Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

did Espn ever go a Sports Century on Babe Ruth?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous
    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.
    Shaq might go down as the most dominating center in basketball history (although personally I say Hakeem was better), and the facts that Shaq was in LA (2nd biggest market in the US), has such a media-attracting personality and got to dominate on weak teams like the 76ers and Nets in the NBA finals helps him out too.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
      It was Ruth's on-field ability and off-field personality combining to create a sensation never seen before or since.
      I take it you have never been around Michael Jordan. MJ was the game of basketball. When the pros played in the Olympics it was MJ that all the foreign players flocked too. He was just the biggest star on the team he was THE Star.


      Shaq might go down as the most dominating center in basketball history (although personally I say Hakeem was better), and the facts that Shaq was in LA (2nd biggest market in the US), has such a media-attracting personality and got to dominate on weak teams like the 76ers and Nets in the NBA finals helps him out too.
      Two things. One Shaq never won anything while MJ was in the way. When MJ was playing for the Bulls Shaq was second fiddle. Secondly I think a lot of people are going to view Shaq's time in LA as a disappointment. A missed opportunity, that it could have been something so much more but it wasn't to be. Shaq missed a lot of time couldn't get along with Kobe and at times the team seemed to underachieve. As for going down in history as the most dominant center well he has to overcome the mountain that his Wilt and his legend. Shaq isn't competing against a man or reality but a belief and a legend. Which makes it all that much harder to surpass.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Ubiquitous
        I take it you have never been around Michael Jordan. MJ was the game of basketball. When the pros played in the Olympics it was MJ that all the foreign players flocked too. He was just the biggest star on the team he was THE Star.
        I was born in '77 and was a huge fan of Jordan's Ubi, so I followed everything he did, and saw the impact he had. This is a fight that even Jordan cannot win though, and that's not a knock on Jordan. It has as much to do with A)The sport Ruth played B)The time frame Ruth played in, as anything. What he did, how he did it, when he did it, and where he did it. There's hardly a comparison in terms of buzz, impact, popularity, etc, and that's just going by tons of research, without actually experiencing it. Had we been alive back then, I think the gap would be even greater than we realize.
        Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 06-18-2006, 10:42 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948

          "
          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?
          gretzky didn't dominate like jordan, he dominated like ruth. in the same way that ruth had more home runs in one season that all of the other teams, greatzky would do things like win the points title on his assists alone (while scoring 90 plus goals). nobody touches his numbers. the only guy to have 200 plus points in a season and he did it several times. he has more career assists that any other player has career points and he is the career leader in goals. jordan never had that kind of dominance in his era. gretzky owns every significant season and career offensive record in hockey. gretzky is ruthian also in the sense that he dominated the culture (especially, and still, in canada), he was hockey. gretzky and those oilers teams changed the way the game was played. hockey went from the broad street bully era of the seventies to a wide open offensive style in the eighties. there were other reasons for this (just as ruth wasn't single handedly responsible for the lively ball era), specificly the intigration of the russian hockey style into the nhl. so all in all, gretzky/ruth is fairer comparison than jordan/ruth. and that was way to much hockey talk for a baseball site (like i always say: there are two seasons-baseball season and not baseball season and during not baseball season they play hockey).

          Comment


          • #20
            Speaking of the Broad Street Bullies I still enjoy the stories the Flyers fans tell of when the Russians came over to play the Flyers and the Flyers physically beat the snot out of the russians so badly that the Russians refused to take the ice for the 3rd period.


            I would say that Gretzky was more Ruthian then Ruth to his sport but we are talking about hockey which is not a huge sport in America so his impact for America wasn't Ruthian. But to his sport and to Canada he was huge. Bostonians like to lament about losing Ruth to the Yankees but that is nothing like what Canadians felt when they lost Gretzky to America. In fact that Oilers team can be compared in a lot of ways to that REd SOx team. Both teams were a dynasty and both teams were broken up for money.

            Comment


            • #21
              Yeah Gretzky was huge in Canada for sure. Hockey was huge in Canada period. This was the late 80's though. Hard to match the impact Ruth had on baseball in the '20's. Not really a fair fight. A totally different animal. It was something they'd never seen/experienced/imagined before and on top of that, he was larger than life/accessible off the field. Gretzky's was a true stud, but charisma wise...uphill battle.

              Comment

              Ad Widget

              Collapse
              Working...
              X