tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 05 Feb 2009 09:04:19
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Gretzky? Try Bradman
http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/02/04/Sports/Despite.Recent.Loss.Federer.Should.Stand.Among.Best.In.Sports.History-3610962-page2.shtml

"Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
only counting his free throw totals.

What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
"The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
sports."

Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
Bradman?




 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 12:04:28
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 11, 8:17=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 11:10 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 9, 5:39 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 9, 10:21 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 9, 4:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> No, it means Cricket has a very strong presence in the Americas,
> >>>>> specifically in the Caribbean, which means it has a strong
> >>>>> presence in the Western Hemisphere, on the western side of the
> >>>>> Atlantic. Which supports, to an extent, the geographical
> >>>>> dispersion argument.
>
> >>>> I don't have any desire to get deeply involved again in the
> >>>> continuing debate in this thread, but as a resident of the New
> >>>> World, I must emphatically disagree with the claim that cricket
> >>>> has a "very strong presence" here. Popularity in a few tiny island
> >>>> nations in the Caribbean does not confer a strong presence in the
> >>>> Americas, let alone a very strong one. If your sport is not
> >>>> established in one or more of the large nations in North or South
> >>>> America, then it's simply not established in this hemisphere.
> >>>> Countries with a population of 307,000 (Bahamas) don't carry
> >>>> nearly enough weight. Interestingly, in the two largest nations in
> >>>> the Caribbean, Cuba (37 times the size of the Bahamas) and the
> >>>> Dominican Republic (29 times the size of Barbados, another cricket
> >>>> country), the stick-and-ball game of choice is not cricket, but
> >>>> baseball.
>
> >>>> Joe Ramirez
>
> >>> The Bahamas isn't really a cricket country anyway, as far as I know.
>
> >> Actually, I saw a cricket match being played in Nassau while there on
> >> vacation. This was in the 1990s. We couldn't watch the entire match
> >> because it was only a four-day cruise. :)
>
> >> Joe Ramirez
>
> > Huh - you shoulda been around in the 1930s. In some matches there was
> > no time limitation - the most famous "timeless Test" was the last one
> > - England v South Africa in Durban in 1939 which wasn't even finished
> > after 9 days play (spread over 12 days) as England had to catch the
> > boat home ...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeless_Test
>
> I'd forgotten the state of the game when it was abandoned. England was on=
ly 42
> runs short of victory after scoring 5/654. Imagine having to stop the gam=
e after
> all that and being so close.

Cricket got more exciting with West Indies coming into fore in the
1960s and 1970s. Then the Indian subcontinental countries. More
countries are always better.


 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 12:01:17
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 10, 5:58=A0am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 2:35 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 9, 11:29 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 9, 11:29 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 7, 8:03 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 7, 6:37 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1...@gmai=
l.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >On Feb 6, 3:43 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> w=
rote:
> > > > > > > >> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely =
all my life, I
> > > > > > > >> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, an=
d I always
> > > > > > > >> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But =
I realize
> > > > > > > >> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kin=
d of arguments
> > > > > > > >> >> can also go on forever.
>
> > > > > > > >> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in=
non-cricket
> > > > > > > >> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers =
as an absolute
> > > > > > > >> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports=
, it's not
> > > > > > > >> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Br=
adman to the
> > > > > > > >> > average North American sports writer or fan, the stateme=
nt of the
> > > > > > > >> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Austra=
lia -- would
> > > > > > > >> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're ri=
ght: with
> > > > > > > >> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of co=
ncluding these
> > > > > > > >> > debates.
>
> > > > > > > >> > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > > > > > >> That's more due to ignorance. =A0Most non-Americans laugh =
at
> > > > > > > >> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside U=
SA they may as
> > > > > > > >> well be amateur. =A0Every time we see a list of best sport=
smen that
> > > > > > > >> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as inclu=
ding ten pin
> > > > > > > >> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > >But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't=
they
> > > > > > > >similar in terms of # of countries
> > > > > > > >competing?
>
> > > > > > > To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irreleva=
nt.
> > > > > > > American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cu=
ltural
> > > > > > > things. None of these are big global sports like football, ba=
sketball,
> > > > > > > volleyball.
>
> > > > > > Volleyball is a global sport, but it's not a big global sport.
> > > > > > Football, basketball and tennis are probably three truly global
> > > > > > sports.
>
> > > > > > Cricket is played in the Caribbean and part of South America (G=
uyana),
> > > > > > southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia), En=
gland,
> > > > > > the Indian subcontinent (4 countries) and Australasia (Australi=
a and
> > > > > > New Zealand). It also has moderate presence in the middle east =
(Dubai)
> > > > > > and South-East Asia (Malaysia and Hong Kong). In terms of geogr=
aphical
> > > > > > dispersion, cricket is way more global than ice hockey or baseb=
all.
>
> > > > > The hell? They play hockey everywhere, with very few exceptions, =
in
> > > > > North America and Europe, as well as in China (our local NHL team=
has
> > > > > an affiliate there, in fact). You will also find tiny little leag=
ues
> > > > > and pond hockey in all sorts of bizarre places you wouldn't expec=
t it
> > > > > (like cricket in the Caribbean, I would think). You're going to h=
ave
> > > > > to pull an enormous explanation out of your ass as to how a game =
like
> > > > > cricket is more 'geographically dispersed' than a sport that's pl=
ayed
> > > > > across the largest land masses in the world.
>
> > > > How old are you? If you have time, look up Wikipedia or your prefer=
red
> > > > encyclopedia, enlighten yourself on cricket, its history and its
> > > > current position (including its geographical dispersion), and judge
> > > > for yourself whether I am right or not. I am not going to bother
> > > > answering you. You are obviously not interested in a decent
> > > > conversation.
>
> > > On your advice, I did just that. Going by the ICC member chart, if th=
e
> > > level of membership correlates at all to its popularity, then Cricket
> > > is heavily played in the Indian sub-continent, Australia, England, a
> > > tiny chunk of Souther Africa,
>
> > The entire Southern Africa. You have South Africa, Kenya, Namibia and
> > Zimbabwe. That's pretty much the entire southern Africa. <the rest snip=
ped for readibility >
>
> Give me a break. You're listing off tiny and remote chunks of the
> world here and there,

So? If I want to prove that cricket is more "globally dispersed", then
obviously I need to do just that.

> Joe has already pointed out the reasoning flaw I
> was going to mention vis a vi the Western Hemisphere and the side of
> the Atlantic ocean,

No, he hasn't. My point was cricket has a strong presence in the
Western Hemisphere. The 2006 Cricket World Cup was held in the
Caribbean. Remember, I was making a case for Cricket's global
dispersion.

> and while I'll take back the "entire Northern part
> of the Earth," bit,

Ideally you should apologize for making such an outrageously idiotic
statement, but taking back will do.

> you're still comparing said variety of tiny
> regions of popularity to something played across all of North America
> minus Mexico, across all of Europe minus what - Spain (even Italy has
> a decent international squad), all of Russia, and China.

No. Ice Hockey is not even that popular in North America or in Europe.
It is certainly not seriously played all across America or Europe. But
Cricket has a much, much stronger presence in all the areas I
mentioned. There are longstanding professional leagues in all those
areas.

> Sure you can
> look at all these scattered pockets of popularity and claim that's
> "geographically dispersed,"

Of course. That was my point all along. It is more geographically
dispersed. So you have finally conceded that I am right.

> or you can look at the sheer geographic
> area of where hockey is popular -

Ice Hockey? Popular like Cricket is popular in its strongholds? No
way. Sheer geographic Area? Do they play hockey in the vast inlands of
China? In Tibet? All across Siberia? The upper parts of Canada? I
don't think so. Cricket is far more entrenched in its host countries.

> not to mention that said geographic
> area represents a much larger share of the world sports and media
> market.

That's an entirely different topic. You have lost the geographical
dispersion argument and are now trying to go to a different topic.

> Again - I have nothing against cricket.

Who would? It's a nice sport. I think you should try it. You will love
it. :)

> But, also again, why
> would you expect it to be well-known enough outside of the regions you
> mentioned (excluding "the Americas" because - come on) to get listed
> next to hockey and basketball? What?

"Get listed next to hockey and baseball"? What are you babbling about?
What list?

Cricket is not a global sport like basketball or football. Ice Hockey
is even less global than Cricket. Cricket is more globally dispersed
and more popular (in terms of followers) than Ice Hockey. Or baseball.
This is how I have always seen it. You can disagree. But unless you
provide some serious argument or evidence, I wouldn't change how I see
it.


 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 00:05:01
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 9, 5:58=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 2:35 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 9, 11:29 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 9, 11:29 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 7, 8:03 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 7, 6:37 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1...@gmai=
l.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >On Feb 6, 3:43 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> w=
rote:
> > > > > > > >> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely =
all my life, I
> > > > > > > >> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, an=
d I always
> > > > > > > >> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But =
I realize
> > > > > > > >> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kin=
d of arguments
> > > > > > > >> >> can also go on forever.
>
> > > > > > > >> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in=
non-cricket
> > > > > > > >> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers =
as an absolute
> > > > > > > >> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports=
, it's not
> > > > > > > >> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Br=
adman to the
> > > > > > > >> > average North American sports writer or fan, the stateme=
nt of the
> > > > > > > >> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Austra=
lia -- would
> > > > > > > >> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're ri=
ght: with
> > > > > > > >> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of co=
ncluding these
> > > > > > > >> > debates.
>
> > > > > > > >> > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > > > > > >> That's more due to ignorance. =A0Most non-Americans laugh =
at
> > > > > > > >> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside U=
SA they may as
> > > > > > > >> well be amateur. =A0Every time we see a list of best sport=
smen that
> > > > > > > >> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as inclu=
ding ten pin
> > > > > > > >> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > >But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't=
they
> > > > > > > >similar in terms of # of countries
> > > > > > > >competing?
>
> > > > > > > To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irreleva=
nt.
> > > > > > > American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cu=
ltural
> > > > > > > things. None of these are big global sports like football, ba=
sketball,
> > > > > > > volleyball.
>
> > > > > > Volleyball is a global sport, but it's not a big global sport.
> > > > > > Football, basketball and tennis are probably three truly global
> > > > > > sports.
>
> > > > > > Cricket is played in the Caribbean and part of South America (G=
uyana),
> > > > > > southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia), En=
gland,
> > > > > > the Indian subcontinent (4 countries) and Australasia (Australi=
a and
> > > > > > New Zealand). It also has moderate presence in the middle east =
(Dubai)
> > > > > > and South-East Asia (Malaysia and Hong Kong). In terms of geogr=
aphical
> > > > > > dispersion, cricket is way more global than ice hockey or baseb=
all.
>
> > > > > The hell? They play hockey everywhere, with very few exceptions, =
in
> > > > > North America and Europe, as well as in China (our local NHL team=
has
> > > > > an affiliate there, in fact). You will also find tiny little leag=
ues
> > > > > and pond hockey in all sorts of bizarre places you wouldn't expec=
t it
> > > > > (like cricket in the Caribbean, I would think). You're going to h=
ave
> > > > > to pull an enormous explanation out of your ass as to how a game =
like
> > > > > cricket is more 'geographically dispersed' than a sport that's pl=
ayed
> > > > > across the largest land masses in the world.
>
> > > > How old are you? If you have time, look up Wikipedia or your prefer=
red
> > > > encyclopedia, enlighten yourself on cricket, its history and its
> > > > current position (including its geographical dispersion), and judge
> > > > for yourself whether I am right or not. I am not going to bother
> > > > answering you. You are obviously not interested in a decent
> > > > conversation.
>
> > > On your advice, I did just that. Going by the ICC member chart, if th=
e
> > > level of membership correlates at all to its popularity, then Cricket
> > > is heavily played in the Indian sub-continent, Australia, England, a
> > > tiny chunk of Souther Africa,
>
> > The entire Southern Africa. You have South Africa, Kenya, Namibia and
> > Zimbabwe. That's pretty much the entire southern Africa. <the rest snip=
ped for readibility >
>
> Give me a break. You're listing off tiny and remote chunks of the
> world here and there, Joe has already pointed out the reasoning flaw I
> was going to mention vis a vi the Western Hemisphere and the side of
> the Atlantic ocean, and while I'll take back the "entire Northern part
> of the Earth," bit, you're still comparing said variety of tiny
> regions of popularity to something played across all of North America
> minus Mexico, across all of Europe minus what - Spain (even Italy has
> a decent international squad), all of Russia, and China. Sure you can
> look at all these scattered pockets of popularity and claim that's
> "geographically dispersed," or you can look at the sheer geographic
> area of where hockey is popular - not to mention that said geographic
> area represents a much larger share of the world sports and media
> market. Again - I have nothing against cricket. But, also again, why
> would you expect it to be well-known enough outside of the regions you
> mentioned (excluding "the Americas" because - come on) to get listed
> next to hockey and basketball? What?

Agreed - and the worse thing for cricket is that its popularity is
dwindling even in those few places where it has a large following. In
the Caribbean for example, everyone is taking up basketball now
because cricket is no longer appealing to youngsters anymore. The last
World Cup in 2007 was an absolute disaster, and left so many with such
a bad taste in the mouth that I think cricket lost a lot of fans for
good...


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 17:34:56
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 10, 11:10=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 5:39=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 10:21=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 9, 4:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > No, it means Cricket has a very strong presence in the Americas,
> > > > specifically in the Caribbean, which means it has a strong presence=
in
> > > > the Western Hemisphere, on the western side of the Atlantic. Which
> > > > supports, to an extent, the geographical dispersion argument.
>
> > > I don't have any desire to get deeply involved again in the continuin=
g
> > > debate in this thread, but as a resident of the New World, I must
> > > emphatically disagree with the claim that cricket has a "very strong
> > > presence" here. Popularity in a few tiny island nations in the
> > > Caribbean does not confer a strong presence in the Americas, let alon=
e
> > > a very strong one. If your sport is not established in one or more of
> > > the large nations in North or South America, then it's simply not
> > > established in this hemisphere. Countries with a population of 307,00=
0
> > > (Bahamas) don't carry nearly enough weight. Interestingly, in the two
> > > largest nations in the Caribbean, Cuba (37 times the size of the
> > > Bahamas) and the Dominican Republic (29 times the size of Barbados,
> > > another cricket country), the stick-and-ball game of choice is not
> > > cricket, but baseball.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > The Bahamas isn't really a cricket country anyway, as far as I know.
>
> Actually, I saw a cricket match being played in Nassau while there on
> vacation. This was in the 1990s. We couldn't watch the entire match
> because it was only a four-day cruise. :)
>
> Joe Ramirez

Huh - you shoulda been around in the 1930s. In some matches there was
no time limitation - the most famous "timeless Test" was the last one
- England v South Africa in Durban in 1939 which wasn't even finished
after 9 days play (spread over 12 days) as England had to catch the
boat home ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeless_Test



  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 13:17:35
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 10, 11:10 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 5:39 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 10:21 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 9, 4:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> No, it means Cricket has a very strong presence in the Americas,
>>>>> specifically in the Caribbean, which means it has a strong
>>>>> presence in the Western Hemisphere, on the western side of the
>>>>> Atlantic. Which supports, to an extent, the geographical
>>>>> dispersion argument.
>>
>>>> I don't have any desire to get deeply involved again in the
>>>> continuing debate in this thread, but as a resident of the New
>>>> World, I must emphatically disagree with the claim that cricket
>>>> has a "very strong presence" here. Popularity in a few tiny island
>>>> nations in the Caribbean does not confer a strong presence in the
>>>> Americas, let alone a very strong one. If your sport is not
>>>> established in one or more of the large nations in North or South
>>>> America, then it's simply not established in this hemisphere.
>>>> Countries with a population of 307,000 (Bahamas) don't carry
>>>> nearly enough weight. Interestingly, in the two largest nations in
>>>> the Caribbean, Cuba (37 times the size of the Bahamas) and the
>>>> Dominican Republic (29 times the size of Barbados, another cricket
>>>> country), the stick-and-ball game of choice is not cricket, but
>>>> baseball.
>>
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>> The Bahamas isn't really a cricket country anyway, as far as I know.
>>
>> Actually, I saw a cricket match being played in Nassau while there on
>> vacation. This was in the 1990s. We couldn't watch the entire match
>> because it was only a four-day cruise. :)
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> Huh - you shoulda been around in the 1930s. In some matches there was
> no time limitation - the most famous "timeless Test" was the last one
> - England v South Africa in Durban in 1939 which wasn't even finished
> after 9 days play (spread over 12 days) as England had to catch the
> boat home ...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeless_Test

I'd forgotten the state of the game when it was abandoned. England was only 42
runs short of victory after scoring 5/654. Imagine having to stop the game after
all that and being so close.




 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 15:10:15
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 9, 5:39=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:21=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 4:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, it means Cricket has a very strong presence in the Americas,
> > > specifically in the Caribbean, which means it has a strong presence i=
n
> > > the Western Hemisphere, on the western side of the Atlantic. Which
> > > supports, to an extent, the geographical dispersion argument.
>
> > I don't have any desire to get deeply involved again in the continuing
> > debate in this thread, but as a resident of the New World, I must
> > emphatically disagree with the claim that cricket has a "very strong
> > presence" here. Popularity in a few tiny island nations in the
> > Caribbean does not confer a strong presence in the Americas, let alone
> > a very strong one. If your sport is not established in one or more of
> > the large nations in North or South America, then it's simply not
> > established in this hemisphere. Countries with a population of 307,000
> > (Bahamas) don't carry nearly enough weight. Interestingly, in the two
> > largest nations in the Caribbean, Cuba (37 times the size of the
> > Bahamas) and the Dominican Republic (29 times the size of Barbados,
> > another cricket country), the stick-and-ball game of choice is not
> > cricket, but baseball.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> The Bahamas isn't really a cricket country anyway, as far as I know.

Actually, I saw a cricket match being played in Nassau while there on
vacation. This was in the 1990s. We couldn't watch the entire match
because it was only a four-day cruise. :)

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 10:37:18
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 9, 5:39 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 10:21 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 4:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> No, it means Cricket has a very strong presence in the Americas,
>>>> specifically in the Caribbean, which means it has a strong
>>>> presence in the Western Hemisphere, on the western side of the
>>>> Atlantic. Which supports, to an extent, the geographical
>>>> dispersion argument.
>>
>>> I don't have any desire to get deeply involved again in the
>>> continuing debate in this thread, but as a resident of the New
>>> World, I must emphatically disagree with the claim that cricket has
>>> a "very strong presence" here. Popularity in a few tiny island
>>> nations in the Caribbean does not confer a strong presence in the
>>> Americas, let alone a very strong one. If your sport is not
>>> established in one or more of the large nations in North or South
>>> America, then it's simply not established in this hemisphere.
>>> Countries with a population of 307,000 (Bahamas) don't carry nearly
>>> enough weight. Interestingly, in the two largest nations in the
>>> Caribbean, Cuba (37 times the size of the Bahamas) and the
>>> Dominican Republic (29 times the size of Barbados, another cricket
>>> country), the stick-and-ball game of choice is not cricket, but
>>> baseball.
>>
>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>> The Bahamas isn't really a cricket country anyway, as far as I know.
>
> Actually, I saw a cricket match being played in Nassau while there on
> vacation. This was in the 1990s. We couldn't watch the entire match
> because it was only a four-day cruise. :)

Now, now, watch it.

A five-day game of cricket can be as boring as a sailing race, but it can also
reach heights that other games can't. You can't get the sort of twists and
turns, drama, exhilarating play and periods of tension, and the time to absorb
it all, in a game lasting a few hours that you can get in a game of Test
cricket.




 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 11:55:23
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 10, 4:27 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> andrew.r...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 4:53 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>> On Feb 7, 1:23 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> >>> You didn't get it. But hopefully do now.
> >>>>> Partly because I know it is a
> >>>>> monumental achievement that is rare, probably unique in any sport.
> >>>> And unfortunately, because it's such a niche most people don't follow
> >>>> it, aren't familiar with it, and couldn't give a rat's ass. While, on
> >>>> a purely numerical basis, more people probably play cricket than play
> >>>> hockey, the latter gets more exposure because it exists on both
> >>>> hemispheres and is featured in the Olympics. I would also dare say
> >>>> that it's the more demanding sport, overall, and as such comparing a
> >>>> hockey player to a cricket player is a futile exercise.
> >>>> Let me put it to you this way - if we poll everyone outside of India,
> >>>> I am fairly sure you'll find more people who recognize Pele or Jordan
> >>>> than do Bradman.
> >>> Who cares? The journalist was talking about achievements of the
> >>> greatest player within a particular sport, not the popularity of a
> >>> particular sport.
> >> Look, obviously Bradman has to be included in any alltime great
> >> sportsmen analysis - just as any outstanding Gridiron players (no one
> >> outide USA knows/cares about) have to be included.
>
> >> To include Gridiron players & ignore Cricket means the whole analysis
> >> can be safely disregarded.
>
> > You are, once again, entirely missing the point. Yes, in any ideal
> > objective discussion, these players would be included. In an expose by
> > a North American journalist, being blunt, you'd have to be a bloody
> > fool to expect that these names get mentioned. Anything else is
> > fantasy.
>
> Who would waste time reading anything scribbled by a NA journo?
> Complete waste of time you'll never get back.

Ironic. ;-)


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 15:58:18
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 9, 1:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2:35 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 11:29 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 9, 11:29 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 8:03 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 7, 6:37 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >On Feb 6, 3:43 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > > > > >> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
> > > > > > >> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> > > > > > >> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> > > > > > >> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
> > > > > > >> >> can also go on forever.
>
> > > > > > >> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> > > > > > >> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
> > > > > > >> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> > > > > > >> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> > > > > > >> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> > > > > > >> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> > > > > > >> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> > > > > > >> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
> > > > > > >> > debates.
>
> > > > > > >> > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > > > > >> That's more due to ignorance. Most non-Americans laugh at
> > > > > > >> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may as
> > > > > > >> well be amateur. Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
> > > > > > >> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
> > > > > > >> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > >But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
> > > > > > >similar in terms of # of countries
> > > > > > >competing?
>
> > > > > > To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irrelevant.
> > > > > > American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cultural
> > > > > > things. None of these are big global sports like football, basketball,
> > > > > > volleyball.
>
> > > > > Volleyball is a global sport, but it's not a big global sport.
> > > > > Football, basketball and tennis are probably three truly global
> > > > > sports.
>
> > > > > Cricket is played in the Caribbean and part of South America (Guyana),
> > > > > southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia), England,
> > > > > the Indian subcontinent (4 countries) and Australasia (Australia and
> > > > > New Zealand). It also has moderate presence in the middle east (Dubai)
> > > > > and South-East Asia (Malaysia and Hong Kong). In terms of geographical
> > > > > dispersion, cricket is way more global than ice hockey or baseball.
>
> > > > The hell? They play hockey everywhere, with very few exceptions, in
> > > > North America and Europe, as well as in China (our local NHL team has
> > > > an affiliate there, in fact). You will also find tiny little leagues
> > > > and pond hockey in all sorts of bizarre places you wouldn't expect it
> > > > (like cricket in the Caribbean, I would think). You're going to have
> > > > to pull an enormous explanation out of your ass as to how a game like
> > > > cricket is more 'geographically dispersed' than a sport that's played
> > > > across the largest land masses in the world.
>
> > > How old are you? If you have time, look up Wikipedia or your preferred
> > > encyclopedia, enlighten yourself on cricket, its history and its
> > > current position (including its geographical dispersion), and judge
> > > for yourself whether I am right or not. I am not going to bother
> > > answering you. You are obviously not interested in a decent
> > > conversation.
>
> > On your advice, I did just that. Going by the ICC member chart, if the
> > level of membership correlates at all to its popularity, then Cricket
> > is heavily played in the Indian sub-continent, Australia, England, a
> > tiny chunk of Souther Africa,
>
> The entire Southern Africa. You have South Africa, Kenya, Namibia and
> Zimbabwe. That's pretty much the entire southern Africa. <the rest snipped for readibility>

Give me a break. You're listing off tiny and remote chunks of the
world here and there, Joe has already pointed out the reasoning flaw I
was going to mention vis a vi the Western Hemisphere and the side of
the Atlantic ocean, and while I'll take back the "entire Northern part
of the Earth," bit, you're still comparing said variety of tiny
regions of popularity to something played across all of North America
minus Mexico, across all of Europe minus what - Spain (even Italy has
a decent international squad), all of Russia, and China. Sure you can
look at all these scattered pockets of popularity and claim that's
"geographically dispersed," or you can look at the sheer geographic
area of where hockey is popular - not to mention that said geographic
area represents a much larger share of the world sports and media
market. Again - I have nothing against cricket. But, also again, why
would you expect it to be well-known enough outside of the regions you
mentioned (excluding "the Americas" because - come on) to get listed
next to hockey and basketball? What?


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 14:39:16
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 9, 10:21=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 4:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, it means Cricket has a very strong presence in the Americas,
> > specifically in the Caribbean, which means it has a strong presence in
> > the Western Hemisphere, on the western side of the Atlantic. Which
> > supports, to an extent, the geographical dispersion argument.
>
> I don't have any desire to get deeply involved again in the continuing
> debate in this thread, but as a resident of the New World, I must
> emphatically disagree with the claim that cricket has a "very strong
> presence" here. Popularity in a few tiny island nations in the
> Caribbean does not confer a strong presence in the Americas, let alone
> a very strong one. If your sport is not established in one or more of
> the large nations in North or South America, then it's simply not
> established in this hemisphere. Countries with a population of 307,000
> (Bahamas) don't carry nearly enough weight. Interestingly, in the two
> largest nations in the Caribbean, Cuba (37 times the size of the
> Bahamas) and the Dominican Republic (29 times the size of Barbados,
> another cricket country), the stick-and-ball game of choice is not
> cricket, but baseball.
>
> Joe Ramirez

The Bahamas isn't really a cricket country anyway, as far as I know.

It's pretty much the West Indies around there - and the game is not as
big there as it once was, with soccer and basketball gaining in
popularity over cricket. The increase in popularity of basketball is
attributed to (blamed on?) wider availability of TV coverage of the
sport from US channels in the islands.



 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 14:21:27
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 9, 4:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:

> No, it means Cricket has a very strong presence in the Americas,
> specifically in the Caribbean, which means it has a strong presence in
> the Western Hemisphere, on the western side of the Atlantic. Which
> supports, to an extent, the geographical dispersion argument.

I don't have any desire to get deeply involved again in the continuing
debate in this thread, but as a resident of the New World, I must
emphatically disagree with the claim that cricket has a "very strong
presence" here. Popularity in a few tiny island nations in the
Caribbean does not confer a strong presence in the Americas, let alone
a very strong one. If your sport is not established in one or more of
the large nations in North or South America, then it's simply not
established in this hemisphere. Countries with a population of 307,000
(Bahamas) don't carry nearly enough weight. Interestingly, in the two
largest nations in the Caribbean, Cuba (37 times the size of the
Bahamas) and the Dominican Republic (29 times the size of Barbados,
another cricket country), the stick-and-ball game of choice is not
cricket, but baseball.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 13:37:37
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 10, 2:35=A0am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:29 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 11:29 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 8:03 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 6:37 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1...@gmail.co=
m
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >On Feb 6, 3:43 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote=
:
> > > > > >> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all =
my life, I
> > > > > >> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I =
always
> > > > > >> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I re=
alize
> > > > > >> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of=
arguments
> > > > > >> >> can also go on forever.
>
> > > > > >> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non=
-cricket
> > > > > >> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as a=
n absolute
> > > > > >> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it=
's not
> > > > > >> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradma=
n to the
> > > > > >> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement o=
f the
> > > > > >> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia =
-- would
> > > > > >> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right:=
with
> > > > > >> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of conclu=
ding these
> > > > > >> > debates.
>
> > > > > >> > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > > > >> That's more due to ignorance. =A0Most non-Americans laugh at
> > > > > >> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA t=
hey may as
> > > > > >> well be amateur. =A0Every time we see a list of best sportsmen=
that
> > > > > >> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including=
ten pin
> > > > > >> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > >But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't the=
y
> > > > > >similar in terms of # of countries
> > > > > >competing?
>
> > > > > To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irrelevant.
> > > > > American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cultur=
al
> > > > > things. None of these are big global sports like football, basket=
ball,
> > > > > volleyball.
>
> > > > Volleyball is a global sport, but it's not a big global sport.
> > > > Football, basketball and tennis are probably three truly global
> > > > sports.
>
> > > > Cricket is played in the Caribbean and part of South America (Guyan=
a),
> > > > southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia), Englan=
d,
> > > > the Indian subcontinent (4 countries) and Australasia (Australia an=
d
> > > > New Zealand). It also has moderate presence in the middle east (Dub=
ai)
> > > > and South-East Asia (Malaysia and Hong Kong). In terms of geographi=
cal
> > > > dispersion, cricket is way more global than ice hockey or baseball.
>
> > > The hell? They play hockey everywhere, with very few exceptions, in
> > > North America and Europe, as well as in China (our local NHL team has
> > > an affiliate there, in fact). You will also find tiny little leagues
> > > and pond hockey in all sorts of bizarre places you wouldn't expect it
> > > (like cricket in the Caribbean, I would think). You're going to have
> > > to pull an enormous explanation out of your ass as to how a game like
> > > cricket is more 'geographically dispersed' than a sport that's played
> > > across the largest land masses in the world.
>
> > How old are you? If you have time, look up Wikipedia or your preferred
> > encyclopedia, enlighten yourself on cricket, its history and its
> > current position (including its geographical dispersion), and judge
> > for yourself whether I am right or not. I am not going to bother
> > answering you. You are obviously not interested in a decent
> > conversation.
>
> On your advice, I did just that. Going by the ICC member chart, if the
> level of membership correlates at all to its popularity, then Cricket
> is heavily played in the Indian sub-continent, Australia, England, a
> tiny chunk of Souther Africa,

The entire Southern Africa. You have South Africa, Kenya, Namibia and
Zimbabwe. That's pretty much the entire southern Africa.

> and an even tinier chunk of South
> America.

Just Guyana. Former British Guyana. Yes, a little chunk.

> It's also played a little bit in North America, China, South
> America, etc...

The mainstay of cricket in the Americas is not any continental
country, but the numerous islands of the Caribbean. Cricket is firmly
institutionalized there. The West Indies were the world champions of
one-day cricket in the 1970s and the world's best cricket team in
Tests (5-day version) for almost two decades, from the mid-70s to
mid-90s. They have professional cricket leauges there for god knows
how many decades. There are one or several national cricket stadiums
on most Caribbean island nations. Cricket is huge there.

> Again, assuming any sort of correlation, it means that
> cricket is as popular in Argentina and parts of Africa as it is in
> North America - which is not very, and even less popular in China and
> everywhere else it's played.

No, it means Cricket has a very strong presence in the Americas,
specifically in the Caribbean, which means it has a strong presence in
the Western Hemisphere, on the western side of the Atlantic. Which
supports, to an extent, the geographical dispersion argument.

> So, again, how this compares with a sport
> which is wildly popular and a national pastime across the entire
> northern half of the Earth (somewhat excluding America, where it is
> popular but not a national pastime),

"Wildly popular" in the "entire northern half of the earth"? Ice
Hockey? Please.

> and popular enough in China to
> spawn numerous leagues and weak but, given the local history of the
> sport, respectable Olympic teams for both men and women,

China is a good example in terms of east-west dispersion of Ice
Hockey. I have to give you that.

> I again have
> a hard time seeing how it's more "globally dispersed."

The case is simple. Cricket has very strong presence in the Americas
(the Caribbean), in Africa (Southern Africa), in Australasia
(Australia and New Zealand), in Asia (the Indian subcontinent) and in
Europe (Britain). In short, it has a strong presence in all inhabited
continents (or, in the case of the Caribbean, highly populated islands
very close to the continents). Cricket has strong presence in the
northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere. It has a strong
presence in the eastern hemisphere, smack on the zero degree longitude
line (Britain) and in the western hemisphere.

Ice Hockey doesn't have this kind of global dispersion.

> If you want to
> tell me that more people play cricket - I don't think that's arguable.

Of course. Far more people play cricket. And they are also from many
different races. We have black Africans, black West Indians (ie
African-Americans), brown Indians and Middle Easterners, white
Europeans and Australasians, even Australian aborigine players playing
cricket. It is truly a global sport. It would have been nice if more
East Asians played the sport. Then the circle would have been
complete.

The reason why Cricket is not an Olympic sport has to do with the
length of a cricket match. For a long time, international professional
cricket has been played in only two formats: the 5-day version, and
the 1-day version. Even the shortest form took an entire day to hold.
It is a test of patience. Recently an even shorter version (lasts
about 4 hours) has been introduced and it has been a success. I
believe this version can easily get included in the Olympics.


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 08:59:43
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> The mainstay of cricket in the Americas is not any continental
> country, but the numerous islands of the Caribbean. Cricket is firmly
> institutionalized there. The West Indies were the world champions of
> one-day cricket in the 1970s and the world's best cricket team in
> Tests (5-day version) for almost two decades, from the mid-70s to
> mid-90s.

Not to mention their flair and spectacularly talented and entertaining players -
Sobers, Richards, Greenidge, Holding to name just few. Even when they weren't
the best they were the best to watch. But I digress from your point.




 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 12:35:57
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 9, 11:29 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:29 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 8:03 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 6:37 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >On Feb 6, 3:43 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > > >> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
> > > > >> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> > > > >> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> > > > >> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
> > > > >> >> can also go on forever.
>
> > > > >> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> > > > >> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
> > > > >> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> > > > >> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> > > > >> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> > > > >> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> > > > >> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> > > > >> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
> > > > >> > debates.
>
> > > > >> > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > > >> That's more due to ignorance. Most non-Americans laugh at
> > > > >> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may as
> > > > >> well be amateur. Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
> > > > >> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
> > > > >> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > >But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
> > > > >similar in terms of # of countries
> > > > >competing?
>
> > > > To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irrelevant.
> > > > American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cultural
> > > > things. None of these are big global sports like football, basketball,
> > > > volleyball.
>
> > > Volleyball is a global sport, but it's not a big global sport.
> > > Football, basketball and tennis are probably three truly global
> > > sports.
>
> > > Cricket is played in the Caribbean and part of South America (Guyana),
> > > southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia), England,
> > > the Indian subcontinent (4 countries) and Australasia (Australia and
> > > New Zealand). It also has moderate presence in the middle east (Dubai)
> > > and South-East Asia (Malaysia and Hong Kong). In terms of geographical
> > > dispersion, cricket is way more global than ice hockey or baseball.
>
> > The hell? They play hockey everywhere, with very few exceptions, in
> > North America and Europe, as well as in China (our local NHL team has
> > an affiliate there, in fact). You will also find tiny little leagues
> > and pond hockey in all sorts of bizarre places you wouldn't expect it
> > (like cricket in the Caribbean, I would think). You're going to have
> > to pull an enormous explanation out of your ass as to how a game like
> > cricket is more 'geographically dispersed' than a sport that's played
> > across the largest land masses in the world.
>
> How old are you? If you have time, look up Wikipedia or your preferred
> encyclopedia, enlighten yourself on cricket, its history and its
> current position (including its geographical dispersion), and judge
> for yourself whether I am right or not. I am not going to bother
> answering you. You are obviously not interested in a decent
> conversation.

On your advice, I did just that. Going by the ICC member chart, if the
level of membership correlates at all to its popularity, then Cricket
is heavily played in the Indian sub-continent, Australia, England, a
tiny chunk of Souther Africa, and an even tinier chunk of South
America. It's also played a little bit in North America, China, South
America, etc... Again, assuming any sort of correlation, it means that
cricket is as popular in Argentina and parts of Africa as it is in
North America - which is not very, and even less popular in China and
everywhere else it's played. So, again, how this compares with a sport
which is wildly popular and a national pastime across the entire
northern half of the Earth (somewhat excluding America, where it is
popular but not a national pastime), and popular enough in China to
spawn numerous leagues and weak but, given the local history of the
sport, respectable Olympic teams for both men and women, I again have
a hard time seeing how it's more "globally dispersed." If you want to
tell me that more people play cricket - I don't think that's arguable.
But I'm using the language you provided, here.


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 11:29:34
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 9, 11:29=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 7, 8:03 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 6:37 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Feb 6, 3:43 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > >> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my l=
ife, I
> > > >> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I alwa=
ys
> > > >> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realiz=
e
> > > >> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arg=
uments
> > > >> >> can also go on forever.
>
> > > >> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cri=
cket
> > > >> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an ab=
solute
> > > >> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's n=
ot
> > > >> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to=
the
> > > >> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of th=
e
> > > >> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- w=
ould
> > > >> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: wit=
h
> > > >> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding=
these
> > > >> > debates.
>
> > > >> > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > >> That's more due to ignorance. =A0Most non-Americans laugh at
> > > >> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they =
may as
> > > >> well be amateur. =A0Every time we see a list of best sportsmen tha=
t
> > > >> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten=
pin
> > > >> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
> > > >similar in terms of # of countries
> > > >competing?
>
> > > To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irrelevant.
> > > American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cultural
> > > things. None of these are big global sports like football, basketball=
,
> > > volleyball.
>
> > Volleyball is a global sport, but it's not a big global sport.
> > Football, basketball and tennis are probably three truly global
> > sports.
>
> > Cricket is played in the Caribbean and part of South America (Guyana),
> > southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia), England,
> > the Indian subcontinent (4 countries) and Australasia (Australia and
> > New Zealand). It also has moderate presence in the middle east (Dubai)
> > and South-East Asia (Malaysia and Hong Kong). In terms of geographical
> > dispersion, cricket is way more global than ice hockey or baseball.
>
> The hell? They play hockey everywhere, with very few exceptions, in
> North America and Europe, as well as in China (our local NHL team has
> an affiliate there, in fact). You will also find tiny little leagues
> and pond hockey in all sorts of bizarre places you wouldn't expect it
> (like cricket in the Caribbean, I would think). You're going to have
> to pull an enormous explanation out of your ass as to how a game like
> cricket is more 'geographically dispersed' than a sport that's played
> across the largest land masses in the world.

How old are you? If you have time, look up Wikipedia or your preferred
encyclopedia, enlighten yourself on cricket, its history and its
current position (including its geographical dispersion), and judge
for yourself whether I am right or not. I am not going to bother
answering you. You are obviously not interested in a decent
conversation.

If you want more detailed answers on any aspect on cricket go to
rec.sport.cricket


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 09:29:43
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 8:03 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:37 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 6, 3:43 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > >> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > >> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
> > >> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> > >> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> > >> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
> > >> >> can also go on forever.
>
> > >> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> > >> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
> > >> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> > >> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> > >> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> > >> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> > >> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> > >> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
> > >> > debates.
>
> > >> > Joe Ramirez
>
> > >> That's more due to ignorance. Most non-Americans laugh at
> > >> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may as
> > >> well be amateur. Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
> > >> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
> > >> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
> > >similar in terms of # of countries
> > >competing?
>
> > To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irrelevant.
> > American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cultural
> > things. None of these are big global sports like football, basketball,
> > volleyball.
>
> Volleyball is a global sport, but it's not a big global sport.
> Football, basketball and tennis are probably three truly global
> sports.
>
> Cricket is played in the Caribbean and part of South America (Guyana),
> southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia), England,
> the Indian subcontinent (4 countries) and Australasia (Australia and
> New Zealand). It also has moderate presence in the middle east (Dubai)
> and South-East Asia (Malaysia and Hong Kong). In terms of geographical
> dispersion, cricket is way more global than ice hockey or baseball.

The hell? They play hockey everywhere, with very few exceptions, in
North America and Europe, as well as in China (our local NHL team has
an affiliate there, in fact). You will also find tiny little leagues
and pond hockey in all sorts of bizarre places you wouldn't expect it
(like cricket in the Caribbean, I would think). You're going to have
to pull an enormous explanation out of your ass as to how a game like
cricket is more 'geographically dispersed' than a sport that's played
across the largest land masses in the world.


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 16:11:36
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:29:43 -0800 (PST), "andrew.reys@gmail.com"
<andrew.reys@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 7, 8:03 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 6:37 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >On Feb 6, 3:43 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> > >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> > >> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
>> > >> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
>> > >> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
>> > >> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
>> > >> >> can also go on forever.
>>
>> > >> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
>> > >> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
>> > >> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
>> > >> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
>> > >> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
>> > >> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
>> > >> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
>> > >> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
>> > >> > debates.
>>
>> > >> > Joe Ramirez
>>
>> > >> That's more due to ignorance. Most non-Americans laugh at
>> > >> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may as
>> > >> well be amateur. Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
>> > >> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
>> > >> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > >But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
>> > >similar in terms of # of countries
>> > >competing?
>>
>> > To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irrelevant.
>> > American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cultural
>> > things. None of these are big global sports like football, basketball,
>> > volleyball.
>>
>> Volleyball is a global sport, but it's not a big global sport.
>> Football, basketball and tennis are probably three truly global
>> sports.
>>
>> Cricket is played in the Caribbean and part of South America (Guyana),
>> southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia), England,
>> the Indian subcontinent (4 countries) and Australasia (Australia and
>> New Zealand). It also has moderate presence in the middle east (Dubai)
>> and South-East Asia (Malaysia and Hong Kong). In terms of geographical
>> dispersion, cricket is way more global than ice hockey or baseball.
>
>The hell? They play hockey everywhere, with very few exceptions, in
>North America and Europe, as well as in China (our local NHL team has
>an affiliate there, in fact). You will also find tiny little leagues
>and pond hockey in all sorts of bizarre places you wouldn't expect it
>(like cricket in the Caribbean, I would think). You're going to have
>to pull an enormous explanation out of your ass as to how a game like
>cricket is more 'geographically dispersed' than a sport that's played
>across the largest land masses in the world.

No, you can't call cricket a big global sport, but if you are honest,
you can't call ice hockey a big global sport either. Ice hockey is a
somewhat big sport in about 8 countries in the world. It is a marginal
sport globally, even though it is big where I live and where you live.
Football is a big sport in about 200 countries in the world.



 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 09:23:59
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 4:53 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 1:23 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
>
> > You didn't get it. But hopefully do now.
>
> >>> Partly because I know it is a
> >>> monumental achievement that is rare, probably unique in any sport.
> >> And unfortunately, because it's such a niche most people don't follow
> >> it, aren't familiar with it, and couldn't give a rat's ass. While, on
> >> a purely numerical basis, more people probably play cricket than play
> >> hockey, the latter gets more exposure because it exists on both
> >> hemispheres and is featured in the Olympics. I would also dare say
> >> that it's the more demanding sport, overall, and as such comparing a
> >> hockey player to a cricket player is a futile exercise.
>
> >> Let me put it to you this way - if we poll everyone outside of India,
> >> I am fairly sure you'll find more people who recognize Pele or Jordan
> >> than do Bradman.
>
> > Who cares? The journalist was talking about achievements of the
> > greatest player within a particular sport, not the popularity of a
> > particular sport.
>
> Look, obviously Bradman has to be included in any alltime great
> sportsmen analysis - just as any outstanding Gridiron players (no one
> outide USA knows/cares about) have to be included.
>
> To include Gridiron players & ignore Cricket means the whole analysis
> can be safely disregarded.

You are, once again, entirely missing the point. Yes, in any ideal
objective discussion, these players would be included. In an expose by
a North American journalist, being blunt, you'd have to be a bloody
fool to expect that these names get mentioned. Anything else is
fantasy.


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 23:27:24
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
andrew.reys@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 4:53 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 1:23 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
>>> You didn't get it. But hopefully do now.
>>>>> Partly because I know it is a
>>>>> monumental achievement that is rare, probably unique in any sport.
>>>> And unfortunately, because it's such a niche most people don't follow
>>>> it, aren't familiar with it, and couldn't give a rat's ass. While, on
>>>> a purely numerical basis, more people probably play cricket than play
>>>> hockey, the latter gets more exposure because it exists on both
>>>> hemispheres and is featured in the Olympics. I would also dare say
>>>> that it's the more demanding sport, overall, and as such comparing a
>>>> hockey player to a cricket player is a futile exercise.
>>>> Let me put it to you this way - if we poll everyone outside of India,
>>>> I am fairly sure you'll find more people who recognize Pele or Jordan
>>>> than do Bradman.
>>> Who cares? The journalist was talking about achievements of the
>>> greatest player within a particular sport, not the popularity of a
>>> particular sport.
>> Look, obviously Bradman has to be included in any alltime great
>> sportsmen analysis - just as any outstanding Gridiron players (no one
>> outide USA knows/cares about) have to be included.
>>
>> To include Gridiron players & ignore Cricket means the whole analysis
>> can be safely disregarded.
>
> You are, once again, entirely missing the point. Yes, in any ideal
> objective discussion, these players would be included. In an expose by
> a North American journalist, being blunt, you'd have to be a bloody
> fool to expect that these names get mentioned. Anything else is
> fantasy.


Who would waste time reading anything scribbled by a NA journo?
Complete waste of time you'll never get back.



 
Date: 07 Feb 2009 09:27:43
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 11:17=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:12:34 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
>
>
> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 10:07=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 7, 6:45=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:44:54 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.a=
u >
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > >Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> > >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:15:08 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> >> > >> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >>> On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> > >>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
> >> > >>>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >>>>>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/=
2009/0...
> >> > >>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other =
player
> >> > >>>>> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be =
like
> >> > >>>>> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other pl=
ayer and
> >> > >>>>> only counting his free throw totals.
> >> > >>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 2=
0
> >> > >>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seaso=
ns,
> >> > >>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alon=
e makes
> >> > >>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of profe=
ssional
> >> > >>>>> sports."
> >> > >>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> >> > >>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> >> > >>>>> Bradman?
> >> > >>>> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis play=
ers
> >> > >>>> from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
> >> > >>>> players?
>
> >> > >>>> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
> >> > >>>> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some m=
ight
> >> > >>>> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the vie=
w that
> >> > >>>> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it=
is #1
> >> > >>>> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of th=
e
> >> > >>>> lists.
>
> >> > >>>> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my l=
ife, I
> >> > >>>> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I alwa=
ys
> >> > >>>> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realiz=
e
> >> > >>>> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arg=
uments
> >> > >>>> can also go on forever.
> >> > >>> I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cri=
cket
> >> > >>> playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an ab=
solute
> >> > >>> zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's n=
ot
> >> > >>> even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to=
the
> >> > >>> average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of th=
e
> >> > >>> basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- w=
ould
> >> > >>> probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: wit=
h
> >> > >>> contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding=
these
> >> > >>> debates.
>
> >> > >> And ice hockey too. It happens to be a big sport here, but I wond=
er
> >> > >> how many people know Gretzky outside Canada, USA (and probably pr=
etty
> >> > >> small circles in USA), Finland, Sweden, Russia (and probably pret=
ty
> >> > >> small circles in Russia), Czech Republic and Slovakia?
>
> >> > >Not many. =A0Ice hockey is seen more as a pass time & hardly a seri=
ous sport.
>
> >> > Yes, and cricket is not even seen as that in here.
>
> >> That's partly because you live near the arctic, the very northern edge
> >> of humanity. Hop across the North Sea to England. You will see plenty
> >> of cricket. Who knows, you might love it and bring it back to your
> >> home. :)
>
> >> Switzerland now regularly holds a cricket-on-ice festival during
> >> winter. May be Finland can do that too.
>
> >>http://www.cricket-on-ice.com/
>
> >In fact, just hop across the Gulf of Finland and go to Talinn in
> >Estonia. They play cricket on ice there, on the frozen Lake Harku.
>
> >http://www.tallinn-life.com/tallinn/ice-cricket
>
> As it happens, they play cricket in here, and we have even followed
> the local league in the teletext pages last couple of years. That's
> because we want to cover a large variety of sports (and the league or
> teams or players have been active because they want publicity). I
> believe the players are mostly originally from India or Pakistan
> living here, probably from other countries too. I don't know if there
> are many originally Finnish people playing. We get results by e-mail.
> Nobody even understands what the score means, we just publish the
> score we get =A0:-)
>
> If you remind me in the summer when they are playing, I'll give a link
> to the teletext page.

See, cricket is everywhere.


 
Date: 07 Feb 2009 08:12:34
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 10:07=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:45=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:44:54 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Sakari Lund wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:15:08 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> > >> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
> > >>>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/200=
9/0...
> > >>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other pla=
yer
> > >>>>> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be lik=
e
> > >>>>> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other playe=
r and
> > >>>>> only counting his free throw totals.
> > >>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > >>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > >>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone m=
akes
> > >>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professi=
onal
> > >>>>> sports."
> > >>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > >>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > >>>>> Bradman?
> > >>>> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
> > >>>> from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
> > >>>> players?
>
> > >>>> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
> > >>>> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some migh=
t
> > >>>> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view t=
hat
> > >>>> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is=
#1
> > >>>> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
> > >>>> lists.
>
> > >>>> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life=
, I
> > >>>> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> > >>>> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> > >>>> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of argume=
nts
> > >>>> can also go on forever.
> > >>> I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricke=
t
> > >>> playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absol=
ute
> > >>> zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> > >>> even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to th=
e
> > >>> average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> > >>> basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- woul=
d
> > >>> probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> > >>> contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding th=
ese
> > >>> debates.
>
> > >> And ice hockey too. It happens to be a big sport here, but I wonder
> > >> how many people know Gretzky outside Canada, USA (and probably prett=
y
> > >> small circles in USA), Finland, Sweden, Russia (and probably pretty
> > >> small circles in Russia), Czech Republic and Slovakia?
>
> > >Not many. =A0Ice hockey is seen more as a pass time & hardly a serious=
sport.
>
> > Yes, and cricket is not even seen as that in here.
>
> That's partly because you live near the arctic, the very northern edge
> of humanity. Hop across the North Sea to England. You will see plenty
> of cricket. Who knows, you might love it and bring it back to your
> home. :)
>
> Switzerland now regularly holds a cricket-on-ice festival during
> winter. May be Finland can do that too.
>
> http://www.cricket-on-ice.com/

In fact, just hop across the Gulf of Finland and go to Talinn in
Estonia. They play cricket on ice there, on the frozen Lake Harku.

http://www.tallinn-life.com/tallinn/ice-cricket


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 19:17:20
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:12:34 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 7, 10:07 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 6:45 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:44:54 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >Sakari Lund wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:15:08 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
>> > >> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> > >>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>>
>> > >>>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>> > >>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
>> > >>>>> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
>> > >>>>> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
>> > >>>>> only counting his free throw totals.
>> > >>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>> > >>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>> > >>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
>> > >>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
>> > >>>>> sports."
>> > >>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>> > >>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>> > >>>>> Bradman?
>> > >>>> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
>> > >>>> from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
>> > >>>> players?
>>
>> > >>>> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
>> > >>>> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
>> > >>>> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
>> > >>>> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
>> > >>>> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
>> > >>>> lists.
>>
>> > >>>> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
>> > >>>> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
>> > >>>> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
>> > >>>> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
>> > >>>> can also go on forever.
>> > >>> I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
>> > >>> playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
>> > >>> zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
>> > >>> even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
>> > >>> average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
>> > >>> basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
>> > >>> probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
>> > >>> contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
>> > >>> debates.
>>
>> > >> And ice hockey too. It happens to be a big sport here, but I wonder
>> > >> how many people know Gretzky outside Canada, USA (and probably pretty
>> > >> small circles in USA), Finland, Sweden, Russia (and probably pretty
>> > >> small circles in Russia), Czech Republic and Slovakia?
>>
>> > >Not many.  Ice hockey is seen more as a pass time & hardly a serious sport.
>>
>> > Yes, and cricket is not even seen as that in here.
>>
>> That's partly because you live near the arctic, the very northern edge
>> of humanity. Hop across the North Sea to England. You will see plenty
>> of cricket. Who knows, you might love it and bring it back to your
>> home. :)
>>
>> Switzerland now regularly holds a cricket-on-ice festival during
>> winter. May be Finland can do that too.
>>
>> http://www.cricket-on-ice.com/
>
>In fact, just hop across the Gulf of Finland and go to Talinn in
>Estonia. They play cricket on ice there, on the frozen Lake Harku.
>
>http://www.tallinn-life.com/tallinn/ice-cricket

As it happens, they play cricket in here, and we have even followed
the local league in the teletext pages last couple of years. That's
because we want to cover a large variety of sports (and the league or
teams or players have been active because they want publicity). I
believe the players are mostly originally from India or Pakistan
living here, probably from other countries too. I don't know if there
are many originally Finnish people playing. We get results by e-mail.
Nobody even understands what the score means, we just publish the
score we get :-)

If you remind me in the summer when they are playing, I'll give a link
to the teletext page.





 
Date: 07 Feb 2009 08:07:30
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 6:45=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:44:54 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:15:08 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> >> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
> >>>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/=
0...
> >>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other playe=
r
> >>>>> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> >>>>> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player =
and
> >>>>> only counting his free throw totals.
> >>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> >>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> >>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone mak=
es
> >>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of profession=
al
> >>>>> sports."
> >>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> >>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> >>>>> Bradman?
> >>>> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
> >>>> from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
> >>>> players?
>
> >>>> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
> >>>> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
> >>>> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view tha=
t
> >>>> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #=
1
> >>>> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
> >>>> lists.
>
> >>>> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, =
I
> >>>> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> >>>> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> >>>> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of argument=
s
> >>>> can also go on forever.
> >>> I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> >>> playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolut=
e
> >>> zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> >>> even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> >>> average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> >>> basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> >>> probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> >>> contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding thes=
e
> >>> debates.
>
> >> And ice hockey too. It happens to be a big sport here, but I wonder
> >> how many people know Gretzky outside Canada, USA (and probably pretty
> >> small circles in USA), Finland, Sweden, Russia (and probably pretty
> >> small circles in Russia), Czech Republic and Slovakia?
>
> >Not many. =A0Ice hockey is seen more as a pass time & hardly a serious s=
port.
>
> Yes, and cricket is not even seen as that in here.

That's partly because you live near the arctic, the very northern edge
of humanity. Hop across the North Sea to England. You will see plenty
of cricket. Who knows, you might love it and bring it back to your
home. :)

Switzerland now regularly holds a cricket-on-ice festival during
winter. May be Finland can do that too.

http://www.cricket-on-ice.com/


 
Date: 07 Feb 2009 08:03:27
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 6:37=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 6, 3:43=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life,=
I
> >> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> >> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> >> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of argumen=
ts
> >> >> can also go on forever.
>
> >> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> >> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolu=
te
> >> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> >> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> >> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> >> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> >> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> >> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding the=
se
> >> > debates.
>
> >> > Joe Ramirez
>
> >> That's more due to ignorance. =A0Most non-Americans laugh at
> >> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may =
as
> >> well be amateur. =A0Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
> >> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
> >> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
> >similar in terms of # of countries
> >competing?
>
> To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irrelevant.
> American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cultural
> things. None of these are big global sports like football, basketball,
> volleyball.

Volleyball is a global sport, but it's not a big global sport.
Football, basketball and tennis are probably three truly global
sports.

Cricket is played in the Caribbean and part of South America (Guyana),
southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Namibia), England,
the Indian subcontinent (4 countries) and Australasia (Australia and
New Zealand). It also has moderate presence in the middle east (Dubai)
and South-East Asia (Malaysia and Hong Kong). In terms of geographical
dispersion, cricket is way more global than ice hockey or baseball.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 22:27:11
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 4:15=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On =A06-Feb-2009, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Sure - but this is a situation where you're looking for something you
> > > already know about. There is only so much time in the day for these
> > > journalists to allocate to researching sports with which they have a
> > > passing or total lack of familiarity. As such, it should be no
> > > surprise that most are limited to a specific range - more often than
> > > not that range being popularity within geographic proximity. As an
> > > example: between following tennis, football, soccer and hockey, I hav=
e
> > > little time or inclination to start following other sports - let alon=
e
> > > their history or nuances, and let alone those which I have to go
> > > fairly far out of my way to find. Yes, the internet makes it easier
> > > for me to follow become acquainted with and follow cricket, but it's
> > > still not *easy* or *convenient.* On the other hand, I doubt you'd
> > > have had to go far out of your way to hear about Michael Jordan, when
> > > playing in his prime, even before the rise of the internet.
>
> > Sure. If we are being charitable to this journalist.
>
> I think we should not underestimate the fact that these journalists are n=
ot
> *really* in the business of writing fair and balanced pieces, especially
> when it comes to sports. =A0The purpose of their writing is to sell
> advertising and to speak to the interests of the target audience. =A0It's
> unclear to me what a magazine or newspaper would get out of a sports
> journalist writing about cricket when the target audience is not interest=
ed
> in this sport. =A0In that light, one can not put the full blame on the
> journalist because regardless of intentions it's very possible that an
> editor would refuse to publish something about cricket.

That's a different topic. I think cricket can be injected more into
American mainstream. A few years ago the International Cricket Council
was contemplating about holding parts of the Cricket World Cup in
American cities. The plan fell through but they should pursue it. I
think Americans will love the shorter versions of cricket. We have
essentially three versions of it now: the 5-day version, the 1-day (8
hour) version, and the 3 hour version.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 12:54:20
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 1:48 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 11:37 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This isn't about baseball or cricket's relative popularity. In the
> > > original article I gave the link to, the journalist was talking about
> > > GOATs in a particular sport, and mentioned Gretzky as the best example
> > > of being the greatest of his own sport. That is, in the journalist's
> > > mind, he is so far above his nearest competitor in his sport, that he
> > > deserves to be called the greatest of all sportsmen or something like
> > > that.
>
> > > But that's exactly the criteria (being way, way ahead of the second
> > > best person in sport) where Bradman is the most shining example.
>
> > None of your qualifications are relevant, because in the end, of
> > course it's about their relative popularity (not baseball, in this
> > case, but cricket). What I'm trying to explain is that, regardless of
> > Bradman's achievements, there is a 98% chance that he will not be
> > brought up by a North American (or South American, or Russian, or
> > Chinese) sports journalist when discussing the greatest athletes in a
> > particular sport. This is because, outside of a fairly specific
> > geographic area, it is not a popular or well-known sport. Regardless
> > of how far ahead of #2 the #1 badminton player is, I wouldn't expect
> > him to get mentioned. And regardless of how far ahead Bradman is, I
> > wouldn't expect him to get mentioned, either.
>
> Yes, that's a pity. I think Bradman should be known more in North
> American circles. And Gretzky outside of frozen northern countries.
> That's the larger point I am trying to make. May be it's not coming
> across.

Bingo. :-)

> But we live in an age of Internet. These geographical restrictions
> don't matter any more. I live in the Indian subcontinent, and it takes
> me one click on my computer here to see what is an (for my region)
> obscure, irrelevant reference to Gretzky and no reference about
> Bradman. I know about both Gretzky and Bradman, and if I were a good
> sports journalist, I would mention both of them.

Sure - but this is a situation where you're looking for something you
already know about. There is only so much time in the day for these
journalists to allocate to researching sports with which they have a
passing or total lack of familiarity. As such, it should be no
surprise that most are limited to a specific range - more often than
not that range being popularity within geographic proximity. As an
example: between following tennis, football, soccer and hockey, I have
little time or inclination to start following other sports - let alone
their history or nuances, and let alone those which I have to go
fairly far out of my way to find. Yes, the internet makes it easier
for me to follow become acquainted with and follow cricket, but it's
still not *easy* or *convenient.* On the other hand, I doubt you'd
have had to go far out of your way to hear about Michael Jordan, when
playing in his prime, even before the rise of the internet.

> That's not the point. There's no region on the Internet, everybody can
> read almost everything from anywhere. North American journalists whose
> articles are published on the internet with a global readership,
> should know about Bradman and Indian/other journalists should know
> about Gretzky and vice versa.

Eh, maybe. I still wouldn't let it annoy you, though. These people are
human, and we prefer being hit over the head with things rather than
looking for them.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 20:47:24
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 2:35=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> He only needed 4 runs in his last innings to average 100. =A0Getting out
> for a duck was a poignant way to end goat career - akin to Sampras
> losing 06 06 16 1st rd Wimbledon in his last GS match.

Good point - so we shouldn't consider Sampras the greatest grasscourt
player ever since his last match on the surface was a 2nd round loss
to George Bastl... :)


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 18:08:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> He only needed 4 runs in his last innings to average 100. Getting out
>> for a duck was a poignant way to end goat career - akin to Sampras
>> losing 06 06 16 1st rd Wimbledon in his last GS match.
>
> Good point - so we shouldn't consider Sampras the greatest grasscourt
> player ever since his last match on the surface was a 2nd round loss
> to George Bastl... :)


Only if Bradman isn't goat cricketer.



 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:57:46
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 1:48=A0am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:37 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This isn't about baseball or cricket's relative popularity. In the
> > original article I gave the link to, the journalist was talking about
> > GOATs in a particular sport, and mentioned Gretzky as the best example
> > of being the greatest of his own sport. That is, in the journalist's
> > mind, he is so far above his nearest competitor in his sport, that he
> > deserves to be called the greatest of all sportsmen or something like
> > that.
>
> > But that's exactly the criteria (being way, way ahead of the second
> > best person in sport) where Bradman is the most shining example.
>
> None of your qualifications are relevant, because in the end, of
> course it's about their relative popularity (not baseball, in this
> case, but cricket). What I'm trying to explain is that, regardless of
> Bradman's achievements, there is a 98% chance that he will not be
> brought up by a North American (or South American, or Russian, or
> Chinese) sports journalist when discussing the greatest athletes in a
> particular sport. This is because, outside of a fairly specific
> geographic area, it is not a popular or well-known sport. Regardless
> of how far ahead of #2 the #1 badminton player is, I wouldn't expect
> him to get mentioned. And regardless of how far ahead Bradman is, I
> wouldn't expect him to get mentioned, either.
>

Yes, that's a pity. I think Bradman should be known more in North
American circles. And Gretzky outside of frozen northern countries.
That's the larger point I am trying to make. May be it's not coming
across.

> As has already been brought up several times - if an Indian journalist
> included Bradman and omitted Gretzky or Jordan, I don't think people
> would be too surprised - even though Gretzky is probably more well
> known around the world than Bradman, and Jordan is definitely so.
>

But we live in an age of Internet. These geographical restrictions
don't matter any more. I live in the Indian subcontinent, and it takes
me one click on my computer here to see what is an (for my region)
obscure, irrelevant reference to Gretzky and no reference about
Bradman. I know about both Gretzky and Bradman, and if I were a good
sports journalist, I would mention both of them.

> > > > Yes, I know about Pele (who doesn't?),
>
> > > Exactly - "who doesn't?".
>
> > Yes, and Pele isn't way ahead of the second guy like Gretzky or
> > Bradman are in their respective sports. He is probably pretty close.
> > That's the methodology that journalist was using.
>
> And yet people inside and outside of India know of him. The same
> doesn't hold true for Bradman on anywhere near the same scale.
>

That's not the point.

> > > > but Bradman simply is the first
> > > > thing that comes to mind when I think of sporting perfection, at le=
ast
> > > > statistically speaking. Partly because I with millions of others in=
my
> > > > region grew up playing cricket.
>
> > > Exactly - in your region.
>
> > You didn't get it. But hopefully do now.
>
> Riiiight.
>
> > Who cares? The journalist was talking about achievements of the
> > greatest player within a particular sport, not the popularity of a
> > particular sport.
>
> And if a sport is unpopular, or the athlete is unknown, in the part of
> the world from which the journalist hails, how much difference does it
> make that said player was so great within said sport?

That's not the point. There's no region on the Internet, everybody can
read almost everything from anywhere. North American journalists whose
articles are published on the internet with a global readership,
should know about Bradman and Indian/other journalists should know
about Gretzky and vice versa.


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 12:01:29
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Feb 7, 1:48 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 11:37 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't about baseball or cricket's relative popularity. In the
>>> original article I gave the link to, the journalist was talking about
>>> GOATs in a particular sport, and mentioned Gretzky as the best example
>>> of being the greatest of his own sport. That is, in the journalist's
>>> mind, he is so far above his nearest competitor in his sport, that he
>>> deserves to be called the greatest of all sportsmen or something like
>>> that.
>>> But that's exactly the criteria (being way, way ahead of the second
>>> best person in sport) where Bradman is the most shining example.
>> None of your qualifications are relevant, because in the end, of
>> course it's about their relative popularity (not baseball, in this
>> case, but cricket). What I'm trying to explain is that, regardless of
>> Bradman's achievements, there is a 98% chance that he will not be
>> brought up by a North American (or South American, or Russian, or
>> Chinese) sports journalist when discussing the greatest athletes in a
>> particular sport. This is because, outside of a fairly specific
>> geographic area, it is not a popular or well-known sport. Regardless
>> of how far ahead of #2 the #1 badminton player is, I wouldn't expect
>> him to get mentioned. And regardless of how far ahead Bradman is, I
>> wouldn't expect him to get mentioned, either.
>>
>
> Yes, that's a pity. I think Bradman should be known more in North
> American circles. And Gretzky outside of frozen northern countries.
> That's the larger point I am trying to make. May be it's not coming
> across.
>
>> As has already been brought up several times - if an Indian journalist
>> included Bradman and omitted Gretzky or Jordan, I don't think people
>> would be too surprised - even though Gretzky is probably more well
>> known around the world than Bradman, and Jordan is definitely so.
>>
>
> But we live in an age of Internet. These geographical restrictions
> don't matter any more. I live in the Indian subcontinent, and it takes
> me one click on my computer here to see what is an (for my region)
> obscure, irrelevant reference to Gretzky and no reference about
> Bradman. I know about both Gretzky and Bradman, and if I were a good
> sports journalist, I would mention both of them.
>
>>>>> Yes, I know about Pele (who doesn't?),
>>>> Exactly - "who doesn't?".
>>> Yes, and Pele isn't way ahead of the second guy like Gretzky or
>>> Bradman are in their respective sports. He is probably pretty close.
>>> That's the methodology that journalist was using.
>> And yet people inside and outside of India know of him. The same
>> doesn't hold true for Bradman on anywhere near the same scale.
>>
>
> That's not the point.
>
>>>>> but Bradman simply is the first
>>>>> thing that comes to mind when I think of sporting perfection, at least
>>>>> statistically speaking. Partly because I with millions of others in my
>>>>> region grew up playing cricket.
>>>> Exactly - in your region.
>>> You didn't get it. But hopefully do now.
>> Riiiight.
>>
>>> Who cares? The journalist was talking about achievements of the
>>> greatest player within a particular sport, not the popularity of a
>>> particular sport.
>> And if a sport is unpopular, or the athlete is unknown, in the part of
>> the world from which the journalist hails, how much difference does it
>> make that said player was so great within said sport?
>
> That's not the point. There's no region on the Internet, everybody can
> read almost everything from anywhere. North American journalists whose
> articles are published on the internet with a global readership,
> should know about Bradman and Indian/other journalists should know
> about Gretzky and vice versa.


Yes - you can't ignore a sport billions of people are passionate about -
& certainly can't ignore someone like Bradman, who isn't simply the best
cricketer but so far ahead of no.2 it's ridiculous.



 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:48:35
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 11:37 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> This isn't about baseball or cricket's relative popularity. In the
> original article I gave the link to, the journalist was talking about
> GOATs in a particular sport, and mentioned Gretzky as the best example
> of being the greatest of his own sport. That is, in the journalist's
> mind, he is so far above his nearest competitor in his sport, that he
> deserves to be called the greatest of all sportsmen or something like
> that.
>
> But that's exactly the criteria (being way, way ahead of the second
> best person in sport) where Bradman is the most shining example.

None of your qualifications are relevant, because in the end, of
course it's about their relative popularity (not baseball, in this
case, but cricket). What I'm trying to explain is that, regardless of
Bradman's achievements, there is a 98% chance that he will not be
brought up by a North American (or South American, or Russian, or
Chinese) sports journalist when discussing the greatest athletes in a
particular sport. This is because, outside of a fairly specific
geographic area, it is not a popular or well-known sport. Regardless
of how far ahead of #2 the #1 badminton player is, I wouldn't expect
him to get mentioned. And regardless of how far ahead Bradman is, I
wouldn't expect him to get mentioned, either.

As has already been brought up several times - if an Indian journalist
included Bradman and omitted Gretzky or Jordan, I don't think people
would be too surprised - even though Gretzky is probably more well
known around the world than Bradman, and Jordan is definitely so.

> > > Yes, I know about Pele (who doesn't?),
>
> > Exactly - "who doesn't?".
>
> Yes, and Pele isn't way ahead of the second guy like Gretzky or
> Bradman are in their respective sports. He is probably pretty close.
> That's the methodology that journalist was using.

And yet people inside and outside of India know of him. The same
doesn't hold true for Bradman on anywhere near the same scale.

> > > but Bradman simply is the first
> > > thing that comes to mind when I think of sporting perfection, at least
> > > statistically speaking. Partly because I with millions of others in my
> > > region grew up playing cricket.
>
> > Exactly - in your region.
>
> You didn't get it. But hopefully do now.

Riiiight.

> Who cares? The journalist was talking about achievements of the
> greatest player within a particular sport, not the popularity of a
> particular sport.

And if a sport is unpopular, or the athlete is unknown, in the part of
the world from which the journalist hails, how much difference does it
make that said player was so great within said sport?


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 11:59:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
andrew.reys@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:37 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This isn't about baseball or cricket's relative popularity. In the
>> original article I gave the link to, the journalist was talking about
>> GOATs in a particular sport, and mentioned Gretzky as the best example
>> of being the greatest of his own sport. That is, in the journalist's
>> mind, he is so far above his nearest competitor in his sport, that he
>> deserves to be called the greatest of all sportsmen or something like
>> that.
>>
>> But that's exactly the criteria (being way, way ahead of the second
>> best person in sport) where Bradman is the most shining example.
>
> None of your qualifications are relevant, because in the end, of
> course it's about their relative popularity (not baseball, in this
> case, but cricket). What I'm trying to explain is that, regardless of
> Bradman's achievements, there is a 98% chance that he will not be
> brought up by a North American (or South American, or Russian, or
> Chinese) sports journalist when discussing the greatest athletes in a
> particular sport.


Which would mean that analysis has no real relevance & can be ignored.
You can't include some sports most of the world doesn't give a fuck
about & exclude others - makes no sense. That 'North American Journo'
shouldn't be tasked with the responsibility of conducting the analysis.
He should just write a fun piece about what he likes personally.


> This is because, outside of a fairly specific
> geographic area, it is not a popular or well-known sport. Regardless
> of how far ahead of #2 the #1 badminton player is, I wouldn't expect
> him to get mentioned. And regardless of how far ahead Bradman is, I
> wouldn't expect him to get mentioned, either.



Think again. He most certainly is mentioned in all high quality
analysis. Most American journos are hardly high quality.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:46:20
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 1:28=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On =A06-Feb-2009, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 12:47=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On =A06-Feb-2009, guyana <guyanper...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Gunga Din is from a fourth world country drink sewer water sleep 8 =
to
> > > > a room
> > > > in a slum getting his sister to suck his dick. I am telling today
> > > > itself only fuckoff slumdog ok?
>
> > > I'm not defending arnab's stupid and repugnant comment,
>
> > It was an apt reply to a totally irrelevant and stupid comment from
> > andrew. Andrew's original reply read like a psychological reflex
> > reaction to me. Andrew sees the handle "arnab", thinks arnab is making
> > slights on one of his favorite ice hockey players Getzky (or worse,
> > the holy sport of ice hockey itself), and bam! Irrelevant nonsense.
> > Ridiculous.
>
> I feel that this entire thread's existence was sparked as a result of a
> psychological reflex, namely your reaction to a sports journalist who
> doesn't see cricket in the same light you do. =A0Why it angers you to the
> point of making such comments is beyond me.

Well, no. It wasn't a psychological reflex. When the topic greatest of
any sport comes up, I expect Bradman's name to come up, partly because
his name HAS come up in exactly such discussions since when I was old
enough to start reading newspaper articles about sports and then
talking about the exact issue with my lifelong friends.

The real reason why I started this thread can be hard to pin down. We
can even blame it on Google News. I was looking through tennis
articles on GNews, and clicked on this article about Federer, and read
the Gretzky bit, and I thought maybe it could be interesting to put my
thoughts on this over here. Perfectly normal sequence of events. There
is no "anger" or "psychological reflex" involved. If this ng was used
more by tennis-loving people from Commonwealth countries, I would have
got a completely different, even positive, reaction. But nevertheless,
we have got a semi-decent discussion going on, with people chiming in
with their own picks. I think it's nice.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:38:15
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 1:24=A0am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:12 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 12:47 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On =A06-Feb-2009, guyana <guyanper...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Gunga Din is from a fourth world country drink sewer water sleep 8 =
to
> > > > a room
> > > > in a slum getting his sister to suck his dick. I am telling today
> > > > itself only fuckoff slumdog ok?
>
> > > I'm not defending arnab's stupid and repugnant comment,
>
> > It was an apt reply to a totally irrelevant and stupid comment from
> > andrew. Andrew's original reply read like a psychological reflex
> > reaction to me. Andrew sees the handle "arnab", thinks arnab is making
> > slights on one of his favorite ice hockey players Getzky (or worse,
> > the holy sport of ice hockey itself), and bam! Irrelevant nonsense.
> > Ridiculous.
>
> Haha. Yeah that must be it. It's not like you were comparing apples
> and cacti or anything.

Alright, let's drop it. Remember, we are the good guys. No friendly
fire. :)


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:23:30
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 11:07 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 12:12 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 2:42 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 9:04 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > > > Bradman?
>
> > > > Stick to complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>
> > > Stick to sucking my dick.
>
> > This may actually happen to you at some point in your life if you ever
> > manage to stop complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>
> When I read your first reply, I thought how the hell does Whimpy enter
> this conversation? Is he nuts? Now you are doing it again. If you have
> subconscious problems about me "complaining about Whimpy" that boils
> over into irrelevant places, well, get over it.

There you go again talking about him...

> > > My points stands. To reel off names like Gretzky, Jordan, etc. and not
> > > even mention Bradman, even in the passing, in this age of Internet, is
> > > abominable.
>
> > If you're going to get your panties in a twist, at least do it over
> > the really abominable absentee - Pele, because that is at least a
> > truly globally popular sport.
>
> You didn't get the point.

Sure I did. I just think it's ridiculous. I understand you think
Bradman is entitled to be listed, but by that logic so is the greatest
badminton player ever. But, even though I love the sport, I wouldn't
expect him to get mentioned alongside Gretzky, Jordan, et al.

> BTW, cricket is religiously followed by more than hundreds of millions
> of people in the Indian subcontinent alone. It is more popular than
> even football here. But this isn't a popularity contest about sports.

Sure it's a popularity contest in this particular context. Cricket is,
exactly as you said, religious followed by hundreds of millions of
people in India - and some more in Pakistan, England, etc.. But really
it's a fairly niche sport, and by and large people outside of those
specific markets don't really care. Do Indian journalists hold Joe
Montana in very high regard? Do most of them even know who he is?

> Yes, I know about Pele (who doesn't?),

Exactly - "who doesn't?".

> but Bradman simply is the first
> thing that comes to mind when I think of sporting perfection, at least
> statistically speaking. Partly because I with millions of others in my
> region grew up playing cricket.

Exactly - in your region.

> Partly because I know it is a
> monumental achievement that is rare, probably unique in any sport.

And unfortunately, because it's such a niche most people don't follow
it, aren't familiar with it, and couldn't give a rat's ass. While, on
a purely numerical basis, more people probably play cricket than play
hockey, the latter gets more exposure because it exists on both
hemispheres and is featured in the Olympics. I would also dare say
that it's the more demanding sport, overall, and as such comparing a
hockey player to a cricket player is a futile exercise.

Let me put it to you this way - if we poll everyone outside of India,
I am fairly sure you'll find more people who recognize Pele or Jordan
than do Bradman.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:12:22
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 12:47=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On =A06-Feb-2009, guyana <guyanper...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gunga Din is from a fourth world country drink sewer water sleep 8 to
> > a room
> > in a slum getting his sister to suck his dick. I am telling today
> > itself only fuckoff slumdog ok?
>
> I'm not defending arnab's stupid and repugnant comment,

It was an apt reply to a totally irrelevant and stupid comment from
andrew. Andrew's original reply read like a psychological reflex
reaction to me. Andrew sees the handle "arnab", thinks arnab is making
slights on one of his favorite ice hockey players Getzky (or worse,
the holy sport of ice hockey itself), and bam! Irrelevant nonsense.
Ridiculous.


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 19:28:03
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman

On 6-Feb-2009, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Feb 7, 12:47 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On  6-Feb-2009, guyana <guyanper...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Gunga Din is from a fourth world country drink sewer water sleep 8 to
> > > a room
> > > in a slum getting his sister to suck his dick. I am telling today
> > > itself only fuckoff slumdog ok?
> >
> > I'm not defending arnab's stupid and repugnant comment,
>
> It was an apt reply to a totally irrelevant and stupid comment from
> andrew. Andrew's original reply read like a psychological reflex
> reaction to me. Andrew sees the handle "arnab", thinks arnab is making
> slights on one of his favorite ice hockey players Getzky (or worse,
> the holy sport of ice hockey itself), and bam! Irrelevant nonsense.
> Ridiculous.

I feel that this entire thread's existence was sparked as a result of a
psychological reflex, namely your reaction to a sports journalist who
doesn't see cricket in the same light you do. Why it angers you to the
point of making such comments is beyond me.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:31:33
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 1:12=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 2:42 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 9:04 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > > Bradman?
>
> > > Stick to complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>
> > Stick to sucking my dick.
>
> This may actually happen to you at some point in your life if you ever
> manage to stop complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>
> > My points stands. To reel off names like Gretzky, Jordan, etc. and not
> > even mention Bradman, even in the passing, in this age of Internet, is
> > abominable.
>
> If you're going to get your panties in a twist, at least do it over
> the really abominable absentee - Pele, because that is at least a
> truly globally popular sport.

Gunga Din is from a fourth world country drink sewer water sleep 8 to
a room
in a slum getting his sister to suck his dick. I am telling today
itself only fuckoff slumdog ok?


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 18:47:23
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman

On 6-Feb-2009, guyana <guyanpersad@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> Gunga Din is from a fourth world country drink sewer water sleep 8 to
> a room
> in a slum getting his sister to suck his dick. I am telling today
> itself only fuckoff slumdog ok?

I'm not defending arnab's stupid and repugnant comment, but if what you say
is true about him why is it that he can form cohesive paragraphs whereas you
can hardly manage a sentence?


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:22:25
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman? No way, try Eddie Merckx
On Feb 6, 9:42 am, Davide Tosi - Strange Vertigo
<clearblue...@libero.it > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:01:15 +0200, Sakari Lund
>
>
>
> <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
> ><arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> >>"Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> >>has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> >>Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> >>only counting his free throw totals.
>
> >>What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> >>seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> >>respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> >>"The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> >>sports."
>
> >>Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> >>American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> >>Bradman?
>
> >This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
> >from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
> >players?
>
> >Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
> >confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
> >think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
> >ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
> >sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
> >lists.
>
> It's not the sport popularity that makes the best athlete.
> The best sportsman of all time should be someone who has the biggest
> gap on the 2nd best in his own sport.
> So, to me there's only 1 answer to that question: EDDIE MERCKX.
> If you take his stats and then the ones of whoever you might consider
> the 2nd best cyclist ever (many possible candidates for that role:
> Coppi, Van Looy, Hinault, Armstrong) you will see that the gap is
> simply ridiculous. While 'the Cannibal' has won everything was there
> to win multiple times, everybody else is missing at least 2/3 major
> cycling titles even once. Out of 9 major titles in cycling, noone tops
> Merckx in more than 1 of these titles, while he tops everybody else in
> at least 6 of them. Amazing!

Endurance and speed != athleticism.


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 20:22:58
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman? No way, try Eddie Merckx
andrew.reys@gmail.com <andrew.reys@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:42 am, Davide Tosi - Strange Vertigo
> <clearblue...@libero.it> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:01:15 +0200, Sakari Lund
>>
>>
>>
>> <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>> ><arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>
>> >>"Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
>> >>has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
>> >>Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
>> >>only counting his free throw totals.
>>
>> >>What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>> >>seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>> >>respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
>> >>"The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
>> >>sports."
>>
>> >>Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>> >>American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>> >>Bradman?
>>
>> >This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
>> >from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
>> >players?
>>
>> >Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
>> >confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
>> >think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
>> >ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
>> >sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
>> >lists.
>>
>> It's not the sport popularity that makes the best athlete.
>> The best sportsman of all time should be someone who has the biggest
>> gap on the 2nd best in his own sport.
>> So, to me there's only 1 answer to that question: EDDIE MERCKX.
>> If you take his stats and then the ones of whoever you might consider
>> the 2nd best cyclist ever (many possible candidates for that role:
>> Coppi, Van Looy, Hinault, Armstrong) you will see that the gap is
>> simply ridiculous. While 'the Cannibal' has won everything was there
>> to win multiple times, everybody else is missing at least 2/3 major
>> cycling titles even once. Out of 9 major titles in cycling, noone tops
>> Merckx in more than 1 of these titles, while he tops everybody else in
>> at least 6 of them. Amazing!
>
> Endurance and speed != athleticism.

Interesting. Is Bolt not an athlethe?


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:12:39
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:42 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:04 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > Bradman?
>
> > Stick to complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>
> Stick to sucking my dick.

This may actually happen to you at some point in your life if you ever
manage to stop complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.

> My points stands. To reel off names like Gretzky, Jordan, etc. and not
> even mention Bradman, even in the passing, in this age of Internet, is
> abominable.

If you're going to get your panties in a twist, at least do it over
the really abominable absentee - Pele, because that is at least a
truly globally popular sport.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 13:06:49
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 2:54=A0am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 1:48 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 11:37 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This isn't about baseball or cricket's relative popularity. In the
> > > > original article I gave the link to, the journalist was talking abo=
ut
> > > > GOATs in a particular sport, and mentioned Gretzky as the best exam=
ple
> > > > of being the greatest of his own sport. That is, in the journalist'=
s
> > > > mind, he is so far above his nearest competitor in his sport, that =
he
> > > > deserves to be called the greatest of all sportsmen or something li=
ke
> > > > that.
>
> > > > But that's exactly the criteria (being way, way ahead of the second
> > > > best person in sport) where Bradman is the most shining example.
>
> > > None of your qualifications are relevant, because in the end, of
> > > course it's about their relative popularity (not baseball, in this
> > > case, but cricket). What I'm trying to explain is that, regardless of
> > > Bradman's achievements, there is a 98% chance that he will not be
> > > brought up by a North American (or South American, or Russian, or
> > > Chinese) sports journalist when discussing the greatest athletes in a
> > > particular sport. This is because, outside of a fairly specific
> > > geographic area, it is not a popular or well-known sport. Regardless
> > > of how far ahead of #2 the #1 badminton player is, I wouldn't expect
> > > him to get mentioned. And regardless of how far ahead Bradman is, I
> > > wouldn't expect him to get mentioned, either.
>
> > Yes, that's a pity. I think Bradman should be known more in North
> > American circles. And Gretzky outside of frozen northern countries.
> > That's the larger point I am trying to make. May be it's not coming
> > across.
>
> Bingo. :-)
>

Feel good now?

> > But we live in an age of Internet. These geographical restrictions
> > don't matter any more. I live in the Indian subcontinent, and it takes
> > me one click on my computer here to see what is an (for my region)
> > obscure, irrelevant reference to Gretzky and no reference about
> > Bradman. I know about both Gretzky and Bradman, and if I were a good
> > sports journalist, I would mention both of them.
>
> Sure - but this is a situation where you're looking for something you
> already know about. There is only so much time in the day for these
> journalists to allocate to researching sports with which they have a
> passing or total lack of familiarity. As such, it should be no
> surprise that most are limited to a specific range - more often than
> not that range being popularity within geographic proximity. As an
> example: between following tennis, football, soccer and hockey, I have
> little time or inclination to start following other sports - let alone
> their history or nuances, and let alone those which I have to go
> fairly far out of my way to find. Yes, the internet makes it easier
> for me to follow become acquainted with and follow cricket, but it's
> still not *easy* or *convenient.* On the other hand, I doubt you'd
> have had to go far out of your way to hear about Michael Jordan, when
> playing in his prime, even before the rise of the internet.
>

Sure. If we are being charitable to this journalist.

> > That's not the point. There's no region on the Internet, everybody can
> > read almost everything from anywhere. North American journalists whose
> > articles are published on the internet with a global readership,
> > should know about Bradman and Indian/other journalists should know
> > about Gretzky and vice versa.
>
> Eh, maybe. I still wouldn't let it annoy you, though. These people are
> human, and we prefer being hit over the head with things rather than
> looking for them.

Why would I have to be "annoyed" to point this out? I am not "annoyed"
or "angry" or anything like that. I am way past that stuff. I have
been to North America, lived there for several years and I know people
there are as parochial about their own way of life as are people in my
region about theirs. I find it interesting. Have you ever set foot in
the Indian subcontinent, let alone lived there for several years? You
will begin to think differently.


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 22:15:22
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman

On 6-Feb-2009, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

> >
> > Sure - but this is a situation where you're looking for something you
> > already know about. There is only so much time in the day for these
> > journalists to allocate to researching sports with which they have a
> > passing or total lack of familiarity. As such, it should be no
> > surprise that most are limited to a specific range - more often than
> > not that range being popularity within geographic proximity. As an
> > example: between following tennis, football, soccer and hockey, I have
> > little time or inclination to start following other sports - let alone
> > their history or nuances, and let alone those which I have to go
> > fairly far out of my way to find. Yes, the internet makes it easier
> > for me to follow become acquainted with and follow cricket, but it's
> > still not *easy* or *convenient.* On the other hand, I doubt you'd
> > have had to go far out of your way to hear about Michael Jordan, when
> > playing in his prime, even before the rise of the internet.
> >
>
> Sure. If we are being charitable to this journalist.

I think we should not underestimate the fact that these journalists are not
*really* in the business of writing fair and balanced pieces, especially
when it comes to sports. The purpose of their writing is to sell
advertising and to speak to the interests of the target audience. It's
unclear to me what a magazine or newspaper would get out of a sports
journalist writing about cricket when the target audience is not interested
in this sport. In that light, one can not put the full blame on the
journalist because regardless of intentions it's very possible that an
editor would refuse to publish something about cricket.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:37:18
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 1:23=A0am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:

>
> > You didn't get the point.
>
> Sure I did. I just think it's ridiculous. I understand you think
> Bradman is entitled to be listed, but by that logic so is the greatest
> badminton player ever. But, even though I love the sport, I wouldn't
> expect him to get mentioned alongside Gretzky, Jordan, et al.
>

Not really. There's nobody in Badminton with Bradman's stature. Please
read up on Bradman.

> > BTW, cricket is religiously followed by more than hundreds of millions
> > of people in the Indian subcontinent alone. It is more popular than
> > even football here. But this isn't a popularity contest about sports.
>
> Sure it's a popularity contest in this particular context. Cricket is,
> exactly as you said, religious followed by hundreds of millions of
> people in India - and some more in Pakistan, England, etc.. But really
> it's a fairly niche sport, and by and large people outside of those
> specific markets don't really care. Do Indian journalists hold Joe
> Montana in very high regard? Do most of them even know who he is?
>

This isn't about baseball or cricket's relative popularity. In the
original article I gave the link to, the journalist was talking about
GOATs in a particular sport, and mentioned Gretzky as the best example
of being the greatest of his own sport. That is, in the journalist's
mind, he is so far above his nearest competitor in his sport, that he
deserves to be called the greatest of all sportsmen or something like
that.

But that's exactly the criteria (being way, way ahead of the second
best person in sport) where Bradman is the most shining example.

> > Yes, I know about Pele (who doesn't?),
>
> Exactly - "who doesn't?".
>

Yes, and Pele isn't way ahead of the second guy like Gretzky or
Bradman are in their respective sports. He is probably pretty close.
That's the methodology that journalist was using.

> > but Bradman simply is the first
> > thing that comes to mind when I think of sporting perfection, at least
> > statistically speaking. Partly because I with millions of others in my
> > region grew up playing cricket.
>
> Exactly - in your region.
>

You didn't get it. But hopefully do now.

> > Partly because I know it is a
> > monumental achievement that is rare, probably unique in any sport.
>
> And unfortunately, because it's such a niche most people don't follow
> it, aren't familiar with it, and couldn't give a rat's ass. While, on
> a purely numerical basis, more people probably play cricket than play
> hockey, the latter gets more exposure because it exists on both
> hemispheres and is featured in the Olympics. I would also dare say
> that it's the more demanding sport, overall, and as such comparing a
> hockey player to a cricket player is a futile exercise.
>
> Let me put it to you this way - if we poll everyone outside of India,
> I am fairly sure you'll find more people who recognize Pele or Jordan
> than do Bradman.

Who cares? The journalist was talking about achievements of the
greatest player within a particular sport, not the popularity of a
particular sport.


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 11:53:07
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Feb 7, 1:23 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
>
> You didn't get it. But hopefully do now.
>
>>> Partly because I know it is a
>>> monumental achievement that is rare, probably unique in any sport.
>> And unfortunately, because it's such a niche most people don't follow
>> it, aren't familiar with it, and couldn't give a rat's ass. While, on
>> a purely numerical basis, more people probably play cricket than play
>> hockey, the latter gets more exposure because it exists on both
>> hemispheres and is featured in the Olympics. I would also dare say
>> that it's the more demanding sport, overall, and as such comparing a
>> hockey player to a cricket player is a futile exercise.
>>
>> Let me put it to you this way - if we poll everyone outside of India,
>> I am fairly sure you'll find more people who recognize Pele or Jordan
>> than do Bradman.
>
> Who cares? The journalist was talking about achievements of the
> greatest player within a particular sport, not the popularity of a
> particular sport.


Look, obviously Bradman has to be included in any alltime great
sportsmen analysis - just as any outstanding Gridiron players (no one
outide USA knows/cares about) have to be included.

To include Gridiron players & ignore Cricket means the whole analysis
can be safely disregarded.





 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:24:15
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 11:12 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 12:47 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6-Feb-2009, guyana <guyanper...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Gunga Din is from a fourth world country drink sewer water sleep 8 to
> > > a room
> > > in a slum getting his sister to suck his dick. I am telling today
> > > itself only fuckoff slumdog ok?
>
> > I'm not defending arnab's stupid and repugnant comment,
>
> It was an apt reply to a totally irrelevant and stupid comment from
> andrew. Andrew's original reply read like a psychological reflex
> reaction to me. Andrew sees the handle "arnab", thinks arnab is making
> slights on one of his favorite ice hockey players Getzky (or worse,
> the holy sport of ice hockey itself), and bam! Irrelevant nonsense.
> Ridiculous.

Haha. Yeah that must be it. It's not like you were comparing apples
and cacti or anything.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:17:16
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 12:31=A0am, guyana <guyanper...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:12=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 2:42 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 9:04 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > > > Bradman?
>
> > > > Stick to complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>
> > > Stick to sucking my dick.
>
> > This may actually happen to you at some point in your life if you ever
> > manage to stop complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>
> > > My points stands. To reel off names like Gretzky, Jordan, etc. and no=
t
> > > even mention Bradman, even in the passing, in this age of Internet, i=
s
> > > abominable.
>
> > If you're going to get your panties in a twist, at least do it over
> > the really abominable absentee - Pele, because that is at least a
> > truly globally popular sport.
>
> Gunga Din is from a fourth world country drink sewer water sleep 8 to
> a room
> in a slum getting his sister to suck his dick. I am telling today
> itself only fuckoff slumdog ok?

It's interesting that you are still not on my killfile. Well, not any
more.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:07:43
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 7, 12:12=A0am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 5, 1:03 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 2:42 am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 9:04 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > > Bradman?
>
> > > Stick to complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>
> > Stick to sucking my dick.
>
> This may actually happen to you at some point in your life if you ever
> manage to stop complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>

When I read your first reply, I thought how the hell does Whimpy enter
this conversation? Is he nuts? Now you are doing it again. If you have
subconscious problems about me "complaining about Whimpy" that boils
over into irrelevant places, well, get over it.

> > My points stands. To reel off names like Gretzky, Jordan, etc. and not
> > even mention Bradman, even in the passing, in this age of Internet, is
> > abominable.
>
> If you're going to get your panties in a twist, at least do it over
> the really abominable absentee - Pele, because that is at least a
> truly globally popular sport.

You didn't get the point.

BTW, cricket is religiously followed by more than hundreds of millions
of people in the Indian subcontinent alone. It is more popular than
even football here. But this isn't a popularity contest about sports.

Yes, I know about Pele (who doesn't?), but Bradman simply is the first
thing that comes to mind when I think of sporting perfection, at least
statistically speaking. Partly because I with millions of others in my
region grew up playing cricket. Partly because I know it is a
monumental achievement that is rare, probably unique in any sport.



 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:59:02
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 10:39 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:20 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 8:18 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 3:44 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > That alone makes
>
> > > > > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > > > > > > sports."
>
> > > > > > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> > > > > > great sense
> > > > > > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > > > > > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > > > > > player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
> > > > > > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe,
> > > > > > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.
>
> > > > > Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> > > > > Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> > > > > with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> > > > > cited.
>
> > > > > > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> > > > > Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> > > > > played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> > > > > merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> > > > > champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> > > > > the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> > > > > schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
> > > > > these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> > > > > still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario
> > > > > Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> > > > > though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> > > > > achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> > > > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > > Fairly good analysis. I am personally of the opinion that Lemieux may
> > > > be the best NHLer to ever lace up skates (hard to compare NHL players
> > > > to the magic of the KLM line), and think that, unlike Gretzky, he
> > > > could have done just as well in today's NHL due to his size.
>
> > > I liked Lemieux's game better than Gretzky's but then I preferred a
> > > number of guys just because of the things they could do with the puck
> > > or their skating ability. People tend to forget about all-time greats
> > > like Gilbert Perrault and Marcel Dionne because they weren't from Cup
> > > winning teams but these guys were in the same class as Gretzky and
> > > Lemieux.
>
> > The main reason I remain so damned impressed with Lemieux, aside from
> > his obvious talent, is the average PPG he was able to rack up (until
> > the last few years of his attempted come-back, when he was playing
> > with lackluster talent and his body was breaking down).
>
> My one-time favorite subject!http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.hockey/browse_thread/thread/...
>
> At one point in the 1990s, both Gretzky and Lemieux were averaging
> over 2 points per game for their entire *careers*, despite the fact
> that no one else in the history of the modern NHL had ever managed to
> average 2 ppg for even a single season. (It's still the case that no
> one else has done it.)
>
> In the 1995-96 season, when Lemieux returned after his full season off
> for rest and rehab, I attended three Penguins games. Lemieux scored
> seven points in each of the first two. (!) In the third, which was a
> playoff game, he had a mere hat trick. :)
>
> Joe Ramirez

I remember those games.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 07:49:58
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 9:00=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:00=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 3:43=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > > >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life=
, I
> > > >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> > > >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> > > >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of argume=
nts
> > > >> can also go on forever.
>
> > > > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricke=
t
> > > > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absol=
ute
> > > > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> > > > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to th=
e
> > > > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> > > > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- woul=
d
> > > > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> > > > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding th=
ese
> > > > debates.
>
> > > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > That's more due to ignorance. =A0Most non-Americans laugh at
> > > Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may=
as
> > > well be amateur. =A0Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
> > > includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pi=
n
> > > bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
> > similar in terms of # of countries
> > competing?
>
> Cricket must have more total fans than baseball because India is so
> gigantic. Other than that, the two sports are similar: popular in a
> defined band of countries that reflects either British or American
> imperialism, and of little interest to nations outside those bands.
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If we have to have a single greatest sportsman, imo it should go to
whomever is considered the greatest
footballer. That's obviously THE international sport, so there can
never be an argument that the guy's greatness
is due to lack of competition.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:39:20
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 1:20=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:18 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:44 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> > > > > =A0That alone makes
>
> > > > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of profes=
sional
> > > > > > sports."
>
> > > > > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had =
a
> > > > > great sense
> > > > > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > > > > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > > > > player of all time. =A0A good number would say Bobby Orr was bett=
er (I
> > > > > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie =
Howe,
> > > > > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes =
on.
>
> > > > Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he l=
eft
> > > > Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> > > > with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> > > > cited.
>
> > > > > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> > > > Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which=
he
> > > > played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> > > > merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> > > > champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> > > > the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> > > > schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. No=
w,
> > > > these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> > > > still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Ma=
rio
> > > > Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> > > > though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> > > > achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> > > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > Fairly good analysis. I am personally of the opinion that Lemieux may
> > > be the best NHLer to ever lace up skates (hard to compare NHL players
> > > to the magic of the KLM line), and think that, unlike Gretzky, he
> > > could have done just as well in today's NHL due to his size.
>
> > I liked Lemieux's game better than Gretzky's but then I preferred a
> > number of guys just because of the things they could do with the puck
> > or their skating ability. =A0People tend to forget about all-time great=
s
> > like Gilbert Perrault and Marcel Dionne because they weren't from Cup
> > winning teams but these guys were in the same class as Gretzky and
> > Lemieux.
>
> The main reason I remain so damned impressed with Lemieux, aside from
> his obvious talent, is the average PPG he was able to rack up (until
> the last few years of his attempted come-back, when he was playing
> with lackluster talent and his body was breaking down).

My one-time favorite subject!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.hockey/browse_thread/thread/c9c8a5=
81818698dc/9a48ea9f07adf03b#9a48ea9f07adf03b

At one point in the 1990s, both Gretzky and Lemieux were averaging
over 2 points per game for their entire *careers*, despite the fact
that no one else in the history of the modern NHL had ever managed to
average 2 ppg for even a single season. (It's still the case that no
one else has done it.)

In the 1995-96 season, when Lemieux returned after his full season off
for rest and rehab, I attended three Penguins games. Lemieux scored
seven points in each of the first two. (!) In the third, which was a
playoff game, he had a mere hat trick. :)

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:20:38
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 8:18 am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:44 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > That alone makes
>
> > > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > > > > sports."
>
> > > > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> > > > great sense
> > > > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > > > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > > > player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
> > > > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe,
> > > > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.
>
> > > Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> > > Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> > > with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> > > cited.
>
> > > > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> > > Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> > > played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> > > merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> > > champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> > > the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> > > schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
> > > these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> > > still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario
> > > Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> > > though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> > > achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > Fairly good analysis. I am personally of the opinion that Lemieux may
> > be the best NHLer to ever lace up skates (hard to compare NHL players
> > to the magic of the KLM line), and think that, unlike Gretzky, he
> > could have done just as well in today's NHL due to his size.
>
> I liked Lemieux's game better than Gretzky's but then I preferred a
> number of guys just because of the things they could do with the puck
> or their skating ability. People tend to forget about all-time greats
> like Gilbert Perrault and Marcel Dionne because they weren't from Cup
> winning teams but these guys were in the same class as Gretzky and
> Lemieux.

The main reason I remain so damned impressed with Lemieux, aside from
his obvious talent, is the average PPG he was able to rack up (until
the last few years of his attempted come-back, when he was playing
with lackluster talent and his body was breaking down).


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 09:28:08
From: drew
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 6:06 pm, "viper" <vi...@rugby.com > wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> It's hardly plausible to call Ice Hockey anything but a synthetic sport.

Ponds freeze and there is your playing field. Snow instead of
boards. Just need a puck, skates and a hockey stick.


>
> If we should thank the Poms for anything, it's Cricket and Rugby. It doesn't
> get any purer or fairer
> than either of those two sports. Very little posturing and no hitting blokes
> when theyr'e not looking...

In hockey, that's what you wait for. Some guy staring at the puck or
the ice and BOOM. Beautiful.



 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 09:03:19
From: drew
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 6:15 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
Cricket registers as an absolute
> zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps.

I worked with an old guy who was a lawyer in Hungary before he came to
Canada. Whenever the subject of cricket came up (and it doesn't
really hit the radar screen in Canada so that would be infrequently)
this guy would get into a lather about the sport of Cricket and how it
made absolutely no sense.

He would claim with an air of complete authority that this stupid game
had no rules, and was the silliest thing that a grown man could do
with his spare time.

So much for cricket champions for expat Hungarians living in Canada.

Hi ho.




 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:54:30
From: drew
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:

> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
> from different eras.

Yeah, but it's so fucking ridiculous and we all know it is so it's
actually fun.

>
> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
> lists.

It's not marginal when you compare it to frisbee golf or lawn darts.

How about horseshoes? Now there's a sport for champions. You play
horseshoes in Finland?

And if not, why not?

I'll kick your ass at horseshoes or lawn darts. Of course lawn darts
are illegal in Canada now so being a lawn dart champion is an
underground sport like dog fighting.

>
> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
> can also go on forever.



 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:47:36
From: drew
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 4:03 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > Bradman?
>
> > Stick to complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.
>
> Stick to sucking my dick.

Poetic but not the job I applied for thankyou.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:45:51
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 11:23=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:46 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >.. Orr the most revolutionary
> > player and all time aestheticGOAT, lol ... Orr was a marvel to watch
> > skating...
>
> Records will come and go but for me, watching Bobby Orr go coast to
> coast and put the puck behind a goalie who was just dazzled by Orr's
> moves and skating was something I'll never forget.
>
> That and the Bobby Hull slapshot were the two things I'll always
> remember about hockey growing up.
>
> And of course the great Dave Keon.

How about the great Tim Horton? :) On our recent drive to Montreal, my
son and I were amazed by the number of Tim Hortons everywhere. When we
got home, I looked it up and found out that Canada is no. 1 in the
world in the number of doughnut shops per capita. :)

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:34:36
From: drew
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 6:04 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:

> This doesn't mean that Bradman wasn't exceptionally great, or that his
> contemporaries were "clowns." It's just a way of understanding how and
> why such an outlier arose. Actual superhumans don't exist.

You have to feel even slightly for these guys who get such adulation
that they begin to believe the hype surrounding them. Then there is
the long fall from grace when in a very short space of time nobody
believes them to be superhuman anymore and they are forced to admit to
themselves that they are not supermen but ordinary men playing a kid's
game very, very well.





 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:23:16
From: drew
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 5:46 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:

>
>.. Orr the most revolutionary
> player and all time aestheticGOAT, lol ... Orr was a marvel to watch
> skating...

Records will come and go but for me, watching Bobby Orr go coast to
coast and put the puck behind a goalie who was just dazzled by Orr's
moves and skating was something I'll never forget.

That and the Bobby Hull slapshot were the two things I'll always
remember about hockey growing up.

And of course the great Dave Keon.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:18:13
From: drew
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 3:44 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That alone makes
>
> > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > > > sports."
>
> > > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> > > great sense
> > > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > > player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
> > > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe,
> > > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.
>
> > Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> > Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> > with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> > cited.
>
> > > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> > Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> > played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> > merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> > champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> > the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> > schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
> > these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> > still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario
> > Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> > though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> > achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Fairly good analysis. I am personally of the opinion that Lemieux may
> be the best NHLer to ever lace up skates (hard to compare NHL players
> to the magic of the KLM line), and think that, unlike Gretzky, he
> could have done just as well in today's NHL due to his size.

I liked Lemieux's game better than Gretzky's but then I preferred a
number of guys just because of the things they could do with the puck
or their skating ability. People tend to forget about all-time greats
like Gilbert Perrault and Marcel Dionne because they weren't from Cup
winning teams but these guys were in the same class as Gretzky and
Lemieux.


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 11:27:35
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
drew wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:44 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> I liked Lemieux's game better than Gretzky's but then I preferred a
> number of guys just because of the things they could do with the puck
> or their skating ability.


I think you should make like a hockey stick & get the puck out of here.


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 06:00:52
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 8:00=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:43=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, =
I
> > >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> > >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> > >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of argument=
s
> > >> can also go on forever.
>
> > > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> > > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolut=
e
> > > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> > > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> > > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> > > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> > > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> > > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding thes=
e
> > > debates.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > That's more due to ignorance. =A0Most non-Americans laugh at
> > Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may a=
s
> > well be amateur. =A0Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
> > includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
> > bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
> similar in terms of # of countries
> competing?

Cricket must have more total fans than baseball because India is so
gigantic. Other than that, the two sports are similar: popular in a
defined band of countries that reflects either British or American
imperialism, and of little interest to nations outside those bands.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 05:00:40
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 3:43=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
> >> can also go on forever.
>
> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
> > debates.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> That's more due to ignorance. =A0Most non-Americans laugh at
> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may as
> well be amateur. =A0Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
similar in terms of # of countries
competing?


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 14:37:13
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00:40 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Feb 6, 3:43 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
>> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
>> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
>> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
>> >> can also go on forever.
>>
>> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
>> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
>> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
>> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
>> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
>> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
>> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
>> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
>> > debates.
>>
>> > Joe Ramirez
>>
>> That's more due to ignorance.  Most non-Americans laugh at
>> Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may as
>> well be amateur.  Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
>> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
>> bowling.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
>similar in terms of # of countries
>competing?

To me (and in here) baseball and cricket are equally irrelevant.
American football is slightly more relevant. But these are cultural
things. None of these are big global sports like football, basketball,
volleyball.



  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 00:35:31
From: DC
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com said the following on 6/02/2009 10:00 PM:
>
> But how is baseball any more irrelevant than cricket? Aren't they
> similar in terms of # of countries
> competing?

There's probably a lot more people around the world interested in
cricket than in baseball. However, that's because India is cricket mad.



 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 04:57:38
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 3:44=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:15:08 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> > <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
> >>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0=
...
> >>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> >>>> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> >>>> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player a=
nd
> >>>> only counting his free throw totals.
> >>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> >>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> >>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone make=
s
> >>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professiona=
l
> >>>> sports."
> >>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> >>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> >>>> Bradman?
> >>> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
> >>> from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
> >>> players?
>
> >>> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
> >>> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
> >>> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
> >>> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
> >>> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
> >>> lists.
>
> >>> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
> >>> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> >>> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> >>> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
> >>> can also go on forever.
> >> I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> >> playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
> >> zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> >> even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> >> average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> >> basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> >> probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> >> contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
> >> debates.
>
> > And ice hockey too. It happens to be a big sport here, but I wonder
> > how many people know Gretzky outside Canada, USA (and probably pretty
> > small circles in USA), Finland, Sweden, Russia (and probably pretty
> > small circles in Russia), Czech Republic and Slovakia?
>
> Not many. =A0Ice hockey is seen more as a pass time & hardly a serious sp=
ort.

The southern hemisphere in general is winter sports-deficient. You
have my sympathy. :) Although I did once take a snowboard lesson from
an Australian at Lake Louise in Alberta, Canada. He had had the good
sense to move north, I guess. :)

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 04:55:53
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 3:43=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
> >> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> >> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> >> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
> >> can also go on forever.
>
> > I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> > playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
> > zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> > even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> > average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> > basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> > probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> > contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
> > debates.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> That's more due to ignorance.

Of course -- igornance plus indifference.

>=A0Most non-Americans laugh at
> Gridiron/Baseball

Also due to ignorance + indifference.

> - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may as
> well be amateur.

Actually, as has been pointed out before, baseball is very popular in
Japan, the Caribbean, and Venezuela, and popular in Korea and Taiwan.
"Gridiron" is basically limited to the United States *and Canada* (the
Canadians have their own league).

>=A0Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
> includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
> bowling.

Except the few if any bowlers are likely to be world-class athletes;
many NFL football players are.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 04:52:06
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 3:23=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs=
is Philippe Petit.
> > Undefeated over his entire =A0career, since a defeat would mean death.
> > Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
> > level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
> > -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
> > Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
> > control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
> > look scatterbrained.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> =A8
> If you need the all-time sport GOAT it is Alexander Karelin. Just
> check his numbers + undefeated for 13years.

Karelin forfeited any claim to universal GOAThood when he earned only
the silver medal at his final Olympics. (Losing to a chubby American
in a signature Euroasian sport!) Petit never lost. :)

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 00:23:49
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman


Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
> Undefeated over his entire career, since a defeat would mean death.
> Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
> level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
> -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
> Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
> control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
> look scatterbrained.
>
> Joe Ramirez
=A8
If you need the all-time sport GOAT it is Alexander Karelin. Just
check his numbers + undefeated for 13years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelin

During the times when I was athlete (late 80:ies early 90:ies) the was
a strong rumour among the coaches that Karelin had also shot putted
22m at USSR training camp.

.mikko


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 14:44:11
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 00:23:49 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
<michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

>
>
>Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
>> Undefeated over his entire career, since a defeat would mean death.
>> Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
>> level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
>> -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
>> Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
>> control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
>> look scatterbrained.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez

>If you need the all-time sport GOAT it is Alexander Karelin. Just
>check his numbers + undefeated for 13years.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelin
>
>During the times when I was athlete (late 80:ies early 90:ies) the was
>a strong rumour among the coaches that Karelin had also shot putted
>22m at USSR training camp.

You did what in late 80's and early 90's?



 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 00:17:29
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman


andrew.reys@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> Fairly good analysis. I am personally of the opinion that Lemieux may
> be the best NHLer to ever lace up skates (hard to compare NHL players
> to the magic of the KLM line), and think that, unlike Gretzky, he
> could have done just as well in today's NHL due to his size. Gretzky's
> vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled, though,
> IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the ice in his
> head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he was doing.

Agree. Lemieux would be my choice. To boot: Incredible comebacks after
injury troubles (including cancer). If Gretzky was a kind of highly
efficient and wise professor on ice, Lemieux was just enigmatic.

.mikko


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 23:41:51
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 5:01=A0am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:

>
> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst,

That's astounding.

> and I always
> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> cricket is big in some parts of the world.

Cricket is massive in these parts of the world.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 23:13:02
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 4:16=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:32=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:07=A0pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > =A0That alone makes
>
> > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of profession=
al
> > > > sports."
>
> > > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> > > great sense
> > > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > > player of all time. =A0A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (=
I
> > > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe=
,
> > > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.
>
> > Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> > Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> > with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> > cited.
>
> > > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> > Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> > played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> > merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> > champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> > the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> > schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
> > these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> > still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario
> > Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> > though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> > achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Similar arguments have been used against Bradman i.e. that the
> generally batsman-friendly pitches and sometimes variable bowling
> standards helped his average.
>
> But the proof of the pudding is to compare him to his contemporaries
> who presumably also had these benefits. Bradman's stats are still
> awesome compared to the next best ...

Awesome doesn't even begin to describe the gap between Bradman and the
rest. Maybe astronomical.

We have seen Bradman like performances by players even recently, i.e.,
maintaining a test average of 100 or so for some length of time
(Ponting, Hayden, even late career Lara I think), but they couldn't
keep it up for more than a year.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 23:06:47
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 5:34=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On =A05-Feb-2009, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > sports."
>
> > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > Bradman?
>
> Quite frankly, this is probably a case where a regional sports journalist=
is
> hyping sports and players that are popular in the region. =A0Nothing to l=
ose
> sleep about as I think this is a world-wide phenomenon. =A0Then again, yo=
u
> knew all of this already didn't you?

It's called the Internet and the eventual clash of "regional"
mindsets.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 23:02:53
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 4:19=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > sports."
>
> > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > Bradman?
>
> *cough* Jahangir =A0Khan *cough*?
>
> or even
>
> *cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?

Them too. But in my part of the world, the first name that's usually
brought up is Bradman's.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 16:52:31
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 6:27=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 5 feb, 22:19, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:44=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > > Gretzky's
> > > vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled, though,
> > > IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the ice in his
> > > head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he was doing.
>
> > Yes. No one's mental gifts magnified his physical gifts more than
> > Gretzky's.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Never seen Gretzky nor Bradman but there is one man I would argue to
> be at least equal to anyone *I* have ever seen in any sport. In terms
> of mental fortitude and physical application, I wouldn't dare put
> another athlete in front of him. Particularly considering the courage
> necessary to compete within his particular (brutal) discipline.
>
> In an environment in which there is a multitude of practical
> possibilities leading to either victory or defeat and no definite
> minima in available time or points system to safe oneself from 'sudden
> death', the mental aspect - or ability - to block out everything that
> distracts or hinders the performance is an unparalleled virtue. One
> can imagine that in order to excel and distinguish oneself in such an
> environment requires not just great physical powers, but the distinct
> capability to 'live in the moment'.

If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
Undefeated over his entire career, since a defeat would mean death.
Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
-- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
look scatterbrained.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:57:40
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
> Undefeated over his entire career, since a defeat would mean death.
> Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
> level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
> -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
> Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
> control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
> look scatterbrained.

I saw 'Man On Wire' a few weeks ago. Pretty amazing.




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 15:32:09
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 11:09=A0pm, "viper" <vi...@rugby.com > wrote:
> <gregor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ffdb314d-1331-403c-b1f3-60e2bd961a59@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 5, 10:48 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 2:19 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 5:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/=
0...
>
> > > > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other playe=
r
> > > > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > > > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player =
and
> > > > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > > > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > > > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > > > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone mak=
es
> > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of profession=
al
> > > > sports."
>
> > > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > > Bradman?
>
> > > *cough* Jahangir Khan *cough*?
>
> > > or even
>
> > > *cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?
>
> > ++ My wife tells me Jahangir Khan was 'DA MAN'... so I defer to her on
> > indoor racket sports... lol
>
> > P
>
> Unbeaten for five years - 555 consecutive matches ...
>
> Cough, splutter......Heather McKay
>
> Viper

Hmmm - two defeats in her whole career of 20 years. Pretty amazing
stats.



  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:42:10
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:09 pm, "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote:
>> <gregor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ffdb314d-1331-403c-b1f3-60e2bd961a59@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 5, 10:48 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2:19 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 5:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>
>>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other
>>>>> player has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would
>>>>> be like Jordan finishing his career with more points than any
>>>>> other player and only counting his free throw totals.
>>
>>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone
>>>>> makes "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
>>>>> professional sports."
>>
>>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>>>>> Bradman?
>>
>>>> *cough* Jahangir Khan *cough*?
>>
>>>> or even
>>
>>>> *cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?
>>
>>> ++ My wife tells me Jahangir Khan was 'DA MAN'... so I defer to her
>>> on indoor racket sports... lol
>>
>>> P
>>
>> Unbeaten for five years - 555 consecutive matches ...
>>
>> Cough, splutter......Heather McKay
>>
>> Viper
>
> Hmmm - two defeats in her whole career of 20 years. Pretty amazing
> stats.

I see that she also won 16 straight best-of-5-games British Open finals without
losing a game....




  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 01:38:10
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:32:09 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Feb 5, 11:09 pm, "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote:
>> <gregor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ffdb314d-1331-403c-b1f3-60e2bd961a59@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 5, 10:48 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 2:19 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 5, 5:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>
>> > > > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
>> > > > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
>> > > > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
>> > > > only counting his free throw totals.
>>
>> > > > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>> > > > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>> > > > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
>> > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
>> > > > sports."
>>
>> > > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>> > > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>> > > > Bradman?
>>
>> > > *cough* Jahangir Khan *cough*?
>>
>> > > or even
>>
>> > > *cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?
>>
>> > ++ My wife tells me Jahangir Khan was 'DA MAN'... so I defer to her on
>> > indoor racket sports... lol
>>
>> > P
>>
>> Unbeaten for five years - 555 consecutive matches ...
>>
>> Cough, splutter......Heather McKay
>>
>> Viper
>
>Hmmm - two defeats in her whole career of 20 years. Pretty amazing
>stats.

Huh. Someone I have heard even less about than this Bradman, i.e.
nothing. Don't tell me this is women's darts or something like that?


   
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:43:09
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:32:09 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 11:09 pm, "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote:
>>> <gregor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:ffdb314d-1331-403c-b1f3-60e2bd961a59@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 5, 10:48 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2:19 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 5:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>>
>>>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other
>>>>>> player has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That
>>>>>> would be like Jordan finishing his career with more points than
>>>>>> any other player and only counting his free throw totals.
>>>
>>>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>>>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>>>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone
>>>>>> makes "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
>>>>>> professional sports."
>>>
>>>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>>>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>>>>>> Bradman?
>>>
>>>>> *cough* Jahangir Khan *cough*?
>>>
>>>>> or even
>>>
>>>>> *cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?
>>>
>>>> ++ My wife tells me Jahangir Khan was 'DA MAN'... so I defer to
>>>> her on indoor racket sports... lol
>>>
>>>> P
>>>
>>> Unbeaten for five years - 555 consecutive matches ...
>>>
>>> Cough, splutter......Heather McKay
>>>
>>> Viper
>>
>> Hmmm - two defeats in her whole career of 20 years. Pretty amazing
>> stats.
>
> Huh. Someone I have heard even less about than this Bradman, i.e.
> nothing. Don't tell me this is women's darts or something like that?

Squash.




    
Date: 06 Feb 2009 01:49:40
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:43:09 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:32:09 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 11:09 pm, "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote:
>>>> <gregor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:ffdb314d-1331-403c-b1f3-60e2bd961a59@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 5, 10:48 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 2:19 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 5, 5:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other
>>>>>>> player has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That
>>>>>>> would be like Jordan finishing his career with more points than
>>>>>>> any other player and only counting his free throw totals.
>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>>>>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>>>>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone
>>>>>>> makes "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
>>>>>>> professional sports."
>>>>
>>>>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>>>>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>>>>>>> Bradman?
>>>>
>>>>>> *cough* Jahangir Khan *cough*?
>>>>
>>>>>> or even
>>>>
>>>>>> *cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?
>>>>
>>>>> ++ My wife tells me Jahangir Khan was 'DA MAN'... so I defer to
>>>>> her on indoor racket sports... lol
>>>>
>>>>> P
>>>>
>>>> Unbeaten for five years - 555 consecutive matches ...
>>>>
>>>> Cough, splutter......Heather McKay
>>>>
>>>> Viper
>>>
>>> Hmmm - two defeats in her whole career of 20 years. Pretty amazing
>>> stats.
>>
>> Huh. Someone I have heard even less about than this Bradman, i.e.
>> nothing. Don't tell me this is women's darts or something like that?
>
>Squash.

Ouch. Should have at least heard about her then. But, checking now,
she played in the 60's and 70's. I wonder how competitive women's
squash was then.



 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 15:15:08
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 6:01=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
>
>
>
>
> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> >"Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> >has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> >Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> >only counting his free throw totals.
>
> >What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> >seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> >respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> >"The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> >sports."
>
> >Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> >American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> >Bradman?
>
> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
> from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
> players?
>
> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
> lists.
>
> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
> can also go on forever.

I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
debates.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 19:43:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
>> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
>> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
>> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
>> can also go on forever.
>
> I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
> playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
> zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
> even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
> average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
> basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
> probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
> contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
> debates.
>
> Joe Ramirez



That's more due to ignorance. Most non-Americans laugh at
Gridiron/Baseball - completely irrelevant sports outside USA they may as
well be amateur. Every time we see a list of best sportsmen that
includes Gridiron & fat baseballers it's the same as including ten pin
bowling.




  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 01:26:32
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:15:08 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:

>On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>
>> >"Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
>> >has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
>> >Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
>> >only counting his free throw totals.
>>
>> >What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>> >seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>> >respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
>> >"The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
>> >sports."
>>
>> >Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>> >American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>> >Bradman?
>>
>> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
>> from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
>> players?
>>
>> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
>> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
>> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
>> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
>> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
>> lists.
>>
>> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
>> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
>> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
>> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
>> can also go on forever.
>
>I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
>playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
>zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
>even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
>average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
>basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
>probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
>contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
>debates.

And ice hockey too. It happens to be a big sport here, but I wonder
how many people know Gretzky outside Canada, USA (and probably pretty
small circles in USA), Finland, Sweden, Russia (and probably pretty
small circles in Russia), Czech Republic and Slovakia?



   
Date: 06 Feb 2009 19:44:54
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:15:08 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
>>>> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
>>>> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
>>>> only counting his free throw totals.
>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
>>>> sports."
>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>>>> Bradman?
>>> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
>>> from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
>>> players?
>>>
>>> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
>>> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
>>> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
>>> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
>>> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
>>> lists.
>>>
>>> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
>>> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
>>> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
>>> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
>>> can also go on forever.
>> I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
>> playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
>> zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
>> even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
>> average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
>> basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
>> probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
>> contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
>> debates.
>
> And ice hockey too. It happens to be a big sport here, but I wonder
> how many people know Gretzky outside Canada, USA (and probably pretty
> small circles in USA), Finland, Sweden, Russia (and probably pretty
> small circles in Russia), Czech Republic and Slovakia?
>


Not many. Ice hockey is seen more as a pass time & hardly a serious sport.


    
Date: 07 Feb 2009 14:45:48
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:44:54 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:15:08 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
>> <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 6:01 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
>>>>> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
>>>>> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
>>>>> only counting his free throw totals.
>>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
>>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
>>>>> sports."
>>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>>>>> Bradman?
>>>> This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
>>>> from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
>>>> players?
>>>>
>>>> Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
>>>> confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
>>>> think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
>>>> ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
>>>> sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
>>>> lists.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
>>>> still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
>>>> confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
>>>> cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
>>>> can also go on forever.
>>> I agree with you about Bradman's non-celebrity status in non-cricket
>>> playing nations (i.e., most nations). Cricket registers as an absolute
>>> zero here, perhaps because unlike other "foreign" sports, it's not
>>> even in the Olympics. If you tried to make a case for Bradman to the
>>> average North American sports writer or fan, the statement of the
>>> basic facts -- dominant amateur cricket player in Australia -- would
>>> probably elicit chuckles rather than gasps. So you're right: with
>>> contexts so dramatically different, there's no way of concluding these
>>> debates.
>>
>> And ice hockey too. It happens to be a big sport here, but I wonder
>> how many people know Gretzky outside Canada, USA (and probably pretty
>> small circles in USA), Finland, Sweden, Russia (and probably pretty
>> small circles in Russia), Czech Republic and Slovakia?
>>
>
>
>Not many. Ice hockey is seen more as a pass time & hardly a serious sport.

Yes, and cricket is not even seen as that in here.




 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:06:48
From: viper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman

"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:62163736-5d63-4b65-ac12-7762662fe321@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/02/04/Sports/Despite.Recent.Loss.Federer.Should.Stand.Among.Best.In.Sports.History-3610962-page2.shtml
>
> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> only counting his free throw totals.
>
> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> sports."
>
> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> Bradman?


It's hardly plausible to call Ice Hockey anything but a synthetic sport. In
much the same way as
basketball. There's nothing pure or natural about building a stadium and
having to include $3mill US
worth of frozen flooring in order to have a sporting contest. If they held
contests on frozen lakes it
would have much more credibility. Hard to sell hot dogs I suppose ? And
basketball ? 10 grown up
men running up and down a sprung floor throwing a ball into an elevated
waste paper basket, sans
a base....please

If we should thank the Poms for anything, it's Cricket and Rugby. It doesn't
get any purer or fairer
than either of those two sports. Very little posturing and no hitting blokes
when theyr'e not looking...


Viper





 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:48:03
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 2:19=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > sports."
>
> > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > Bradman?
>
> *cough* Jahangir =A0Khan *cough*?
>
> or even
>
> *cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?

++ My wife tells me Jahangir Khan was 'DA MAN'... so I defer to her on
indoor racket sports... lol

P


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:38:27
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 5:17=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:30=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0.=
..
>
> > > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> > > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player an=
d
> > > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > > sports."
>
> > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > Bradman?
>
> > Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> > because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket. E-
> > mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far touting a
> > famous darts champion.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Phil Taylor - 14 times World Darts Champion ...

14 -- true GOAT territory. Did he use nuclear darts? :)

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 06:34:00
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:17 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 5:30 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>
>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other
>>>> player has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would
>>>> be like Jordan finishing his career with more points than any
>>>> other player and only counting his free throw totals.
>>
>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone
>>>> makes "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
>>>> professional sports."
>>
>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>>>> Bradman?
>>
>>> Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
>>> because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket. E-
>>> mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far touting
>>> a famous darts champion.
>>
>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>> Phil Taylor - 14 times World Darts Champion ...
>
> 14 -- true GOAT territory. Did he use nuclear darts? :)


14 biggest events in tennis per year as well.

4 slams + 9 MS events + YEC = 14 top tournaments




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:37:41
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 5:16=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:32=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:07=A0pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > =A0That alone makes
>
> > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of profession=
al
> > > > sports."
>
> > > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> > > great sense
> > > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > > player of all time. =A0A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (=
I
> > > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe=
,
> > > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.
>
> > Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> > Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> > with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> > cited.
>
> > > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> > Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> > played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> > merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> > champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> > the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> > schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
> > these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> > still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario
> > Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> > though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> > achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Similar arguments have been used against Bradman i.e. that the
> generally batsman-friendly pitches and sometimes variable bowling
> standards helped his average.
>
> But the proof of the pudding is to compare him to his contemporaries
> who presumably also had these benefits. Bradman's stats are still
> awesome compared to the next best ...

Indeed, a huge gap between an athlete and the best of his
contemporaries is a pretty reliable sign of true greatness.

One minor caveat, however, is that such huge gaps are more likely to
appear if a sport is only partially standardized, by which I mean
everyone has approximately equal access to all developments in
technique, training, coaching, strategy, equipment, etc. If cricket is
best viewed as an amateur sport in Bradman's day, that's a factor --
not in his success per se, but in the margin of his superiority.
Disequilibrium makes outliers more probable. Thorough
professionalization promotes equilibrium.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 09:55:02
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:16 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 8:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That alone makes
>>
>>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
>>>>> professional sports."
>>
>>>> Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
>>>> great sense
>>>> of what was happening on the ice.
>>
>>>> But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
>>>> player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
>>>> would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie
>>>> Howe, Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list
>>>> goes on.
>>
>>> Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he
>>> left Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one
>>> more with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen
>>> it cited.
>>
>>>> But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>>
>>> Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which
>>> he played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post
>>> NHL/WHA merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my
>>> equilbrium/missing champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first
>>> mindset throughout the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet
>>> implemented defensive schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4)
>>> smaller goalie pads. Now, these inflationary factors do not mean
>>> that Gretzky's stats aren't still awesome. They are. Also, some of
>>> his chief rivals, such as Mario Lemieux (our local hero) benefited
>>> from these conditions as well, though perhaps not to the same
>>> extent. But even the greatest achievements need to be placed in
>>> context.
>>
>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>> Similar arguments have been used against Bradman i.e. that the
>> generally batsman-friendly pitches and sometimes variable bowling
>> standards helped his average.
>>
>> But the proof of the pudding is to compare him to his contemporaries
>> who presumably also had these benefits. Bradman's stats are still
>> awesome compared to the next best ...
>
> Indeed, a huge gap between an athlete and the best of his
> contemporaries is a pretty reliable sign of true greatness.
>
> One minor caveat, however, is that such huge gaps are more likely to
> appear if a sport is only partially standardized, by which I mean
> everyone has approximately equal access to all developments in
> technique, training, coaching, strategy, equipment, etc. If cricket is
> best viewed as an amateur sport in Bradman's day, that's a factor --
> not in his success per se, but in the margin of his superiority.

I don't think that's a factor. Bradman didn't have greater opportunity to do
well than his contemporaries. He essentially taught himself and needed only to
be able to play, like thousands of others.

I never get tired of being amazed by Bradman's record, so here again is the list
of top ten batting averages in the history of Test cricket:
DG Bradman 99.94
RG Pollock 60.97
GA Headley 60.83
H Sutcliffe 60.73
*MEK Hussey 59.36
E Paynter 59.23
KF Barrington 58.67
ED Weekes 58.61
WR Hammond 58.45

*Still playing





   
Date: 06 Feb 2009 19:35:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
DavidW wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 5:16 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 8:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> That alone makes
>>>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
>>>>>> professional sports."
>>>>> Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
>>>>> great sense
>>>>> of what was happening on the ice.
>>>>> But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
>>>>> player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
>>>>> would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie
>>>>> Howe, Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list
>>>>> goes on.
>>>> Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he
>>>> left Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one
>>>> more with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen
>>>> it cited.
>>>>> But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>>>> Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which
>>>> he played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post
>>>> NHL/WHA merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my
>>>> equilbrium/missing champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first
>>>> mindset throughout the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet
>>>> implemented defensive schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4)
>>>> smaller goalie pads. Now, these inflationary factors do not mean
>>>> that Gretzky's stats aren't still awesome. They are. Also, some of
>>>> his chief rivals, such as Mario Lemieux (our local hero) benefited
>>>> from these conditions as well, though perhaps not to the same
>>>> extent. But even the greatest achievements need to be placed in
>>>> context.
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>> Similar arguments have been used against Bradman i.e. that the
>>> generally batsman-friendly pitches and sometimes variable bowling
>>> standards helped his average.
>>>
>>> But the proof of the pudding is to compare him to his contemporaries
>>> who presumably also had these benefits. Bradman's stats are still
>>> awesome compared to the next best ...
>> Indeed, a huge gap between an athlete and the best of his
>> contemporaries is a pretty reliable sign of true greatness.
>>
>> One minor caveat, however, is that such huge gaps are more likely to
>> appear if a sport is only partially standardized, by which I mean
>> everyone has approximately equal access to all developments in
>> technique, training, coaching, strategy, equipment, etc. If cricket is
>> best viewed as an amateur sport in Bradman's day, that's a factor --
>> not in his success per se, but in the margin of his superiority.
>
> I don't think that's a factor. Bradman didn't have greater opportunity to do
> well than his contemporaries. He essentially taught himself and needed only to
> be able to play, like thousands of others.
>
> I never get tired of being amazed by Bradman's record, so here again is the list
> of top ten batting averages in the history of Test cricket:
> DG Bradman 99.94
> RG Pollock 60.97
> GA Headley 60.83
> H Sutcliffe 60.73
> *MEK Hussey 59.36
> E Paynter 59.23
> KF Barrington 58.67
> ED Weekes 58.61
> WR Hammond 58.45
>
> *Still playing
>
>
>


He only needed 4 runs in his last innings to average 100. Getting out
for a duck was a poignant way to end goat career - akin to Sampras
losing 06 06 16 1st rd Wimbledon in his last GS match.



 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:16:04
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 8:32=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:07=A0pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > =A0That alone makes
>
> > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > > sports."
>
> > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> > great sense
> > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > player of all time. =A0A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
> > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe,
> > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.
>
> Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> cited.
>
> > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
> these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario
> Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Similar arguments have been used against Bradman i.e. that the
generally batsman-friendly pitches and sometimes variable bowling
standards helped his average.

But the proof of the pudding is to compare him to his contemporaries
who presumably also had these benefits. Bradman's stats are still
awesome compared to the next best ...




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 17:35:00
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 8:11=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 6 feb, 01:52, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 6:27=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 5 feb, 22:19, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 3:44=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com=
>
> > > > > Gretzky's
> > > > > vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled, thoug=
h,
> > > > > IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the ice in =
his
> > > > > head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he was doing.
>
> > > > Yes. No one's mental gifts magnified his physical gifts more than
> > > > Gretzky's.
>
> > > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > Never seen Gretzky nor Bradman but there is one man I would argue to
> > > be at least equal to anyone *I* have ever seen in any sport. In terms
> > > of mental fortitude and physical application, I wouldn't dare put
> > > another athlete in front of him. Particularly considering the courage
> > > necessary to compete within his particular (brutal) discipline.
>
> > > In an environment in which there is a multitude of practical
> > > possibilities leading to either victory or defeat and no definite
> > > minima in available time or points system to safe oneself from 'sudde=
n
> > > death', the mental aspect - or ability - to block out everything that
> > > distracts or hinders the performance is an unparalleled virtue. One
> > > can imagine that in order to excel and distinguish oneself in such an
> > > environment requires not just great physical powers, but the distinct
> > > capability to 'live in the moment'.
>
> > If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
> > Undefeated over his entire =A0career, since a defeat would mean death.
> > Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
> > level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
> > -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
> > Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
> > control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
> > look scatterbrained.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Very impressive, but... he used a stick for help and nobody trying to
> push him over the edge either.

LOL -- just the wind.

> So really, it looks like a Little walk over the park ;-)
>
> Fedor otoh walks over opponents trying to derail him *without* the
> help of a stick.
>
> Edge to Emelianenko :)-

Tough as that guy may be, I'm sure I speak for everyone in RST when I
say I'd rather face him than a 1,200-foot drop.

Joe Ramirez



 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 17:22:31
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On 6 feb, 02:13, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> kaennorsing wrote:
> > On 6 feb, 01:52, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 6:27 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5 feb, 22:19, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 5, 3:44 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> Gretzky's
> >>>>> vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled,
> >>>>> though, IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the
> >>>>> ice in his head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he
> >>>>> was doing.
>
> >>>> Yes. No one's mental gifts magnified his physical gifts more than
> >>>> Gretzky's.
>
> >>>> Joe Ramirez
>
> >>> Never seen Gretzky nor Bradman but there is one man I would argue to
> >>> be at least equal to anyone *I* have ever seen in any sport. In
> >>> terms of mental fortitude and physical application, I wouldn't dare
> >>> put another athlete in front of him. Particularly considering the
> >>> courage necessary to compete within his particular (brutal)
> >>> discipline.
>
> >>> In an environment in which there is a multitude of practical
> >>> possibilities leading to either victory or defeat and no definite
> >>> minima in available time or points system to safe oneself from
> >>> 'sudden death', the mental aspect - or ability - to block out
> >>> everything that distracts or hinders the performance is an
> >>> unparalleled virtue. One can imagine that in order to excel and
> >>> distinguish oneself in such an environment requires not just great
> >>> physical powers, but the distinct capability to 'live in the
> >>> moment'.
>
> >> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
> >> Undefeated over his entire career, since a defeat would mean death.
> >> Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
> >> level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
> >> -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
> >> Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
> >> control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
> >> look scatterbrained.
>
> >> Joe Ramirez
>
> > Very impressive, but... he used a stick for help and nobody trying to
> > push him over the edge either.
>
> > So really, it looks like a Little walk over the park ;-)
>
> > Fedor otoh walks over opponents trying to derail him *without* the
> > help of a stick.
>
> Saying that he needed the help of a stick is like saying that Federer needs the
> help of a racquet.

True. As talented as he is, without that he'd be hopeless and out of
contention for GOAT.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 17:11:15
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On 6 feb, 01:52, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 6:27=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5 feb, 22:19, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 3:44=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > > > Gretzky's
> > > > vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled, though,
> > > > IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the ice in hi=
s
> > > > head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he was doing.
>
> > > Yes. No one's mental gifts magnified his physical gifts more than
> > > Gretzky's.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > Never seen Gretzky nor Bradman but there is one man I would argue to
> > be at least equal to anyone *I* have ever seen in any sport. In terms
> > of mental fortitude and physical application, I wouldn't dare put
> > another athlete in front of him. Particularly considering the courage
> > necessary to compete within his particular (brutal) discipline.
>
> > In an environment in which there is a multitude of practical
> > possibilities leading to either victory or defeat and no definite
> > minima in available time or points system to safe oneself from 'sudden
> > death', the mental aspect - or ability - to block out everything that
> > distracts or hinders the performance is an unparalleled virtue. One
> > can imagine that in order to excel and distinguish oneself in such an
> > environment requires not just great physical powers, but the distinct
> > capability to 'live in the moment'.
>
> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
> Undefeated over his entire =A0career, since a defeat would mean death.
> Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
> level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
> -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
> Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
> control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
> look scatterbrained.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Very impressive, but... he used a stick for help and nobody trying to
push him over the edge either.

So really, it looks like a Little walk over the park ;-)

Fedor otoh walks over opponents trying to derail him *without* the
help of a stick.

Edge to Emelianenko :)


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 12:13:55
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
kaennorsing wrote:
> On 6 feb, 01:52, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 6:27 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5 feb, 22:19, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 3:44 pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
>>>>> Gretzky's
>>>>> vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled,
>>>>> though, IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the
>>>>> ice in his head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he
>>>>> was doing.
>>
>>>> Yes. No one's mental gifts magnified his physical gifts more than
>>>> Gretzky's.
>>
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>> Never seen Gretzky nor Bradman but there is one man I would argue to
>>> be at least equal to anyone *I* have ever seen in any sport. In
>>> terms of mental fortitude and physical application, I wouldn't dare
>>> put another athlete in front of him. Particularly considering the
>>> courage necessary to compete within his particular (brutal)
>>> discipline.
>>
>>> In an environment in which there is a multitude of practical
>>> possibilities leading to either victory or defeat and no definite
>>> minima in available time or points system to safe oneself from
>>> 'sudden death', the mental aspect - or ability - to block out
>>> everything that distracts or hinders the performance is an
>>> unparalleled virtue. One can imagine that in order to excel and
>>> distinguish oneself in such an environment requires not just great
>>> physical powers, but the distinct capability to 'live in the
>>> moment'.
>>
>> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
>> Undefeated over his entire career, since a defeat would mean death.
>> Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
>> level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
>> -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
>> Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
>> control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
>> look scatterbrained.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> Very impressive, but... he used a stick for help and nobody trying to
> push him over the edge either.
>
> So really, it looks like a Little walk over the park ;-)
>
> Fedor otoh walks over opponents trying to derail him *without* the
> help of a stick.

Saying that he needed the help of a stick is like saying that Federer needs the
help of a racquet.




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:33:15
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 3:23=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 3:12 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 4:07 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 5, 11:30 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/=
0...
>
> >>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other
> >>>>> player has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would
> >>>>> be like Jordan finishing his career with more points than any
> >>>>> other player and only counting his free throw totals.
>
> >>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> >>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> >>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone
> >>>>> makes "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
> >>>>> professional sports."
>
> >>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> >>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> >>>>> Bradman?
>
> >>>> Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> >>>> because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket.
> >>>> E- mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far
> >>>> touting a famous darts champion.
>
> >>>> Joe Ramirez
>
> >>> That just reflects poorly on North American journalists.
>
> >> Do Asian journalists mention Gretzky when they write articles
> >> extolling cricket greats?
>
> >> Joe Ramirez
>
> > No. But this journalist was treating the delicate matter of who is
> > "the single best player in the history of professional
> > sports", in an article about Federer's performance in the AO final
> > nevertheless. I believe Bradman deserves a nod there.
>
> Maybe the journalist has an out: Did cricket in Bradman's time qualify as
> "professional sports"?

Test Cricket hasn't changed much over the years, has it?


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:40:10
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:23 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 3:12 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 5, 4:07 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 11:30 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>
>>>>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other
>>>>>>> player has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That
>>>>>>> would be like Jordan finishing his career with more points than
>>>>>>> any other player and only counting his free throw totals.
>>
>>>>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>>>>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26
>>>>>>> seasons, respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers.
>>>>>>> That alone makes "The Great One" the single best player in the
>>>>>>> history of professional sports."
>>
>>>>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>>>>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>>>>>>> Bradman?
>>
>>>>>> Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
>>>>>> because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket.
>>>>>> E- mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far
>>>>>> touting a famous darts champion.
>>
>>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>>>> That just reflects poorly on North American journalists.
>>
>>>> Do Asian journalists mention Gretzky when they write articles
>>>> extolling cricket greats?
>>
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>> No. But this journalist was treating the delicate matter of who is
>>> "the single best player in the history of professional
>>> sports", in an article about Federer's performance in the AO final
>>> nevertheless. I believe Bradman deserves a nod there.
>>
>> Maybe the journalist has an out: Did cricket in Bradman's time
>> qualify as "professional sports"?
>
> Test Cricket hasn't changed much over the years, has it?

I can't tell if that's rhetorical or not. Money-wise it's another world now. In
those days the players had a day job.




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:32:19
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 4:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0..=
.
>
> >> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> >> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> >> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player
> >> and only counting his free throw totals.
>
> >> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> >> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> >> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> >> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> >> sports."
>
> >> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> >> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> >> Bradman?
>
> > Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> > because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket. E-
> > mails won't change that.
>
> That's okay, but in that case the writer should have reached a qualified =
verdict
> rather than the sweeping "single best player in the history of profession=
al
> sports."

Well, the hyperbole involved is so predictable that you have to allow
for it and just translate it. Nothing to get upset about.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:19:33
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 3:44=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > =A0That alone makes
>
> > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of profession=
al
> > > > sports."
>
> > > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> > > great sense
> > > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > > player of all time. =A0A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (=
I
> > > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe=
,
> > > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.
>
> > Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> > Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> > with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> > cited.
>
> > > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> > Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> > played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> > merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> > champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> > the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> > schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
> > these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> > still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario
> > Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> > though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> > achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Fairly good analysis. I am personally of the opinion that Lemieux may
> be the best NHLer to ever lace up skates (hard to compare NHL players
> to the magic of the KLM line), and think that, unlike Gretzky, he
> could have done just as well in today's NHL due to his size.

IMO Lemieux is clearly the hockey talent GOAT of the post-expansion
(1968) era. (Note to non-fans: This is not the same expansion as the
WHA merger I mentioned.) Another historical parallel with the tennis
open era! But health problems and years' worth of lousy teammates
helped keep Lemieux's production below Gretzky's overall.

> Gretzky's
> vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled, though,
> IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the ice in his
> head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he was doing.

Yes. No one's mental gifts magnified his physical gifts more than
Gretzky's.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 23:34:30
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman

On 5-Feb-2009, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/02/04/Sports/Despite.Recent.Loss.Federer.Should.Stand.Among.Best.In.Sports.History-3610962-page2.shtml
>
> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> only counting his free throw totals.
>
> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> sports."
>
> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> Bradman?

Quite frankly, this is probably a case where a regional sports journalist is
hyping sports and players that are popular in the region. Nothing to lose
sleep about as I think this is a world-wide phenomenon. Then again, you
knew all of this already didn't you?


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 15:27:58
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On 5 feb, 22:19, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:44=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> > Gretzky's
> > vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled, though,
> > IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the ice in his
> > head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he was doing.
>
> Yes. No one's mental gifts magnified his physical gifts more than
> Gretzky's.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Never seen Gretzky nor Bradman but there is one man I would argue to
be at least equal to anyone *I* have ever seen in any sport. In terms
of mental fortitude and physical application, I wouldn't dare put
another athlete in front of him. Particularly considering the courage
necessary to compete within his particular (brutal) discipline.

In an environment in which there is a multitude of practical
possibilities leading to either victory or defeat and no definite
minima in available time or points system to safe oneself from 'sudden
death', the mental aspect - or ability - to block out everything that
distracts or hinders the performance is an unparalleled virtue. One
can imagine that in order to excel and distinguish oneself in such an
environment requires not just great physical powers, but the distinct
capability to 'live in the moment'.

I'm obviously talking about the MMA (mixed martial arts) fighter Fedor
Emelianenko; the greatest exponent of his sport. Virtually undefeated
in with 29 wins and only one loss. The sole loss coming through a
decision for of a cut inflicted by an illegal elbow. A fight he most
likely would have won had the decision not been made. He later avenged
the loss by a TKO in round 1.

A little clip for good measure (not for the faint hearted);

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DOyOF8PJscmM


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 12:32:36
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 3:07=A0pm, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =A0That alone makes
>
> > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > sports."
>
> Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> great sense
> of what was happening on the ice.
>
> But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> player of all time. =A0A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
> would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe,
> Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.

Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
cited.

> But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.

Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario
Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
achievements need to be placed in context.

Joe Ramirez



  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:05:37
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That alone makes
>>
>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
>>> professional sports."
>>
>> Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
>> great sense
>> of what was happening on the ice.
>>
>> But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
>> player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
>> would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie
>> Howe, Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list
>> goes on.
>
> Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> cited.
>
>> But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> champions post);

Dare I say it? = hockey clown era.




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 15:04:15
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 5:55=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 5:16 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 8:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> That alone makes
>
> >>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
> >>>>> professional sports."
>
> >>>> Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> >>>> great sense
> >>>> of what was happening on the ice.
>
> >>>> But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> >>>> player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
> >>>> would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie
> >>>> Howe, Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list
> >>>> goes on.
>
> >>> Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he
> >>> left Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one
> >>> more with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen
> >>> it cited.
>
> >>>> But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> >>> Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which
> >>> he played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post
> >>> NHL/WHA merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my
> >>> equilbrium/missing champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first
> >>> mindset throughout the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet
> >>> implemented defensive schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4)
> >>> smaller goalie pads. Now, these inflationary factors do not mean
> >>> that Gretzky's stats aren't still awesome. They are. Also, some of
> >>> his chief rivals, such as Mario Lemieux (our local hero) benefited
> >>> from these conditions as well, though perhaps not to the same
> >>> extent. But even the greatest achievements need to be placed in
> >>> context.
>
> >>> Joe Ramirez
>
> >> Similar arguments have been used against Bradman i.e. that the
> >> generally batsman-friendly pitches and sometimes variable bowling
> >> standards helped his average.
>
> >> But the proof of the pudding is to compare him to his contemporaries
> >> who presumably also had these benefits. Bradman's stats are still
> >> awesome compared to the next best ...
>
> > Indeed, a huge gap between an athlete and the best of his
> > contemporaries is a pretty reliable sign of true greatness.
>
> > One minor caveat, however, is that such huge gaps are more likely to
> > appear if a sport is only partially standardized, by which I mean
> > everyone has approximately equal access to all developments in
> > technique, training, coaching, strategy, equipment, etc. If cricket is
> > best viewed as an amateur sport in Bradman's day, that's a factor --
> > not in his success per se, but in the margin of his superiority.
>
> I don't think that's a factor. Bradman didn't have greater opportunity to=
do
> well than his contemporaries. He essentially taught himself and needed on=
ly to
> be able to play, like thousands of others.

Players teaching themselves to play is a clear indicator of a lack of
standardization within a sport. A Bradman type is *more likely* to
appear in such a competitive environment. However, someone still has
to step up to the plate (or whatever you call the batter's place in
cricket) and get the job done.

This doesn't mean that Bradman wasn't exceptionally great, or that his
contemporaries were "clowns." It's just a way of understanding how and
why such an outlier arose. Actual superhumans don't exist.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 19:36:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> Indeed, a huge gap between an athlete and the best of his
>>> contemporaries is a pretty reliable sign of true greatness.
>>> One minor caveat, however, is that such huge gaps are more likely to
>>> appear if a sport is only partially standardized, by which I mean
>>> everyone has approximately equal access to all developments in
>>> technique, training, coaching, strategy, equipment, etc. If cricket is
>>> best viewed as an amateur sport in Bradman's day, that's a factor --
>>> not in his success per se, but in the margin of his superiority.
>> I don't think that's a factor. Bradman didn't have greater opportunity to do
>> well than his contemporaries. He essentially taught himself and needed only to
>> be able to play, like thousands of others.
>
> Players teaching themselves to play is a clear indicator of a lack of
> standardization within a sport. A Bradman type is *more likely* to
> appear in such a competitive environment. However, someone still has
> to step up to the plate (or whatever you call the batter's place in
> cricket) and get the job done.
>
> This doesn't mean that Bradman wasn't exceptionally great, or that his
> contemporaries were "clowns." It's just a way of understanding how and
> why such an outlier arose. Actual superhumans don't exist.
>
> Joe Ramirez


Tiger Woods?



  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:11:17
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:55 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 5:16 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 5, 8:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote: That alone makes
>>
>>>>>>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
>>>>>>> professional sports."
>>
>>>>>> Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had
>>>>>> a great sense
>>>>>> of what was happening on the ice.
>>
>>>>>> But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
>>>>>> player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better
>>>>>> (I would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like
>>>>>> Gordie Howe, Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur,
>>>>>> this list goes on.
>>
>>>>> Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he
>>>>> left Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one
>>>>> more with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen
>>>>> it cited.
>>
>>>>>> But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>>
>>>>> Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in
>>>>> which he played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution
>>>>> post NHL/WHA merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my
>>>>> equilbrium/missing champions post); (2) freewheeling,
>>>>> offense-first mindset throughout the league; (3) unavailability
>>>>> of not-yet implemented defensive schemes, such as the neutral
>>>>> zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now, these inflationary
>>>>> factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't still awesome.
>>>>> They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario Lemieux
>>>>> (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well, though
>>>>> perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
>>>>> achievements need to be placed in context.
>>
>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>>> Similar arguments have been used against Bradman i.e. that the
>>>> generally batsman-friendly pitches and sometimes variable bowling
>>>> standards helped his average.
>>
>>>> But the proof of the pudding is to compare him to his
>>>> contemporaries who presumably also had these benefits. Bradman's
>>>> stats are still awesome compared to the next best ...
>>
>>> Indeed, a huge gap between an athlete and the best of his
>>> contemporaries is a pretty reliable sign of true greatness.
>>
>>> One minor caveat, however, is that such huge gaps are more likely to
>>> appear if a sport is only partially standardized, by which I mean
>>> everyone has approximately equal access to all developments in
>>> technique, training, coaching, strategy, equipment, etc. If cricket
>>> is best viewed as an amateur sport in Bradman's day, that's a
>>> factor -- not in his success per se, but in the margin of his
>>> superiority.
>>
>> I don't think that's a factor. Bradman didn't have greater
>> opportunity to do well than his contemporaries. He essentially
>> taught himself and needed only to be able to play, like thousands of
>> others.
>
> Players teaching themselves to play is a clear indicator of a lack of
> standardization within a sport. A Bradman type is *more likely* to
> appear in such a competitive environment.

In that case you'd expect more than one of them. He is a single, massive outlier
in 130 years.




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 15:03:50
From: arahim
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 9:04=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> only counting his free throw totals.
>
> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> sports."
>
> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> Bradman?

There was a man named Jahangir Khan ...


 
Date: 06 Feb 2009 01:01:15
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/02/04/Sports/Despite.Recent.Loss.Federer.Should.Stand.Among.Best.In.Sports.History-3610962-page2.shtml
>
>"Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
>has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
>Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
>only counting his free throw totals.
>
>What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
>"The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
>sports."
>
>Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>Bradman?

This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
players?

Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
lists.

OTOH, having followed all kinds of sports very closely all my life, I
still have only heard about this guy Bradman in rst, and I always
confuse him with the Eurosport tennis commentator. But I realize
cricket is big in some parts of the world. So these kind of arguments
can also go on forever.


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 18:42:02
From: Davide Tosi - Strange Vertigo
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman? No way, try Eddie Merckx
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:01:15 +0200, Sakari Lund
<sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote:

>On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:04:19 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
><arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/02/04/Sports/Despite.Recent.Loss.Federer.Should.Stand.Among.Best.In.Sports.History-3610962-page2.shtml
>>
>>"Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
>>has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
>>Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
>>only counting his free throw totals.
>>
>>What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>>seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>>respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
>>"The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
>>sports."
>>
>>Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>>American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>>Bradman?
>
>This thread makes almost as much sense as comparing tennis players
>from different eras. Comparing cricket players with ice hockey
>players?
>
>Now Wayne Gretzky played his best years with Jari Kurri, which
>confirms the fact that over here EVERYONE knows him, and some might
>think he is one of the best sportsmen ever. I represent the view that
>ice hockey is a marginal sport in a world scale (even though it is #1
>sport here), so hockey players can't really be in the top of the
>lists.

It's not the sport popularity that makes the best athlete.
The best sportsman of all time should be someone who has the biggest
gap on the 2nd best in his own sport.
So, to me there's only 1 answer to that question: EDDIE MERCKX.
If you take his stats and then the ones of whoever you might consider
the 2nd best cyclist ever (many possible candidates for that role:
Coppi, Van Looy, Hinault, Armstrong) you will see that the gap is
simply ridiculous. While 'the Cannibal' has won everything was there
to win multiple times, everybody else is missing at least 2/3 major
cycling titles even once. Out of 9 major titles in cycling, noone tops
Merckx in more than 1 of these titles, while he tops everybody else in
at least 6 of them. Amazing!



 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:58:29
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 10:48=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2:19=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 5:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0.=
..
>
> > > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> > > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player an=
d
> > > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > > sports."
>
> > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > Bradman?
>
> > *cough* Jahangir =A0Khan *cough*?
>
> > or even
>
> > *cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?
>
> ++ My wife tells me Jahangir Khan was 'DA MAN'... so I defer to her on
> indoor racket sports... lol
>
> P

Unbeaten for five years - 555 consecutive matches ...



  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 10:09:02
From: viper
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman

<gregorawe@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:ffdb314d-1331-403c-b1f3-60e2bd961a59@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 5, 10:48 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2:19 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 5:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> > > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> > > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> > > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > > sports."
>
> > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > Bradman?
>
> > *cough* Jahangir Khan *cough*?
>
> > or even
>
> > *cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?
>
> ++ My wife tells me Jahangir Khan was 'DA MAN'... so I defer to her on
> indoor racket sports... lol
>
> P

Unbeaten for five years - 555 consecutive matches ...


Cough, splutter......Heather McKay


Viper




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:46:20
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 1:19=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:44=A0pm, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > =A0That alone makes
>
> > > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professi=
onal
> > > > > sports."
>
> > > > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> > > > great sense
> > > > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > > > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > > > player of all time. =A0A good number would say Bobby Orr was better=
(I
> > > > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Ho=
we,
> > > > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on=
.
>
> > > Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he lef=
t
> > > Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> > > with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> > > cited.
>
> > > > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> > > Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which h=
e
> > > played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> > > merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> > > champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> > > the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> > > schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
> > > these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> > > still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mari=
o
> > > Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> > > though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> > > achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > Fairly good analysis. I am personally of the opinion that Lemieux may
> > be the best NHLer to ever lace up skates (hard to compare NHL players
> > to the magic of the KLM line), and think that, unlike Gretzky, he
> > could have done just as well in today's NHL due to his size.
>
> IMO Lemieux is clearly the hockey talent GOAT of the post-expansion
> (1968) era. (Note to non-fans: This is not the same expansion as the
> WHA merger I mentioned.) Another historical parallel with the tennis
> open era! But health problems and years' worth of lousy teammates
> helped keep Lemieux's production below Gretzky's overall.
>
> > Gretzky's
> > vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled, though,
> > IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the ice in his
> > head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he was doing.
>
> Yes. No one's mental gifts magnified his physical gifts more than
> Gretzky's.
>
> Joe Ramirez-


++ Lemieux is also my hockey talentGOAT... Orr the most revolutionary
player and all time aestheticGOAT, lol ... Orr was a marvel to watch
skating... 5 Bobby Orr's vs. 5 Gretzky's and the Orr's win, in the
ultimate silly scrimmage, though 5 Lemieux's might take out 5 Orr's
come to think of it... LOL... what newsgroup is this again??? +chuckle
+



P


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:19:33
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 5:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> only counting his free throw totals.
>
> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> sports."
>
> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> Bradman?

*cough* Jahangir Khan *cough*?

or even

*cough* Jansher Khan *cough*?


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:17:17
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 5:30=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > sports."
>
> > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > Bradman?
>
> Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket. E-
> mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far touting a
> famous darts champion.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Phil Taylor - 14 times World Darts Champion ...



 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 12:07:21
From: drew
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
That alone makes
> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> sports."

Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
great sense
of what was happening on the ice.

But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe,
Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.

But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 09:50:41
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On 7 helmi, 14:44, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 00:23:49 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>
>
>
> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> >Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> >> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
> >> Undefeated over his entire career, since a defeat would mean death.
> >> Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
> >> level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
> >> -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
> >> Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
> >> control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
> >> look scatterbrained.
>
> >> Joe Ramirez
> >=A8
> >If you need the all-time sport GOAT it is Alexander Karelin. Just
> >check his numbers + undefeated for 13years.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelin
>
> >During the times when I was athlete (late 80:ies early 90:ies) the was
> >a strong rumour among the coaches that Karelin had also shot putted
> >22m at USSR training camp.
>
> You did what in late 80's and early 90's?

Junior ranks (13y-18y) Shot put, Javelin, 100m, hurdles, discus...just
name it..

I was at national junior team training camps for some years. The best
achievements...hmm..2nd place at junior nationals. I have about 30
"piirinmestaruutta"=3Dlocal county champs? from various years, events
and ranks,.

Then my knee stopped me for 6 months 1989. I recovered but then after
military service it was all over.

.mikko


   
Date: 07 Feb 2009 20:00:32
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:50:41 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
<michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

>On 7 helmi, 14:44, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 00:23:49 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>>
>>
>>
>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>> >> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit.
>> >> Undefeated over his entire career, since a defeat would mean death.
>> >> Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
>> >> level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just one!
>> >> -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
>> >> Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman body
>> >> control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
>> >> look scatterbrained.
>>
>> >> Joe Ramirez
>> >¨
>> >If you need the all-time sport GOAT it is Alexander Karelin. Just
>> >check his numbers + undefeated for 13years.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelin
>>
>> >During the times when I was athlete (late 80:ies early 90:ies) the was
>> >a strong rumour among the coaches that Karelin had also shot putted
>> >22m at USSR training camp.
>>
>> You did what in late 80's and early 90's?
>
>Junior ranks (13y-18y) Shot put, Javelin, 100m, hurdles, discus...just
>name it..
>
>I was at national junior team training camps for some years. The best
>achievements...hmm..2nd place at junior nationals. I have about 30
>"piirinmestaruutta"=local county champs? from various years, events
>and ranks,.
>
>Then my knee stopped me for 6 months 1989. I recovered but then after
>military service it was all over.

OK, that looks like a promising decathlon career... Although I think
that is usual for juniors in athletics to do everything.

Did you play tennis then too, or only later? I remember from your
posts you are pretty good at tennis too.



 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:10:58
From:
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 9:23=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 3:12 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 4:07 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 5, 11:30 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/=
0...
>
> >>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other
> >>>>> player has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would
> >>>>> be like Jordan finishing his career with more points than any
> >>>>> other player and only counting his free throw totals.
>
> >>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> >>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> >>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone
> >>>>> makes "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
> >>>>> professional sports."
>
> >>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> >>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> >>>>> Bradman?
>
> >>>> Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> >>>> because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket.
> >>>> E- mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far
> >>>> touting a famous darts champion.
>
> >>>> Joe Ramirez
>
> >>> That just reflects poorly on North American journalists.
>
> >> Do Asian journalists mention Gretzky when they write articles
> >> extolling cricket greats?
>
> >> Joe Ramirez
>
> > No. But this journalist was treating the delicate matter of who is
> > "the single best player in the history of professional
> > sports", in an article about Federer's performance in the AO final
> > nevertheless. I believe Bradman deserves a nod there.
>
> Maybe the journalist has an out: Did cricket in Bradman's time qualify as
> "professional sports"?

Well, there were some professionals - mostly English who could make a
living with regular county cricket.

Bradman was amateur I guess - I think he had a job in a bank or
something when he wasn't playing cricket, though that may only have
been earlier in his career. There wasn't enough state cricket in
Australia to support full-time players I don't think (not 100% sure
about this though).



  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 23:28:50
From: DC
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
gregorawe@hotmail.com said the following on 6/02/2009 7:10 AM:
> Well, there were some professionals - mostly English who could make a
> living with regular county cricket.
>
> Bradman was amateur I guess - I think he had a job in a bank or

He was a stockbroker.

> something when he wasn't playing cricket, though that may only have
> been earlier in his career. There wasn't enough state cricket in
> Australia to support full-time players I don't think (not 100% sure
> about this though).

There's a comparison of him to other leading sports figures at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradman#World_sport_context

This article http://historyofcricket.blogspot.com/2007/12/strike.html
would tend to suggest that many test players were professional from the
early days of cricket. I don't know if Bradman was, but I would be
surprised if he wasn't.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:50:42
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 1:40=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 3:23 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>> On Feb 6, 3:12 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 5, 4:07 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 5, 11:30 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/200=
9/0...
>
> >>>>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other
> >>>>>>> player has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That
> >>>>>>> would be like Jordan finishing his career with more points than
> >>>>>>> any other player and only counting his free throw totals.
>
> >>>>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> >>>>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26
> >>>>>>> seasons, respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers.
> >>>>>>> That alone makes "The Great One" the single best player in the
> >>>>>>> history of professional sports."
>
> >>>>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> >>>>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> >>>>>>> Bradman?
>
> >>>>>> Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> >>>>>> because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket.
> >>>>>> E- mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far
> >>>>>> touting a famous darts champion.
>
> >>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>
> >>>>> That just reflects poorly on North American journalists.
>
> >>>> Do Asian journalists mention Gretzky when they write articles
> >>>> extolling cricket greats?
>
> >>>> Joe Ramirez
>
> >>> No. But this journalist was treating the delicate matter of who is
> >>> "the single best player in the history of professional
> >>> sports", in an article about Federer's performance in the AO final
> >>> nevertheless. I believe Bradman deserves a nod there.
>
> >> Maybe the journalist has an out: Did cricket in Bradman's time
> >> qualify as "professional sports"?
>
> > Test Cricket hasn't changed much over the years, has it?
>
> I can't tell if that's rhetorical or not. Money-wise it's another world n=
ow. In
> those days the players had a day job.

Like comparing Unitas and Montana ...


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:17:41
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 3:12=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 4:07=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 11:30=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 12:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/=
0...
>
> > > > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other playe=
r
> > > > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > > > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player =
and
> > > > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > > > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > > > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > > > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone mak=
es
> > > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of profession=
al
> > > > sports."
>
> > > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > > Bradman?
>
> > > Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> > > because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket. E-
> > > mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far touting a
> > > famous darts champion.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > That just reflects poorly on North American journalists.
>
> Do Asian journalists mention Gretzky when they write articles
> extolling cricket greats?
>
> Joe Ramirez

No. But this journalist was treating the delicate matter of who is
"the single best player in the history of professional
sports", in an article about Federer's performance in the AO final
nevertheless. I believe Bradman deserves a nod there.


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:23:48
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:12 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 4:07 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 11:30 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>
>>>>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other
>>>>> player has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would
>>>>> be like Jordan finishing his career with more points than any
>>>>> other player and only counting his free throw totals.
>>
>>>>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>>>>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>>>>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone
>>>>> makes "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
>>>>> professional sports."
>>
>>>>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>>>>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>>>>> Bradman?
>>
>>>> Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
>>>> because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket.
>>>> E- mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far
>>>> touting a famous darts champion.
>>
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>> That just reflects poorly on North American journalists.
>>
>> Do Asian journalists mention Gretzky when they write articles
>> extolling cricket greats?
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> No. But this journalist was treating the delicate matter of who is
> "the single best player in the history of professional
> sports", in an article about Federer's performance in the AO final
> nevertheless. I believe Bradman deserves a nod there.

Maybe the journalist has an out: Did cricket in Bradman's time qualify as
"professional sports"?




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:13:34
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 4:05=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> That alone makes
>
> >>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of
> >>> professional sports."
>
> >> Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> >> great sense
> >> of what was happening on the ice.
>
> >> But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> >> player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
> >> would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie
> >> Howe, Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list
> >> goes on.
>
> > Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> > Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> > with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> > cited.
>
> >> But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> > Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> > played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> > merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> > champions post);
>
> Dare I say it? =3D hockey clown era.

If and only if by "clown era" you mean transitory disequilibrium, I
agree. :)

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:12:24
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 4:07=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:30=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0.=
..
>
> > > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> > > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player an=
d
> > > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > > sports."
>
> > > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > > Bradman?
>
> > Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> > because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket. E-
> > mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far touting a
> > famous darts champion.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> That just reflects poorly on North American journalists.

Do Asian journalists mention Gretzky when they write articles
extolling cricket greats?

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:07:29
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 11:30=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> > "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> > has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> > Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> > only counting his free throw totals.
>
> > What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> > seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> > respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > sports."
>
> > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > Bradman?
>
> Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket. E-
> mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far touting a
> famous darts champion.
>
> Joe Ramirez

That just reflects poorly on North American journalists.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:03:14
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 6, 2:42=A0am, "andrew.r...@gmail.com" <andrew.r...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:04 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> > American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> > Bradman?
>
> Stick to complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.

Stick to sucking my dick.

My points stands. To reel off names like Gretzky, Jordan, etc. and not
even mention Bradman, even in the passing, in this age of Internet, is
abominable.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 12:44:24
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:07 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That alone makes
>
> > > "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> > > sports."
>
> > Didn't have a great shot, wasn't the smoothest skater but he had a
> > great sense
> > of what was happening on the ice.
>
> > But even hockey fans don't universally consider him the greatest
> > player of all time. A good number would say Bobby Orr was better (I
> > would agree), and there were so many all-time greats like Gordie Howe,
> > Rocket Richard, Lemieux, Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur, this list goes on.
>
> Then there's the fact that Gretzky never won another Cup after he left
> Edmonton, whereas Messier won another with the Oilers and one more
> with the Rangers. This is not a big deal to me, but I've seen it
> cited.
>
> > But if you like stats then Gretzky is your man.
>
> Gretzky's stats were inflated by the conditions of the era in which he
> played his most productive years: (1) talent dilution post NHL/WHA
> merger (I mentioned this point years ago in my equilbrium/missing
> champions post); (2) freewheeling, offense-first mindset throughout
> the league; (3) unavailability of not-yet implemented defensive
> schemes, such as the neutral zone trap; (4) smaller goalie pads. Now,
> these inflationary factors do not mean that Gretzky's stats aren't
> still awesome. They are. Also, some of his chief rivals, such as Mario
> Lemieux (our local hero) benefited from these conditions as well,
> though perhaps not to the same extent. But even the greatest
> achievements need to be placed in context.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Fairly good analysis. I am personally of the opinion that Lemieux may
be the best NHLer to ever lace up skates (hard to compare NHL players
to the magic of the KLM line), and think that, unlike Gretzky, he
could have done just as well in today's NHL due to his size. Gretzky's
vision and sense of what was going on remains unparalleled, though,
IMO. It seemed like he always had an overhead view of the ice in his
head no matter where he was on the rink, or what he was doing.


  
Date: 07 Feb 2009 12:50:50
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On 7 helmi, 20:00, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:50:41 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>
>
>
>
>
> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >On 7 helmi, 14:44, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 00:23:49 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>
> >> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> >> >> If these are the criteria, then the GOAT of GOATs is Philippe Petit=
.
> >> >> Undefeated over his entire =A0career, since a defeat would mean dea=
th.
> >> >> Real death, not metaphorical death. Can you imagine playing a top-
> >> >> level tennis match and knowing that a single missed shot -- just on=
e!
> >> >> -- means instant death? 45 minutes on a wire 400 meters in the air!
> >> >> Walking, kneeling, and even lying down. If that's not superhuman bo=
dy
> >> >> control and mental strength, nothing is. Makes even the great Nadal
> >> >> look scatterbrained.
>
> >> >> Joe Ramirez
> >> >=A8
> >> >If you need the all-time sport GOAT it is Alexander Karelin. Just
> >> >check his numbers + undefeated for 13years.
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelin
>
> >> >During the times when I was athlete (late 80:ies early 90:ies) the wa=
s
> >> >a strong rumour among the coaches that Karelin had also shot putted
> >> >22m at USSR training camp.
>
> >> You did what in late 80's and early 90's?
>
> >Junior ranks (13y-18y) Shot put, Javelin, 100m, hurdles, discus...just
> >name it..
>
> >I was at national junior team training camps for some years. The best
> >achievements...hmm..2nd place at junior nationals. I have about 30
> >"piirinmestaruutta"=3Dlocal county champs? from various years, events
> >and ranks,.
>
> >Then my knee stopped me for 6 months 1989. I recovered but then after
> >military service it was all over.
>
> OK, that looks like a promising decathlon career... Although I think
> that is usual for juniors in athletics to do everything.

Pole vault (I had never practised it just competed at octaclon (like
decathlon but with 8 events for 15-16y) and 1000m/1500 were pain..even
more than you could imagine and produced usually very scarce
points ....

> Did you play tennis then too, or only later? I remember from your
> posts you are pretty good at tennis too.- Piilota siteerattu teksti -

No. I started tennis after my athletics "career".

.mikko




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 12:42:14
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 9:04 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> Bradman?

Stick to complaining about how much Whisper is trolling.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 09:30:18
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 12:04=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> only counting his free throw totals.
>
> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> sports."
>
> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> Bradman?

Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket. E-
mails won't change that. You would probably get just as far touting a
famous darts champion.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 08:10:31
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:04 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>>
>> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
>> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
>> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player
>> and only counting his free throw totals.
>>
>> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
>> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
>> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
>> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
>> sports."
>>
>> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
>> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
>> Bradman?
>
> Most North American sports journalists don't care about cricket
> because North American sports audiences don't care about cricket. E-
> mails won't change that.

That's okay, but in that case the writer should have reached a qualified verdict
rather than the sweeping "single best player in the history of professional
sports."




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 09:21:49
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Gretzky? Try Bradman
On Feb 5, 9:04=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2009/0...
>
> "Gretzky finished his career with more assists than any other player
> has points (goals + assists). Think about that. That would be like
> Jordan finishing his career with more points than any other player and
> only counting his free throw totals.
>
> What makes it even more impressive is that Gretzky did it in 20
> seasons while second and third all-time needed 25 and 26 seasons,
> respectively, to finish with those kinds of numbers. That alone makes
> "The Great One" the single best player in the history of professional
> sports."
>
> Can somebody email this obviously ill-informed parochial North
> American sports journalist about a cricket player named Donald
> Bradman?

Bradman super great to be sure... but, have a look at Gretzky's
accomplishments...


Gretzky's Official Career Records:

Regular season records (40)

Most goals: 894 in 1,487 games
Most goals, including playoffs: 1,016 in 1,487 regular season and 208
playoff games
Most goals, one season: 92 in 1981=9682, 80-game schedule
Most goals, one season, including playoffs: 100 in 1983=9684, 87 goals
in 74 regular season games and 13 goals in 19 playoff games
Most goals, 50 games from start of season: 61 in 1981=9682 (October 7,
1981 to January 22, 1982, 80-game schedule) and 1983=9684 (October 5,
1983 to January 25, 1984), 80-game schedule
Most goals, one period: 4 (Tied with 10 other players) February 18,
1981
Most assists: 1,963
Most assists, including playoffs: 2,223
Most assists, one season: 163 in 1985=9686, 80-game schedule
Most assists, one season, including playoffs: 174 in 1985=9686, 163
assists in 80 regular season games and 11 assists in 10 playoff games
Most assists, one game: 7 (tied with Billy "The Kid" Taylor) done
three times -- February 15, 1980; December 11, 1985; February 14,
1986
Most assists, one road game: 7 (tied with Billy Taylor) December 11,
1985
Most points: 2,857 in 1,487 games (894 goals, 1,963 assists)
Most points, including playoffs: 3,239 in 1,487 regular season and 208
playoff games. (1016 goals, 2223 assists)
Most points, one season: 215 in 1985=9686, 80-game schedule (52 goals,
163 assists)
Most points, one season, including playoffs: 255 in 1984=9685; 208
points in 80 regular season games and 47 points in 18 playoff games
Most overtime assists, career: 15
Most goals by a centre, career: 894
Most goals by a centre, one season: 92 in 1981=9682, 80-game schedule
Most assists by a centre, career: 1,963
Most assists by a centre, one season: 163 in 1985=9686, 80-game
schedule
Most points by a centre, career: 2,857
Most points by a centre, one season: 215 in 1985=9686, 80-game schedule
Most assists in one game by a player in his first season: 7 on
February 15, 1980
Highest goals-per-game average, one season: 1.18 in 1983=9684, 87 goals
in 74 games
Highest assists-per-game average, career (300 min.): 1.321 -- 1,963
assists in 1,487 games
Highest assists-per-game average, one season: 2.04 in 1985=9686, 163
assists in 80 games
Highest points-per-game average, one season (among players with 50-or-
more points): 2.77 in 1983=9684, 205 points in 74 games
Most 40-or-more goal season: 12 in 20 seasons
Most consecutive 40-or-more goal season: 12 from 1979=9680 to 1990=9691
Most 50-or-more goal seasons: 9 (tied with Mike Bossy)
Most 60-or-more goal seasons: 5 (tied with Mike Bossy)
Most consecutive 60-or-more goals seasons: 4 from 1981=9682 to 1984=9685
Most 100-or-more point seasons: 15
Most consecutive 100-or-more point seasons: 13 from 1979=9680 to 1991=96
92
Most three-or-more goal games, career: 50 -- 37 three-goal (hat trick)
games; nine four-goal games; four five-goal games
Most three goal games, one season: 10 (done twice) in 1981=9682 and 1983=96
84
Longest consecutive assist scoring streak: 23 games in 1990=9691, 48
assists
Longest consecutive point-scoring streak: 51 Games in 1983=9684 (October
5, 1983 to January 28, 1984, 61 goals, 92 assists for 153 points)
Longest consecutive point-scoring streak from start of season: 51 in
1983=9684; 61 goals, 92 assists for 153 points (October 5, 1983 to
January 28, 1984)

Playoff records (15)

Most playoff goals, career: 122
Most playoff assists, career: 260
Most assists, one playoff year: 31 in 1988 (19 games)
Most assists in one series (other than final): 14 (tied with Rick
Middleton) in 1985 Conference Finals (six games vs. Chicago)
Most assists in final series: 10 in 1988 (four games, plus suspended
game vs. Boston)
Most assists, one playoff game: 6 (tied with Mikko Leinonen) on April
9, 1987
Most assists, one playoff period: 3 -- Three assists by one player in
one period of a playoff game has been recorded on 70 occasions.
Gretzky has had three assists in one period five times
Most points, career: 382 -- 122 goals and 260 assists
Most points, one playoff year: 47 in 1985 (17 goals and 30 assists in
18 games)
Most points in final series: 13 in 1988 three goals and 10 assists
(four games plus suspended game vs. Boston, three goals)
Most points, one playoff period: 4 (tied with nine other players)
Most short-handed goals, one playoff year: 3 (tied with five other
players) 1983
Most short-handed goals, one playoff game: 2 (tied with eight other
players) April 6, 1983
Most game winning goals in playoffs, career: 24 (tied with Brett
Hull)
Most three-or-more goals games (hat trick): 10 (eight three-goal
games, two four-goal games)

All-Star records (6)

Most All-Star game goals: 13 (in 18 games played)
Most All-Star game goals, one game: 4 (tied with three players) 1983
Campbell Conference
Most All-Star game goals, one period: 4 1983 Campbell Conference,
third period
Most All-Star game assists, career: 12 (tied with four players)
Most All-Star game points, career: 25 (13 goals, 12 assists in 18
games)
Most All-Star game points, one period: 4 (tied with Mike Gartner and
Adam Oates) 1983 Campbell Conference, third period (four goals)

Along with his numerous official records, Wayne Gretzky also has many
"unofficial" records. These other records are not recognised by the
NHL Official Guide and Record Book.

Youngest player to score 50 goals in a season (19 years, two months)
Most points by an NHL player in his first year: 137. He was not
considered a rookie in his first year, so the rookie record belongs to
Teemu Selanne with 132
Most assists by an NHL player in his first year: 86. The rookie record
is held jointly by Peter Stastny and Joe Juneau with 70 assists. Note
that the record book gives Gretzky the record for most assists and
points in a game as a first year player, but not the season totals
Most 200 point seasons: 4. Gretzky owns the official record for most
100 point seasons. He is the only player to reach 200 points in a
season
Most consecutive 200 point seasons: 3
Most 70 goal seasons: 4. The NHL has a record for most 60 goal
seasons, but not 70. Eight players have achieved 70 goals.
Most consecutive 70 goal seasons: 4
Most 80 goal seasons: 2
Most 90 goal seasons: 1. Gretzky is the only player to achieve this
Fastest 50 goals: 50 goals in 39 games. 50 goals in 50 games is
labelled as the most difficult one to break of all of Gretzky's
records. The NHL has an official record for the most goals in 50
games, but not the fastest 50 goals
Fastest 100 points: 34 games in 1983=9684
Most seasons averaging over 2 points a game: 10. Mario Lemieux, the
only other player in modern NHL history to do it, did it six times
Most game winning goals in the playoffs: 24 (tied with Brett Hull)
Most 100 assist seasons: 11
Most consecutive 100 assist seasons: 11
Most NHL and WHA regular season assists: 2,027
Most NHL and WHA regular season points: 2,967
Most NHL and WHA regular season and playoff goals: 1,072 (one more
than Gordie Howe)
Most NHL and WHA regular season and playoff assists: 2,297
Most NHL and WHA regular season and playoff points: 3,369
Most MVP awards (Hart Trophy): 9
Most scoring championships (Art Ross Trophy): 10
Largest margin of victory in the scoring race: 79 (in 1983=9684)
Most seasons where he was his team's leading scorer: 19
Most official NHL records: 61 on retirement, 60 at present


The following are milestone records:

Fastest 400 Goals (436 games)
Fastest 500 Goals (575 games)
Fastest 600 Goals (718 games, one less than Mario Lemieux)
Fastest 700 Goals (886 games)
Fastest 800 Goals (1116 games)
Fastest 1000 Points (424 games)
Only Player To Reach 2000 Career Points