the most searched athlete of 2015 according to Yahoo’s search engine.

---

Give me another MMA fighter that's done that. I get that you're hung up on the one loss she's suffered in her pro MMA career. But she is a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

She's the Mike Tyson of female MMA....

---

That's funny, because if you asked a lot of people to name a boxer, the first one they'd say would be Mike Tyson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

You're right about the competition she faced: she faced better competition than the men, for her weight class (which is the only measure that matters). At one point she'd defended her title against every person in the top five in her class, something no other UFC fighter could claim. Didn't put MMA on the map?

http://mmapayout.com/category/pay-per-view/

---

No, she didn't. Which of those stories on that link should I read, there are a whole bunch of them?

Quote:

---

But she is a big deal.

---

Absolutely. Just not the GOAT regardless of gender.

Quote:

---

That's funny, because if you asked a lot of people to name a boxer, the first one they'd say would be Mike Tyson.

---

Absolutely, and nobody would argue that Tyson was the GOAT. I appreciate your coming around to my thinking on this :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

...nobody would argue that Tyson was the GOAT.

---

PPatty didn't ask for the GOAT. Re-read what he mentioned as the criteria for his list.

What we're doing is parsing whether she's really awesome or not ;) I say she's great, but not really awesome. She's a pretty good talent in a very weak pool of talent who has an awesome marketing team.

I say anyone who beats their peers in seconds, consistently, is really awesome. The pool of talent being weak doesn't really enter the equation. Nobody is sticking an asterisk beside the scoring records of hockey players who played in the 80's, even though that was the biggest shooting gallery in the league's history, or tossing out pitching records from the dead ball era. You can only measure athletes against others in the same era, and Rousey was (and may still be, if she cares to be) head and shoulders above them.

You also keep going on about marketing. The UFC has been consistently surprised at how popular she has become, so it's not like they've been the ones behind this. Her "team" is her mom, her sister, those bums that have been coaching her, and the BF that was accused of beating on a prior GF. I guarantee you that "team" didn't make a compelling pitch to Beyonce to feature Rousey's voice at her concert the way she did. It was Rousey's words that did it. Are we now discounting an athlete's ability to build themselves up?

No we're not, we're just noting that the talent level in women's MMA is paper-thin, which is going to make anyone look more amazing than they probably are.

So Rousey's appearing in movies and she doesn't have an agent? She's showing up on every tv show that's out there doing interviews without a booking agent? How'd she pull that off? Major props.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MI Redeux

Billie Jean King broke barriers but she never was a transcendent superstar like Serena Williams is. ... Tiger Woods is the first golfer who made normal people care about golf.

---

Your recency bias is showing. Billie Jean King was a major figure in the 1970s. She and Borg were the first tennis players who were well known by non-tennis fans. As for Woods, he's not the first or even the second golfer who made normal people care about golf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

Agreed, you're arbitrarily manipulating your criteria, Ppatty. Babe Ruth didn't need to break through anything, baseball was already America's pastime when he dominated the game. He didn't put baseball on the map. Rousey (who's actually rather homely without the glamour treatment, which is fine she could absolutely kick my ass in seconds) didn't put MMA on the map either

---

Babe Ruth didn't put baseball on the map, but he saved the game. Baseball was fucked after the 1919 Black Sox scandal; Ruth made it OK again.

But Rousey has put MMA on the map for many people. I've seen a lot of Web traffic numbers over the years; she really does generate more attention in a way that no other male fighter (and for that matter, few female athletes in any sport) has even come close to doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

She's the Mike Tyson of female MMA

---

As Delores notes, he transcended his sport too. If his phenomenon had happened in 1915, he would be the Babe Ruth of boxing.

And no, I'm not asking for the GOAT. Almost no one on the list I put out is a GOAT of their sport -- but they were the first great competitors in their fields to penetrate the popular consciousness beyond their niche (i.e., transcend their sport).

But if we're going to go there, then the GOATs of various sports:

Baseball - Bonds or Mays for position players (better fielders and baserunners than Ruth, against integrated competition and much more advanced pitching)
Basketball - Kareem Abdul Jabaar (I know, Michael. I stand by Kareem)
Football - Jim Brown (Career average of 5.2 yards a carry? I'll take that)
Hockey - Wayne Gretzky (only hardcore hockey purist nerds would even think about debating this)
Men's golf - Jack Nicklaus
Boxing - Sugar Ray Robinson
Women's tennis - Steffi Graf (for now; Serena's coming, though)
Men's tennis - Roger Federer (doesn't look like Nadal's knees will let him make a run at this)
Horse racing - Secretariat
Stock car racing - Richard Petty (but maybe the hardest comparison across eras for any sport, given the differences between then and now)
Indy car racing - AJ Foyt (as many titles as Mario and more wins overall)
MMA - Fedor Emelianenko (Yes, I hear you, Anderson Silva fans)
Sprinting - Usain Bolt
Speed skating - Eric Heiden
Swimming - Michael Phelps
Cycling - Eddy Merckx
World's Strongest Man - Mariusz Pudzianowski

Good list. I'd put Chamberlain above Jabaar and Sampras above Federer but only to quibble.

We really need go retitle this thread. I propose Sports and Shit.

MI can request a different title, I gave it a new prefix of Sports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grindel

So Rousey's appearing in movies and she doesn't have an agent? She's showing up on every tv show that's out there doing interviews without a booking agent? How'd she pull that off? Major props.

---

Rousey is with WME; Beyonce is with CAA for music and ICM for acting. There's no damned way WME convinced Beyonce or her agents to cross-promote her. And it was that moment at the Beyonce concert that really pushed general awareness of Rousey.

On PPatty's list: I was actually going to bring up Gretzky not being on the list as evidence that it wasn't intended as a GOAT list. Yeah, the people who argue for anyone other than Gretzky (usually an early 1900's goalie, Orr, or Lemieux) are crazy hockey nerds that don't see the forest for the trees.

I take issue with the MMA listing, but for reasons other than Fedor being amazing. I find it hard to declare someone a GOAT in a sport with multiple weight classes. I'd be much more comfortable with multiple GOATs, one per class. It's also tough for me to compare people from leagues with very different rules, especially including drug testing rules. I know that's a lesser issue with every all-time comparison, given how rules have changed in all sports over the years (and PED definitions/testing), but it seems especially severe comparing, say, a modern UFC fighter to someone in the PED-infested days of PRIDE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

I take issue with the MMA listing, but for reasons other than Fedor being amazing. I find it hard to declare someone a GOAT in a sport with multiple weight classes.

---

I don't see it as being all that different from comparing athletes from different eras. There are ways of judging a fighter's dominance and skill apart from their particular size (hence, the popularity of pound-for-pound rankings in boxing and MMA). Apart from that, in a few cases, we see fighters cut across weight classes to fight much larger opponents; Fedor is the GOAT partly because he kicked ass while giving up considerable amounts of weight against most of his foes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

It's also tough for me to compare people from leagues with very different rules, especially including drug testing rules. I know that's a lesser issue with every all-time comparison, given how rules have changed in all sports over the years (and PED definitions/testing), but it seems especially severe comparing, say, a modern UFC fighter to someone in the PED-infested days of PRIDE.

---

Except that we do have several examples of athletes who spanned both eras (and UFC wasn't clean back then either; only the most careless of people got caught in any combat sport before 2012) and remain top-10 guys today.

necro bump

Quote:

---

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comment..._professional/

[Wilt Chamberlain Dominating Professional basketball leagues at age 16, and 17http://imgur.com/km9iH6q

http://imgur.com/NmbZnL8.jpg

http://imgur.com/2nhBTqC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/BBnYsYc.jpg



Wilt Chamberlain, or as he was first known, "George Marcus", secretly dominated professional basketball under that assumed identity at age 16 for the Pittsburgh Raiders. Even as a kid against men playing professionally he averaged 40.5ppg by age 17. I found game recaps of multiple 46 point performances for the Quakertown Fay's at age 17, and at least one 44 point game even at age 16 for the Pittsburgh Raiders.

This is not only not often talked about, it's NEVER talked about. I've seen only a few references to his professional career that predated college basketball. When I researched this I found out it got him into potential trouble with the NCAA and so it was kept hushed and perhaps left to be forgotten.

*EDIT* Allow me to plug one other researcher who I've come to learn first shared the photographs of Wilt playing for the Fay's a few years ago. I found him on Twitter, and here's a link to a fascinating video he produced!

https://twitter.com/storyrd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un5HPRWW4Yk

---

The Mountain laces up the gloves and tries going at it with an actual boxer, albeit in an exhibition:

https://youtu.be/WI1NfKc-EPI

He's kludgy, but all things considered, could have been a lot worse for a first outing against a pro. And while he has to work a lot on his punches and his defense, he definitely seems to be able to take a punch, something that eludes many fighters with far more skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PPatty

Men's tennis - Roger Federer (doesn't look like Nadal's knees will let him make a run at this)

---

Ok, so I guess the knees did hold up, after all. Congrats.