Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

did Espn ever go a Sports Century on Babe Ruth?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • did Espn ever go a Sports Century on Babe Ruth?

    they've done ones on Gehrig, Maris, Campy, Musial, Greenberg, Strawberry, Dimaggio and a boatload of other players

    but looking at the ESPN Classic's website schedule, if they ever did one on Ruth, it won't be aired anytime in June or July


    makes you wonder why the waste their time showing so much garbage

  • #2
    Yes, they did one. I believe he was #3 in original version of the series (which was a ranking of the top 50 players of the last century).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by serumgard
      Yes, they did one. I believe he was #3 in original version of the series (which was a ranking of the top 50 players of the last century).
      Are you sure it wasn't a ranking of uniform numbers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Wasn't he #2

        behind Jordan?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by blackout805
          they've done ones on Gehrig, Maris, Campy, Musial, Greenberg, Strawberry, Dimaggio and a boatload of other players

          but looking at the ESPN Classic's website schedule, if they ever did one on Ruth, it won't be aired anytime in June or July


          makes you wonder why the waste their time showing so much garbage
          They did. He finished #2 to Michael.

          http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/athletes.html

          http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016451.html

          http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00242487.html

          Comment


          • #6
            I thought that was silly. I think that one hundred years from now, people will talking about Ruth as if he just retired and he still may be regarded by many as the greatest player ever. I think that Jordan will be a very distant memory by then,

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wamby
              I thought that was silly. I think that one hundred years from now, people will talking about Ruth as if he just retired and he still may be regarded by many as the greatest player ever. I think that Jordan will be a very distant memory by then,
              From "Luckiest Man."

              "Never before had one man so radically changed the way a game was played and so thoroughly energized its fans. Michael Jordan, sixty-five years later, would elevate basketball with his explosive leaps and gyrating dunks, but he would be preceeded by incremental reformers such as Julius Erving and George Gervin. Muhammad Ali would bring a combination of style, speed, and power to heavyweight boxing, but his gifts would be rare, not revolutionary. Ruth, on the other hand, was doing things no one had foreseen.

              Ruth not only changed the approach of young athletes; he also changed how coaches and scouts assessed talent. They began paying more attention to some of the lumbering men who might previously have been left to football. To Henry Louis Gehrig, seventeen years old and still very much under his mother's watch, Babe Ruth became an unlikely but powerful role model."

              Couple questions:

              Did Gretzky dominate like Jordan?

              Was hockey already offensively geared for Gretzky to do what he did, or did he defy all odds and bust through in spite of the game's style?

              Comment


              • #8
                Sultan, this is how I view 90s/2000's basketball

                Michael Jordon = Ty Cobb--a great all-around player

                Shaq = Babe Ruth--a guy who dominated his league like no other despite having a few handicaps (all other 9 players on the court are faster than he is; he sucks at free-throw shooting etc)

                you think thats a fair comparrison?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by blackout805
                  Sultan, this is how I view 90s/2000's basketball

                  Michael Jordon = Ty Cobb--a great all-around player

                  Shaq = Babe Ruth--a guy who dominated his league like no other despite having a few handicaps (all other 9 players on the court are faster than he is; he sucks at free-throw shooting etc)

                  you think thats a fair comparrison?
                  Interesting. I like the MJ/Cobb comparison. Seems to fit.

                  The Shaq thing is difficult. Not accurate unless we're talking about the end of his career imo. Babe could do EVERYTHING and I do mean EVERYTHING on a ballfield for the FIRST HALF of his career. Shaq can only do one thing, although he's a better passer from the post (especially with the double team) than he gets credit for imo. I look at it like Ruth was MJ, except Ruth was an MJ who was the only one able to step back and hit a three pointer. That was his weapon. Everyone else had to shoot from a couple dribbles in from the arc. Could they shoot threes, sure, but not as accurately as MJ/Ruth. Their all around game would have suffered. MJ/Ruth didn't need to worry about that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                    Shaq can only do one thing, although he's a better passer from the post (especially with the double team) than he gets credit for imo.
                    I got to watch the "Big Fella", as Chick Hearn used to call him, every game for 7 years and, although I wouldn't make the Babe Ruth comparison, I will say Shaq was NOT a one dimensional player. Great passing skills; great footwork; He could run the fast break like a guard; As dominating as Chaimberlain in the low post; Great mid-range jump/hook shot; Great shot-blocker/defender; Clutch pressure performer, and on and on. One of the top 5 players in history in my humble opinion.

                    I'm glad the Lakers picked Kobe to sign instead of O'Neal. Shaq's coming to the end of his storied career while Bryant's just hitting his prime 3-5 years now. Sorry, off topic.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Elvis9045
                      I got to watch the "Big Fella", as Chick Hearn used to call him, every game for 7 years and, although I wouldn't make the Babe Ruth comparison, I will say Shaq was NOT a one dimensional player. Great passing skills; great footwork; He could run the fast break like a guard; As dominating as Chaimberlain in the low post; Great mid-range jump/hook shot; Great shot-blocker/defender; Clutch pressure performer, and on and on. One of the top 5 players in history in my humble opinion.

                      I'm glad the Lakers picked Kobe to sign instead of O'Neal. Shaq's coming to the end of his storied career while Bryant's just hitting his prime 3-5 years now. Sorry, off topic.
                      Wowsers.

                      We'll agree he's a better passer than most give him credit for. Surpringly good court vision, player movement anticipation, accuracy and touch on his passes.

                      Defensively though, not a dominant force. Not even the threat of being a dominant force, although in his younger days he had some ability to get off the floor and be committed to shot blocking.

                      His range is brutal. His baby hook might be good at a 45% clip from around 6 or 7 feet out, but no mid-range (10-15ft.) game at all. Not sure what Shaq you've been watching. Have we ever seen him step out on a pick and roll or otherwise to stop and pop? He's an interior offensive force for certain.

                      I would agree with the clutch performer thing, but his free throw shooting too often puts him on the bench when you'd love to have his rebounding and post presence out there, if for nothing else, to open up the floor for open perimeter shooters. That hurts his cluth value imo.

                      Agility wise, he's a specimen. Unbelivable the quickness and footwork he STILL shows on the floor. Able to mix in a Hakeem type move and also run the floor on the break. Just incredible for a 7-1/330 pounder.

                      I'd put him in a conversation for top 5 consideration, definately.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                        Interesting. I like the MJ/Cobb comparison. Seems to fit.

                        The Shaq thing is difficult. Not accurate unless we're talking about the end of his career imo. Babe could do EVERYTHING and I do mean EVERYTHING on a ballfield for the FIRST HALF of his career. Shaq can only do one thing, although he's a better passer from the post (especially with the double team) than he gets credit for imo. I look at it like Ruth was MJ, except Ruth was an MJ who was the only one able to step back and hit a three pointer. That was his weapon. Everyone else had to shoot from a couple dribbles in from the arc. Could they shoot threes, sure, but not as accurately as MJ/Ruth. Their all around game would have suffered. MJ/Ruth didn't need to worry about that.
                        I think Wilt Chamberlain is a better fit for the Babe Ruth analogy. Basically, Wilt the Stilt was the Babe Ruth of basketball.
                        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
                          I think Wilt Chamberlain is a better fit for the Babe Ruth analogy. Basically, Wilt the Stilt was the Babe Ruth of basketball.
                          I think that George Mikan is another player who could be considered analgous with Babe Ruth.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Michael Jordans star was and still is bigger and brighter then Shaq's.

                            Michael Jordan was the Babe Ruth of basketball. When you think about it Mikan or Wilt or really anybody from that era cannot be Babe Ruth of basketball. Part of what makes Babe Ruth BABE RUTH is the era in which he played in. BAseball right abou the time Babe Ruth emerged was entering its mass media ascendancy. Babe Ruth to many was baseball. They may not what baseball is or anything about it but they knew Babe Ruth. That was Michael Jordan 60 years later with the NBA. Yes Bird and Johnson got the NBA going but it was MJ who took it to the big time. It was MJ who made it the game in town. Just like Ruth's time their were players like Cobb or Mathewson before him making the game popular but it was Ruth who took it to the next level. When MJ started like Ruth the mass media was exploding again in sports. I met people from foreign countries who all they knew about American aports was Michael Jordan. MJ during his reign was the brightest star in the sports pantheon.

                            Shaq came along afterwards and frankly I don't think people will remember him as much as they will Jordan. Jordan has the highlights, Jordan had the skills, Jordan was "clutch". To me there are very few memorable Shaq moments and a ton of MJ moments.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The MJ thing is a tough comparison. On a smaller scale with MJ, I see what you're saying about them both being larger than the game, but there's no comparison for Ruth in that respect. Part of it was the sheer timing of it all, like you mentioned with the media and the social climate. It was Ruth's on-field ability and off-field personality combining to create a sensation never seen before or since.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X