Who will be more popular 500 years from now: Babe Ruth or John Lennon?

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I heard on the radio today about some sort of John Lennon memorabilia to be auctioned off that is estimated to fetch $250,000. I don't know what it is, signed or not, or whatever. Just the number caught my attention near the very end of that news story.

It made me wonder about comparing Babe Ruth to John Lennon. I don't know who's stuff goes for more today - it's probably difficult to compare. PSA hasn't graded any John Lennon PSA 10 cards..yet..

But my thought turned to what would happen say 500 years from now. Who will be more popular? Who will be remembered at that time? My first thought was Ruth, since I figured if baseball is still around at that time, that Ruth would still be a huge historical figure. However, my wife mentioned that even though musical tastes change (who listens to Bach or Chopin on a daily basis these days?) the legendary ones are still remembered and famous to this day.

So what do you think?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

no brainer, Lenon. Baseball may not be around 500 years from now, but music is enternal. Your wife is right, tastes may change over the years, but the greats are still great. Personally, I can't stand Lenon's music. Then again, my musical taste isn't exactly mainstream.

Jay

I'm incompetent at being incontenent.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

I think Gerald Early's quote pretty much sums it up.

Two thousand years from now, when history students are studying America, this society is going to be known for three things: the Constitution, jazz music, and baseball.

Granted much of John Lennon's history comes from Britain, but I think the sentiment is the same. In my opinion, for all his great accomplishments, Lennon's contributions as a songwriter, as a celebrity, and as an activist already pale in comparison to others'. But there will only be one Babe Ruth.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Even if the US is remember for baseball, no one will care about Ruth, Cobb, etc if the game is no longer played. Lenon's music will always be played.

Jay

I'm incompetent at being incontenent.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Music (poetry) has a staying power that is unique in the human experience...

Name one contemporary athlete of Mozart, The Bard, Homer, Dante, etc.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: David McDonald

Minnie Minoso

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

name a popular singer from the 1920's.....rudy valee.... his stuff is worth a fortune! babe ruth without a doubt....pop music changes(my 13 year old daughter would not know who john lennon is but she knows who babe ruth is) but baseball will always be the same. here's the charts from 1927 who remembers this stuff.1. Ain't She Sweet? - Ben Bernie
2. My Blue Heaven - Gene Austin
3. Someone To Watch Over Me - Gertrude Lawrence
4. Me and My Shadow - Whispering Jack Smith
5. Singin' The Blues - Frankie Trumbauer
6. Blue Skies - Ben Selvin
7. Varsity Drag - George Olsen
8. Lucky Lindy - Vernon Dalhart
9. Lindbergh (Eagle of the U.S.A.) - Vernon Dalhart
10. In A Mist - Bix Beiderbecke
****think the top 10 batting leaders auto's are worth a little more than these guys?????****

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Do you really believe Bing Crosy or other great musicians will be lost to time? I have no doubt 500 years for people will remmeber who Bing and other greats will be, but very few will remember Ruth. As has been mentioned, music is enternal and every human can relate to it. less than 1/4 of the population of the world can relate to baseball.

Jay

I'm incompetent at being incontenent.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

I think that Dennis hit the nail on the head.

While people may remember John Lennon, I doubt that his memborabilia will be very collectible. Same goes for Elvis. Once that generation dies, so do most of the collectors. Items related to those guys will probably always have some value, but I doubt that it will skyrocket in value since the collector base will be much smaller.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...may be super famous after we've all died. Sometimes fame comes later, and the Van Gogh's of the world die penniless. But, I would guess Lennon may have the same staying power of say, Mozart, Bach, Brahms. Baseball may not even be played in 300 years, but people will always listen to music -- and thanks to recording technology, they will always be able to hear Imagine.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Barry Bonds, as his body still won't have decomposed by then.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I agree with Scott Gaynor.

Baseball is different than music because baseball has STATS.

Thus, we can always compare current players to old-time legends with a somewhat objective standard.

In music, there is no objective measurable standard.

Who is greater: Lennon or Elvis? Elvis or Elton? Elton or Springsteen? Springsteen or Streisand? It goes on and on forever.

Thus, while SOME people may think that John Lennon is a "God" of music... there are a TON of people who do NOT like his music and wouldn't collect anything of his if you gave it to them for free.

Babe Ruth was undeniably ALONE at the TOP of the entire sporting world for decades.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Springsteen.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

although I do think Ruth will stand up in the long run versus Lennon, I think the fact that stats don't exist in music is completely irrelevant. No one compares Beethoven's conducting stats or Mozart's composing percentage.

Homer is still famous without any stats.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Once again I must agree with HAL.

Ruth has not only stood the test of time, he is
becoming a greater "legend" as time goes on. The
American people love a HERO.

Will Lennon reach such heights in American folk-
lore as time goes on ? I don't think so....Paul
McCartney has a better chance. Lennon's life was cut
short and his untimely death in a tragic way helps
his popularity in the short term. After the '60s
generation is gone....Lennon's memory will fade.

What energizes male kid's curiosity first....Base
Ball or Rock-n-Roll ? You got it....BaseBall, and
that starts a "love fest" that lasts a lifetime.
And, this is why the Babe will endure.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

John who???? That's what my little ones will be saying in 10 years much less 500......


Be well Brian

PS They are both under 4 and know who Ruth is.....

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

Babe Ruth IS baseball.

There are a lot of memorable musicians that compare favorably to Lennon like Hendrix, Elvis, Joplin etc. We are a society that places a lot of emphasis on "the early death" of the super star.

What if it had been Paul McCartney instead of Lennon? What if it was Hank Aaron instead of Clemente? Why is it that we love Marilyn Monroe so much while Jane Russell, Betty Page, Lauren Bacall and Sophia Loren aren't as "treasured"?

While music is universal and everyone knows John Lennon, people who know no other name other than Babe Ruth recognizes his place in Popular Culture history and can automatically connect him with the National Pastime. Now if Baseball is no longer around 300 years from now (while a lot of you don't believe it will and I have no idea why), then it's Lennon of course.

My two cents.

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: RC McKenzie

Both Lennon and Ruth are 'pop' figures. Even if John Lennon could be compared to say, a latter day John Milton, societys change drastically over time. John Milton's Paradise Lost is still available in print, but languages are continually evolving and as each generation passes, Milton's 'classic' becomes less relevant or comprehendable.

JS Bach an the 'classical' musicians created music that transcends or is devoid of language and in that sense may have a relatively longer staying power.

Babe Ruth will be remembered as long as Baseball exists. Even fascist dictators like castro enjoy Baseball, so even after America's demise it is conceivable that Baseball could endure.

My short answer is Babe Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I think John Lennon is getting the short end of the stick here.

[Archive]

Posted By: David McDonald

"Who remembers this stuff?"
I remember this stuff. Ever heard of Gershwin? Wrote Someone to Watch Over Me, Rhapsody in Blue, An American in Paris etc etc etc. Had a better year in '27 than President Coolidge. How about Irving Berlin? Had a cup of coffee with the Highlanders back in ought-six before penning Blue Skies, God Bless America and other endurables. You could look it up. DeSylva, Brown & Henderson (Varsity Drag), Bix and Tram, Gertrude Lawrence. A veritable Murderers' Row of musicians. If there is an America in 500 years (and I'm betting there will be) let's hope they still have enough good taste to delight in the great music of our day, John Lennon included.

"... baseball will always be the same."
Huh? Will grant that three strikes and you're out ain't gonna change, AJ Pierzynski notwithstanding. Always will be ninety feet between the bases. Otherwise, the list of changes could fill a thread or six: Jackie Robinson, steroid longball, DH's, gazillion dollar salaries, you name it.

But even if baseball in 2505 has metamorphized into something that isn't baseball anymore (maybe they'll even bring back baggy flannels!) Babe Ruth will always be an icon of American history up there with Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. The Beatles did great music but I don't think John Lennon occupies the same stature. Got to go with Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

who recounted the story of an Englishman and an American during WW2 who became upset with each other. The American said, "well, screw the King." The Englishman replied, "oh yeah? Well screw Babe Ruth."
One ascended to his position through birth and heritage. The other was a saloon keeper's son, a dirty faced kid who went to a home for wayward youths, who drank and ate and loved to excess. The American picked as his object of derision, the King, the Englishman picked, not the President but the Bambino. That defines America and tells why Americans will always cherish the Babe, our national treasure. Jackie had courage, Ty had fury, Barry has an attitude, Christy had style, but there will always be only one Babe, the man who saved baseball (not that lunkhead, racist, showboating Landis) after the Black Sox scandal.
George Herman Ruth. Every kid in America still knows his name over 50 years after his death.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

If baseball continues to be played in, more or less, its current form for the next 500 years (which strikes me as unlikely), then I think Babe has to be the answer. Even then, though, I'm inclined to think the Babe would be the only baseball player more popular than John Lennon. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

Babe Ruth for sure. The way that music is today for the
"now generation", no way will John be accepted. You have rap and fake rock music and it is getting worse....none of it is really even close to being considered music to me.

You have artists that shouldnt even be heard, let alone seen, like "Ice T", "Ice Cube", "P Diddy", "Big Undies " whatever , this crap is rediculous , let alone being acceptable !!!

The lack of discipline will destroy all the good music that was once heard, but you simply cannot destroy "Babe Ruth ".

How often do you hear a Beatles song on any radio station ???

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

I've heard that Don Mattingly, several years into his major league career with the Yankees, was under the impression that Babe Ruth was a fictional character.

I'm guessing that in 500 years, Lawrence Welk, while maybe not as popular as John Lennon, will still be on cable.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

as a kid, I always thought the line in the Star Spangled Banner "...Gave proof through the night" was "...Babe Ruth through the night". The next time you hear the national anthem, see if you can make out the difference assuming you didn't know the words.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

I was talking the other day to a very popular rock radio guy,
and he said to me, will this generation ever be able to say, "lets go listen to the golden oldies"?

He interviewed bands back in the early days of Cooper ,BTO, Reo, RUsh , Mott the Hoople, Budgie ,Moxy, Captain Beyond, etc...

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...that we're having a debate on a vintage baseball card forum about whether Babe Ruth (one of the best vintage baseball card names) will outlast John Lennon (once played a gig at Shea Stadium) in the great public conscience. If you log onto the Network54 Beatles forum, I bet you'll find vastly different answers.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Neil Armstrong will be a household name in 500 years, while Ruth and Lennon will not.

One type of person people remember for centuries and centuries are great explorers. The first man on the moom will be remembered for a long, long time, just as we remember Christopher Columbus from 500 year ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

hopefully, we will have evolved so much 500 years from now that
our preoccupation with personalities will have died.
IMAGINE that.

in the meantime, my vote is for Lennon. I,too, am still preoccupied.

Barry

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

Okay, so David is saying we will all be living on the moon in 500 years and Neil Armstrong will suddenly be the new Columbus because he was on the moon first? I like your way of thinking.

Do you know that my girlfriend thinks Neil Armstrong is "that biker"?

Plus I took a class in college that told us that a giant meteor will hit the Earth in 80 years and kill us all anyways so it's all a moot point.

If John Lennon was alive today, he would be "just another aging rocker". So we punish Bob Dylan for still breathing?

If Babe Ruth was alive, he would be charging an arm and a leg through Steiner Sports, but he would still be a legend.

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I bet if this question was asked in a more neutral arena we would be getting far different answers.

Dan, today's "crap" is exactly how music has progressed the passed 50+ years. Pop is the music that pisses off your parents and we are the parents, with a few exceptions. Granted, I don't care for most stuff that passes for pop music today, or even when I was a kid, but I do have to take exception with Ice T. His heavy metal band, Body Count, was very good. I've also had the pleasure of meeting him on several occasions and he is a very bright guy who knows what he wants and has figured out how to go about getting it. I've also met Ice Cube and he comes across to me as a poor man's version of Ice T. Give me old school punk and techno any day.

Jay- never gets tired of listening to Ramones

I'm incompetent at being incontenent.

[Archive]

Posted By: RC McKenzie

First of all, George Harrison is the only Beatle worth talking about 10 years from now, much less 500...

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

The correct answer is "Jesus". My prediction is that he will remind us that he is still more popular than John Lennon.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

As I first read this my first impulse was to say Lennon, which I did, because music is universal. The more I think about this question, the more I think it is a media question. Ruth lived a long time and there are many many images of him. In fact, Ruth was so huge that many sayings in English have come from him and are used by people who could not pick ruth out of a line-up (pun for fun). "Out in Left Field" is a popular phrase that means someone who is not really all that smart or who does something silly. This comes from people who bought tickets and sat in left field, away from Ruth. "Ruthian" is still used on occasion to describe hugeness. Ruth may still be hanging around 500 years from now.

Lennon lived later where media was a far greater influence. Television and movies will keep Lennon's memory alive far longer. As he lived longer than Ruth there is far more images, sound bites, and general stuff around for Lennon. His music was popular worldwide and translated into many languages. Ruth is a name that is not really recognizable outside the Americas. Lennon's art, poetry, and music will probably be more popular 500 years from now.

The other thing is that historically, music just lasts longer. Jim Thorpe was widely considered the best athlete in the world in the early part of last century. If you asked 100 people who Thorpe was and who Sousa, Berlin, or Rogers and Tchakosky (spelling sucks I know), more people would know the later.

It is a moot point as the politcal climate if it continues will remove both Ruth and Lennon from the cultural framework as being too "left-wing and subversive and a threat to the common good and happiness of the American people." (Future quote from Arnold Bush--great great great grandson of George W. Bush and Arnold the Govenator)

Keeping on topic for Leon: If the question was whose card would be more popular 500 years from now, I would venture Ruth.

Joshua (very bored at work today teaching the youth of America about neither Ruth nor Lennon)

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Stone

Babe Ruth is on a baseball card --enough said.

[Archive]

Posted By: idfentify7

But 500 yrs. is a long time. When I think "Who do you remember from 500 yrs. ago, Gil? I think of Bill and Ted's Great Adventure with So Crates and the others flying thru time in a phone booth.

I don't think that Lennon nor Ruth will be remembered in 500 years. Hitler will, perhaps Edison, but probably not Bill Gates.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

including several Beatles sets and an Exhibit card (see my web site for a picture). So the card thing won't win over in and of itself. I think Lennon will be more famous in 500 years simply because music has universal appeal and proven staying power for the really great ones (Beethoven, Mozart, etc.), as does literature (Homer, Shakespeare, etc.). You can play a Lennon tune; you can't play a Ruth HR.

I hope that baseball has a 500 year history but the odds aren't as good as for literature and music.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

I really do not have much a problem with thee old "ICES" guys
as much as I do with "50 cent" and many new comers, most of the art is with idle hand gestures, no rhythms just rhymes.

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to say "HICKORY DICKORY DOCK"..
the mouse ran up the clock , YO !!!

You cannot rhyme BABE RUTH !

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

As they say
if he were alive today
we'd find Babe Ruth
in a prono booth.

How's that for rhyming Ruth :-p

Jay

I'm incompetent at being incontenent.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

That the original choices on an American-centric board are between an Amerian and a non-American answers the question. Ruth is a household name to Americans, while The Beattles are equally famous in the US, China, Iran and Venzuela. In 500 years, will baseball be the dominant sport of the world? More than unlikely (it's not now). In 500 years will people be listing to music? More than likely.

Even if China is the ones writing the history in 500 years, my guess is that The Beattles will be included in the history books as a dominent cultural influence of the 20th century. I also think it's more likely that someone 500 years from now will listen to an old The Beattles song than watch a a rerun of an old Babe Ruth baseball game.

I listen to Bach on my CD player, and I have no clue who was the great athlete of the day or even what were the popular sport in Germany. I don't even speak German!

That someone sitting at his Dell computer reading the 2005 news can enjoy a piece of music just as much as oxcart driver 300 years ago did says there's something about music.

I supect that, even more than a musician, a visual artist from this age will be remembered. This is as there are no languange barriers, and a painting or sculpture can be viewed in person 500 years from now (which is better than reading the box score account). As Van Gogh and Modigliani and many others who died in obscurity have shown us, who from now is the most popular in the future, is often not who is most popular now.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I just don't see it. Yes, real music has staying power. But I remember when these narrow shouldered, buster brown haircut, pencil necked performers first appeared here. And I recall the cultural impact of their wisdom:

In the town where I was born
Lived a man who sailed to sea
And he told us of his life
In the land of submarines

So we sailed off to the sun
Till we found a sea of green
And we lived beneath the waves
In our yellow submarine


Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.
Cellophane flowers of yellow and green,
Towering over your head.
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes,
And she’s gone.
Lucy in the sky with diamonds.


Timothy Leary had cultural impact. These guys are more forgettable than Wayne Terwilliger.

Come on now. Jazz may survive. But song lyrics alone are less interesting than poetry.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I think the Beatles' melodies and lyrics will stand the test of time:

When I was younger, so much younger than today
I never needed anybody's help in any way
But now these days I'm not so self-assured
I find I've changed my mind and opened up the door

Something in the way she moves attracts me like no other lover

Little darling, it's been a long, cold lonely winter
Little darling, it seems like years since its been clear
But here comes the sun, here comes the sun, and I say
It's alright.

All you need is love
Love is all you need

I get by with a little help from my friends

You tell me its the institution,
well you know,
you better free your mind instead.
But if you go talking about destruction,
don't you know that you can count me out.

And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Lyrics stand the test of time...there are lyrics from ancient greece still around. In fact, you probably all sung a truly depressing dirge about the middle age outbreak of the black death...Ring around the Rosey is the song...it has lasted for no other reason than the lyrics are simple, silly, and passed down...

Jabberwocky from Alice's Adventures is a poem that has lasted 100 years (give or take) and it is total nonsense...so is some of Poe, Shakespheare, etc. A lot of there more forgetable poems and writings are going to be forgot (how was that for an astute statement) but lyrics from such songs as Let It Be, Revolution, Imagine, etc. will be around for a long long time.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

Lennon and the Beatles will be more well known IMO, but Ruth will not be completely forgotten. Baseball may be more important to us, but as a whole music is more important to the masses. Jackie Robinson will be a bigger name than Ruth because of his cultural impact on the United States. Music and Culture are taught in schools.....baseball is not.

I believe that baseball will still be around, but all of Ruth's records will have been smashed by then and he will become a footnote on the history of the game. Much like Cap Anson today....most people have heard the name, but very few know much about him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

That's an easy one - Ruth is considered the greatest baseball player ever, by most. Lennon was a great song-writer, but did not even stand out above all the other members of his band. (and the Beatles are my favorite band, and Ruth IS NOT my favorite baseball player).

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Daniel,
Did you compare Cap Anson to Ruth? Not even in the same ball park, even on steroids.... Ruth made more money than the President, and deserved it, while very few people outside of the game new of Anson even 20 years after he played. Lennon isn't even the most popular or talented Beatle in my opinion, so "How is he going to out live Ruth?" Hell Joe Jackson will probably be more popular than Lennon......

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

Brian, it's just an opinion. I was making a comparison of how I believe it will be 500 years from now. It is my opinion that Ruth's records will all have been surpassed in the next 500 years (Actually most of them have already been surpassed). Ruth may have made more than the president, but today the minimum salary is now on par with the president's salary so I doubt that will stick out to anyone other than SABR members in 500 years. It is also only your opinion that Lennon wasn't the most talented Beatle. It's not really worth getting worked up about.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Am I the only one who thinks this is about the most useless topic ever debated on this board

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

I was just thinking the same thing!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Agreed - one of the most inane topics the new board has ever come up with...but it is more interesting than "what's your favorite t206 portrait?" or "look, another Wagner reprint on ebay!" or "how do you tell a fake Cracker Jack?" or "Is this OJ real?!?"