What about Shoemaker in F1? I don't watch F1, but the people I know that do say he's the best.
Anyone know?
What about Shoemaker in F1? I don't watch F1, but the people I know that do say he's the best.
Anyone know?
Lance is a CHOICE pick. Somehow he totally slipped my mind.
He's up there with Ali, MJ, and Tiger, for sure.
I'm not feeling Pele, or even Ruth, really. Certainly not Schumacher.
I know I'm about to catch hell for this, but early 2000's-era Barry Bonds was better at hitting home runs than Babe Ruth ever was.
In anticipation for the 'juice' card, just know that he went up against juiced up pitching, as well.
Luminaire is always good at preemptively covering the next logical counterpoint. I agree that he went up against juiced pitching, but the technology has also changed significantly in what we know about materials and the human body. JMHO, but I think the more equitable comparison would be of their relative dominance. That might also be a difficult comparison since Bonds never enjoyed the protection that Ruth had in his lineup.
Yeah see the technology thing is where it gets real tricky. Even non-steroidal technology. And it applies to every sport.
But I'm still taking prime Barry over prime Ruth if I'm handicapping a home run derby.
Taking Tiger swinging a golf club over either one, however.
Hard to say, Ruth was a revolutionary player. It is kind of like saying you dont think the Beatles were that great or they were overrated. It is hard to overrate revolutionary. I mean that Babe was revolutionary in the fact that he played in an era where 14 bombs in a year was awesome and he was dropping 40.
I dont think my stats are exact, but I think the point stands. Yeh, in golf, your opponent doesnt directly affect your play, but you cant affect their play either, so even to me. Outside of mind games obviously. I would actually say that Federer has more advantage in the effect on an opponent's play with his ridiculous serving ability. I cant stand to watch men's tennis hardly. Women's is almost more entertaining because you have more volley.
You cant tell me that playing the whole field in an instant is easier to win at than playing 6 rounds. Yeh, Federer might run into a couple of guys playing great tennis in a tournament. Tiger can run into 10 playing great golf.
I dont really have an opinion on who is better because I think the two sports and their setup is incomparable.
Tiger is up against 100 guys ever tournament. All it takes is 10 of them to be playing good golf for him to struggle to win.
You just cant compare the two sports. Before Tiger came along, it was good to finish in the top ten 5 tournaments in a row. Now, people are astonished if he doesnt finish there every time.
I will say that Federer has not had any long stretches where he lacked dominance. Tiger has had those.
So, what is the difference? He still has to beat 100 guys' scores. Does a sprinter compete? Nothing he does directly affects another runner, right? Matter of fact, I can think of many olympic sports that are like this (all swimming and gymnastics, all running events). So, you dont have to beat the competition? I dont understand. Just because it isnt head to head pitcher versus batter or tennis player versus tennis player, doesnt mean you dont have to beat the guys you are playing.
I love federer, but to me, you have to be able to win anywhere. Imagine if Tiger couldn't win on a Links course, but still dominated everywhere else. No one would say he was the best ever. There are many europeans who dominate Links courses that can't even compare to Tiger. You have to dominate no matter where you play.