Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

You’re missing the point. There’s a difference between fastest and best. The best argument for El Guerrouj, who was indisputably great btw, is that globalization has made it possible for guys from Africa and elsewhere to compete on an international stage and there might have been an El Guerrouj from Bannister’s era who never had the opportunity to compete. Guys in D1 colleges can run a sub 4 minute mile now. Even the occasionally high schooler goes sub 4. It doesn’t make them greater than Roger Bannister in the annals of track and field history. And there’s little doubt Bannister would have run significantly faster on modern tracks with modern equipment and modern training techniques.

Take the whole Nicklaus vs Tiger argument. Jack won more majors but Tiger played in a more competitive era. He won the Masters by 12 and the US Open by 15. I think Tiger was greater but there’s no definitive proof of this.

Bannister revolutionized middle distance training and was the best man during his time.

You make some good points and the same can be said of baseball, when you look at the color barrier holding truly great players out of the Majors during a guy like Grove's career. Now we have players participating from all races and many countries. I'm not saying there weren't great players in the past; in this discussion about left handed pitchers, my vote goes to Grove first, Spahn second. Both were done over 55 years ago.

When you compare golfers, can't you just compare their scores from tournaments played on the same courses?

My point was that athletes today are generally stronger and faster than in the past, with better training and diet. If track shoes make a big difference, how about weight lifting? I'm not familiar with it so I'm asking, what were the top lifters hoisting in 1910 vs. 1950 vs. now? I wouldn't think equipment would be much of an issue there.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You make some good points and the same can be said of baseball, when you look at the color barrier holding truly great players out of the Majors during a guy like Grove's career. Now we have players participating from all races and many countries. I'm not saying there weren't great players in the past; in this discussion about left handed pitchers, my vote goes to Grove first, Spahn second. Both were done over 55 years ago.

When you compare golfers, can't you just compare their scores from tournaments played on the same courses?

My point was that athletes today are generally stronger and faster than in the past, with better training and diet. If track shoes make a big difference, how about weight lifting? I'm not familiar with it so I'm asking, what were the top lifters hoisting in 1910 vs. 1950 vs. now? I wouldn't think equipment would be much of an issue there.

Yes I agree athletes are stronger and faster than they used to be. It is true in golf as well, due to tech improvements in golf equipment and golf balls. So you can’t compare scores although it’s hard to dispute Tiger’s 97 Masters was the greatest performance of all time on that golf course. Because he won by 12 shots.

I think the most objective way is to compare relative dominance in one’s era but as you noted it doesn’t account for greater inclusion of races and nationalities, not to mention population growth. Based on that I suppose you can argue the best athletes today are more elite than the best athletes of yesteryear. Which is why best ever debates are pointless nonetheless reasonably entertaining ways of killing time.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Yes I agree athletes are stronger and faster than they used to be. It is true in golf as well, due to tech improvements in golf equipment and golf balls. So you can’t compare scores although it’s hard to dispute Tiger’s 97 Masters was the greatest performance of all time on that golf course. Because he won by 12 shots.

I think the most objective way is to compare relative dominance in one’s era but as you noted it doesn’t account for greater inclusion of races and nationalities, not to mention population growth. Based on that I suppose you can argue the best athletes today are more elite than the best athletes of yesteryear. Which is why best ever debates are pointless nonetheless reasonably entertaining ways of killing time.

Right. Plus they don't begin to account for intangibles - impossible to quantify skills. Like what Ty Cobb's daring base running and general intimidation did to distract and disrupt opponents. Or what effect Lou Gehrig waiting in the on deck circle had on the pitches hurlers were compelled to serve Ruth (when they would've preferred to just pitch around him.)

When people cannot agree on the definition of "greatest," they can't possibly agree on who deserves to hold that title.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Or what effect Lou Gehrig waiting in the on deck circle had on the pitches hurlers were compelled to serve Ruth (when they would've preferred to just pitch around him.)

This is such a big part of the game, and yet you so rarely see it mentioned.

Mays and McCovey too. I'd guess that if they'd been reversed in the lineup for all those years with the Giants, it would've been McCovey who hit around 660 HR and Mays in the career 500s instead

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

This is such a big part of the game, and yet you so rarely see it mentioned.

Mays and McCovey too. I'd guess that if they'd been reversed in the lineup for all those years with the Giants, it would've been McCovey who hit around 660 HR and Mays in the career 500s instead

Mays averaged 37 HR a year before McCovey showed up. Not saying it didn't have an effect but maybe not quite as big as you think. better case might be with Eddie Matthews and Hank Aaron who overlapped for almost all of the early and prime part of their careers.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Mays averaged 37 HR a year before McCovey showed up. Not saying it didn't have an effect but maybe not quite as big as you think. better case might be with Eddie Matthews and Hank Aaron who overlapped for almost all of the early and prime part of their careers.

Yes but Mays had slowed down hitting them for five years straight (before McCovey got there and started to become established). Had 163 homers from 1956 to 1960. Then he hit 226 from '61 to '65.

So while my numbers before may have been exaggerated a little, I doubt it's by much!

I never thought about the Mathews example that much. Poor guy is just forgotten sometimes. And he sure shouldn't be

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Yes but Mays had slowed down hitting them for five years straight (before McCovey got there and started to become established). Had 163 homers from 1956 to 1960. Then he hit 226 from '61 to '65.

So while my numbers before may have been exaggerated a little, I doubt it's by much!

You're neglecting the historical cause and effect with Mr. Mays. When the Giants moved to Frisco, everyone thought Willie would hit 50 homers a year. But the ballpark was situated in such a windy area, as in the wind daily blew in with gale force. Say Hey's power crumbled against the "anvil wind". His meager dinger totals upset the Frisco boo-birds, and they directed their fury on Willie with a vengeance. Say Hey was in a bad way; he couldn't take it.

Finally, he whined to the owner, Horace Stoneham, to move the fences in substantially to try to blunt the wind, and allow him to hit more home runs at home. Stonehom acquiesced the slugger's demands, and Willie finally reached 40 dingers in 1961, and did so essentially thereafter.

However, he wasn't a complete enough player to get the perennial Giant bridesmaids into the fall classic, save for '62, when the Giants played a humdinger of a Series against the Yanks, but fell short. Willie? No homers, one measly RBI, and a meager .250 batting average. He had his chance to prove something major to himself, his reputation, and his team----but failed miserably. --- Brian Powell

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you compare golfers, can't you just compare their scores from tournaments played on the same courses?

Of course not. Equipment has changed significantly over the years. And course layouts are not static.