Posts by Emily Thomas3

lale 🙏 🙏 🙏

Kevin Chavez3 said:total Jazz icon👋 🤣

maybe just a desktop icon🤮 but I can't even complain, Indiana is playing this year. Hopefully they put something actually decent on the second stage while this guy is busy "Jazzing" out.

Larry Morales12 said:Don't talk nonsense. Last year I used my student ID because I had my registrar card on me. The website clearly states you get the discount if you show an ID, a student card, or some proof from the university. Since I graduated and I'm not a student anymore, I just want to know if I show up with a student card, can they actually check if I'm still enrolled or not! That's all I care about.

If you finished college, you should be pretty busted for using that student card.🤷

Just so everyone's on the same page, NCAA basketball shot clocks run for 35 seconds. I'm also curious who even comes up with these kinds of questions.

Daniel Booth37 said:Even if you can't really compare them competitively—since being the best at anything is a massive grind—I still think there's a valid way to distinguish sports based on pure physical stakes. High-speed downhill skiing or Formula 1, where a single race could end in a tragedy caused by the environment rather than just health issues, are definitely more intense and taxing on the body than something like target shooting or curling. I love all sports, honestly, but some just demand much higher risks and effort. You've felt it yourself, so you know where the physical wall hits first, like in baseball or football. Some sports lean heavily on raw athleticism, while others prioritize skill, coordination, and IQ. In sprinting, it's the first one; in baseball, it's more the second. It’s all subjective, but I'm personally more blown away by the high-risk stuff. There's just more of that "pushing human limits" vibe compared to team sports. You mentioned soccer; it’s physically demanding, sure, but at its core, it's still just a game. None of my top-tier athletes are soccer players. 🙂

Which is totally fine, but it doesn't really hold water in an objective debate meant to measure an athlete's actual achievements.
When we dive into subjective territory, that's a whole different ballgame, and everything you said works there simply because it's based on personal taste and perception. 🙂

Daniel Booth37 said:You know me—I’m not one to trash any sport, but I meant exactly what I said. On a global scale, Babe Ruth isn't really a massive figure in sports history, but here in the States? He’s a legend.

Yeah, it’s mostly just because MLB is so huge, but that doesn't actually mean anything when you're talking about pure athletic achievement. Honestly, I find those debates between fans of different athletes totally absurd—like people arguing over who's "greater" based on which sport has more competition. You can't use how popular a sport is as an objective way to compare two elite athletes from different disciplines. To me, reaching the top in discus, MLB, football, or even curling is equally impressive. I really don't get why people try to use "global impact" as a metric for greatness.

Daniel Booth37 said:I mean, MLB (just like a lot of other sports) isn't exactly an endurance test like swimming or cycling, right? Plus, you've got to factor in the jet lag. That goes for way more than just baseball, though—it applies to plenty of other team and individual sports too.

I don't really get why people think how much cardio an athlete puts in is the only way to measure their value in a sport.
When it comes to the time gap between eras, I’ve gotta say that MLB is one of those sports where the timeline hasn't actually changed much. Once you strip away the "deadball era" quirks, you can easily stack up Ruth's stats against guys playing today or even fifty years from now. The only real headache for analysts right now is this whole steroid era, which definitely pumped up some numbers way more than they should have been.

Daniel Booth37 said:I mean, it’s no secret that other sports don't grind through a 162-game regular season. Football is definitely more physically punishing than MLB. Sports just vary—some are all about raw power, speed, and endurance, while others are more about IQ and pure skill.

So, what’s the deal with saying physical sports are somehow more valuable than ones driven by coordination, skill, and IQ? Are we really claiming that athletes who just "push the limits of human biology" have contributed more to sports than those who don't? If that's the logic, we might as well write off MLB as a relevant sport. If you look at the top 20 players in history, you won't find many pure specimens who redefined human physical limits in some other field. Baseball is a game where tactical intelligence, hand-eye coordination, and sheer skill are just as vital—if not more so—than raw speed, power, or stamina.

btw MLB isn't exactly explosive, high-octane, or aerobic (even if you're absolutely gassed trying to track down fly balls in the outfield 😉), but the main reason they can grind out such a massive schedule is because it's not a contact sport. It’s kind of like tennis, where the top pros end up playing over 100 matches a season.

Daniel Booth37 said:so, when we're talking about MLB, Ruth doesn't get an oversized reputation since he's definitely one of the greatest to ever do it. But if we're looking at the entire global sporting landscape, I find it hard to see it ranked as high as Americans tend to put it. That said, I'm not really interested in that whole "Americans think soccer is trash, while others think football is trash" type of relativism. Every sport has its own dedicated fans and players, and how widespread it gets just depends on a ton of different factors.

personally, I don't think relativizing by putting athletes on some sort of global scale makes much sense. We can talk about their importance within their own specific sports based purely on stats and results, but when you move to that global scale, you have to factor in popularity, tradition, and reach—things that don't actually have much to do with the sport itself.

In my opinion, Wilt Chamberlain is a massive overhyped legend. The guy’s stats are insane—he dominated the league like nobody else ever has—but he played on powerhouse teams and still only walked away with two rings, while Bill Russell was racking up 11 during that same era. To me, it's the ultimate proof that basketball stats are a pretty lousy way to measure true greatness; they might give you a general idea, but they aren't the gold standard for how good a player actually is.

Raymond Anderson4 said:Is Tom Brady really that great of a QB?

I don't know, man. He seems alright to me. I think he just landed in a system that runs like a well-oiled machine, plus he’s got an offensive line that lets him sit in the pocket comfortably for at least five seconds.

Tom Brady has three rings, and before Randy Moss showed up, he didn't even have a decent WR. That first title was a total shocker, too. I'm not sure if you caught his games before his injury, but what made him elite was his ability to hold steady in the pocket and zip the ball away right before getting leveled. Since the injury, he's definitely been more impatient, though staying away from interceptions this season has been 🙏 🙏 🙏 impressive, regardless of the OL. And let's be real, the Patriots didn't have the best offensive line in the league this year.

dustyridge3 said:Keeping this on topic.
Personally, I think Tony Hawk is overrated too. He was legit back in his prime, but watching him play just grinds my gears lately. Maybe people give him credit because of all those off-field "scandals," like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POyFvDgV2cU🤣🤣🤣), but as a player, he hasn't been relevant for ages.

Except for the fact that he led his squad to the conference finals last year at age 40, and statistically—and honestly, skill-wise—he had a top 4 season for a Hall of Fame career. Look, I despise the guy with everything I've got, but he isn't overrated. In my opinion, hardly anyone actually ranks him above Marino, Montana, Tom Brady, Elway, or Manning. And honestly? That's totally fair.

dustyridge3 said:It might sound silly, but I think a lot of people just don't have the guts to play football.

I actually think the cost of gear is a much bigger hurdle. Plus, football hasn't really exploded globally until recently, once networks in places like Europe started broadcasting games more widely.

btw, if we're talking about overrated players, I gotta say Babe Ruth definitely isn't one.

mistycyclist51 said:from 2005...

There's also a "fresher" poll from 2009 conducted by Harris (kind of like our Pulse, Prisma, or Target):

1. pro football
2. pro baseball
3. college football
4. auto racing (all kinds)
5. pro basketball
6. hockey
7. college basketball
8. golf
9. soccer
10. boxing

Sure, it's tough to make an exact ranking in such a massive market, but you can at least get a rough idea of what Americans follow most...

This actually looks pretty similar to the stats I stumbled upon a year ago 🙂 except baseball stays ahead because they play 182 games a season, compared to "only" 82 in basketball 😬

I honestly doubt this poll was even scientifically conducted or holds any real credibility, but hockey is definitely pulling more viewers than soccer, the WNBA, IndyCar, or WWE and everything else further down the list. BTW, this is about viewership numbers, not how many people actually play them. I'm not so sure cricket draws more eyes globally than American football, even if it’s technically one of the most played sports out there 🤷

Let's get back to the main topic 😁

mistycyclist51 said:An ESPN poll where people ranked their favorite sports turned up these results:

1. NFL football
2. MLB baseball
3. NBA basketball
4. College football
5. College basketball
6. NASCAR
7. NHL hockey
8. MLS soccer
9. WWE wrestling
10. Arena football
11. WNBA
12. IndyCar

What year is this poll from?

Michael Schumacher absolutely crushed it even at Benetton. That car was solid, though maybe not quite as unstoppable as the Ferrari era, but the guy still drove like a beast. Honestly, his ego and his aggressive style rub me the wrong way, but you just can't argue with those results.

Hey, just wondering—is this thread about comparing giants within their own sports, or are we talking about greatness on a global scale? Because if it's the latter, the whole debate is pretty much doomed from the start.

Sean Gonzalez95 said:Guys, that analogy was pretty off base... honestly, I’d say you didn't just miss the mark on basketball, you missed the whole galaxy😁..

How many people here could actually sink a three while Trevor Ariza is guarding them?!..

Now that’s a real comparison... if you've got guys trying to hit singles, they're facing a solid pitcher. Same goes for us—if we want to nail those threes, we probably need a defender breathing down our necks first

Admittedly, the analogy was pretty weak; I was just trying to show how tough baseball can be.
As for basketball, you can always find a corner, wait for the defense to break down, and grab a rebound for an open shot🙂 It’s a fluid game, unlike baseball.

Daniel Booth37 said:His impact on baseball was massive, but honestly, where does he rank in terms of pure athletic physicality? Baseball was such a slow game back then, and Ruth himself was pretty chunky. It feels a bit silly to compare him to athletes who are out there pushing the absolute limits of human potential. He’s an icon of American sports history, plain and simple.

Only someone who's never actually picked up a bat and tried to hit a ball would say this. I don't know if there's any sport that demands more hand-eye coordination, insane speed, and quick reflexes. In baseball, you have about 0.3 seconds to judge where a tennis-ball-sized projectile is headed and actually swing at it. If you haven't tried it, you have no clue how hard that is—not to mention the mental toughness needed to face a rock-hard ball flying at you over 90 mph.

Even though you see some big guys playing (for the record, Ruth was incredibly mobile for a guy his size and was actually pretty muscular, which shows in his stats), baseball is physically and mentally brutal. I mean, I'm pretty sure almost everyone on this forum could sink an NBA three-pointer out of 100 tries or nail a penalty kick against a pro goalie, but very few people could even manage a single against an average MLB pitcher.

It really bugs me when people try to downplay certain sports just because there isn't a sport where you can reach elite levels without blood, sweat, and massive talent. As for Ruth's standing in baseball itself, the only real critique is that he didn't play against Black or Hispanic players, but even taking that into account, the guy is easily one of the top three players to ever play the game.

Honestly, I don't think this spat between those two would be half as intense if there weren't kids involved. Man, you see parents going at it during middle school soccer games over whose kid is better, so imagine when the stakes get this high.

analogowl122 said:-Michael Jordan only has one Olympic gold, no world championship medal, and he isn't even in the top 10 for NBA titles..

Come on, he's tied for 10th with Kareem, Cousy, and Pippen.

On topic: I think this whole debate is pointless because comparing stats between two different sports is just silly, especially when using that outdated approach HOO tries to use to sound objective.

Honestly, I find it pretty pathetic when you need everyone else to validate your achievements. You have your results, and in sports, results are everything. These awards handed out based on subjective criteria don't mean a thing. But hey, we all have our flaws, and the stuff regarding Vlašić and Kostelić is just broadcasted to millions just so people have an easier target to bash.

Kevin Chavez3 said:Yeah, but just so you can see how much 😁

Give me a break, I know exactly what we're dealing with here... 😢