Peyton Manning and Willie Mays

[MyGuyTy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It wasn't hard for the Sporting News:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=4786953

They lost credibility when they put Don Hutson at #6 and 55% completion Otto Graham in the top 10, while tossing Reggie White to the 30's!.....lol. Ridiculous. Otto Graham isn't even a top 5 QB, let alone a top 7 all time. Colin Cowherd's take on old timers putting Otto Graham as a top QB was funny to listen to. Statistically speaking, Graham was average at best. Different era, different styles, he wouldn't even have been relevant if he played from the 70's and onward. Top 10, Top 25, Top 100 Interweb lists change every year, and sometimes monthly, lol.

I know it's hard to do sometimes but you have to take into consideration the eras. If a guy like Don Hutson played in 80's, 90's and 2000's he's be a 3rd best option. I can't ignore speed, size and pace of today's players over the last 40 years. You can take many players today and put them back in the 40's and 50's and they'd be instant "legends". I do have a few guys from that era that really stood out, but I'm not filling my list of top 20 guys with the majority of them from the 50's. This is almost exclusive only in football because of the skill, speed, size and violence that's inherent to the sport today.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by MyGuyTy

You can take many players today and put them back in the 40's and 50's and they'd be instant "legends".

That might be true, but if you took yesterday's stars and gave them the high school and college development that we have now, plus the performance enhancements, I think they would fit right in. The thing is - it doesn't really matter. Incentives for making a career out of football were different back then, the ball was different, equipment, etc. If you compare the size of an offensive or defensive line in the '60s to today, you will be amazed.

There are only a few star players I can think of from the '60s that I feel would not be stars today. On the other hand, I would love to see Fran Tarkenton in this year's Seattle offense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MyGuyTy

They lost credibility when they put Don Hutson at #6 and 55% completion Otto Graham in the top 10, while tossing Reggie White to the 30's!.....lol. Ridiculous. Otto Graham isn't even a top 5 QB, let alone a top 7 all time. Colin Cowherd's take on old timers putting Otto Graham as a top QB was funny to listen to. Statistically speaking, Graham was average at best. Different era, different styles, he wouldn't even have been relevant if he played from the 70's and onward. Top 10, Top 25, Top 100 Interweb lists change every year, and sometimes monthly, lol.

I know it's hard to do sometimes but you have to take into consideration the eras. If a guy like Don Hutson played in 80's, 90's and 2000's he's be a 3rd best option. I can't ignore speed, size and pace of today's players over the last 40 years. You can take many players today and put them back in the 40's and 50's and they'd be instant "legends". I do have a few guys from that era that really stood out, but I'm not filling my list of top 20 guys with the majority of them from the 50's. This is almost exclusive only in football because of the skill, speed, size and violence that's inherent to the sport today.

I think you can only evaluate players in the context of their era. Your statement is like saying Roger Bannister wasn't a great miler because any high school kid today can run his times.

[MyGuyTy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think you can only evaluate players in the context of their era. Your statement is like saying Roger Bannister wasn't a great miler because any high school kid today can run his times.

I can't turn a blind eye to science and physics, just can't do it. Not putting Bob Lilly ahead of Reggie White, and certainly not putting Don Hutson above Rice, Carter, Brown, Irvin, Largent, Moss, Alworth, Harrison, Lofton etc. When you're looking for the "best", you don't compromise.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MyGuyTy

I can't turn a blind eye to science and physics, just can't do it. Not putting Bob Lilly ahead of Reggie White, and certainly not putting Don Hutson above Rice, Carter, Brown, Irvin, Largent, Moss, Alworth, Harrison, Lofton etc. When you're looking for the "best", you don't compromise.

By that logic Jesse Owens is not one of the all time great track athletes because all his records have been broken many times over and his times and distances would probably be mediocre by today's standards. That makes no sense at all. If you plucked a fat and out of shape Babe Ruth straight out of his time and put him amidst players who train year round on equipment light years more sophisticated than existed in the 20's he might suck. But so what?

[MyGuyTy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By that logic Jesse Owens is not one of the all time great track athletes because all his records have been broken many times over and his times and distances would probably be mediocre by today's standards. That makes no sense at all. If you plucked a fat and out of shape Babe Ruth straight out of his time and put him amidst players who train year round on equipment light years more sophisticated than existed in the 20's he might suck. But so what?

Nobody said we're "taking away accomplishments", the original question was "who is the best", and like I said, when you're looking for THE BEST, you don't compromise. I guess if we went with the logic of "well they set the record first and used to be #1" we would NEVER include any athlete past the 60's in discussions of "best ever", it goes both ways. Baseball is unlike football because most it has to do with eye and hand coordination and technique when batting. Speed is a factor in stealing bases but it's also about timing and studying the pitcher. There is a reason many records in baseball haven't been broken that were set decades ago. It's almost the complete opposite with baseball as the game has changed in the way it's played, not so much the player has changed (with the exception of the steroid era)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MyGuyTy

Nobody said we're "taking away accomplishments", the original question was "who is the best", and like I said, when you're looking for THE BEST, you don't compromise. I guess if we went with the logic of "well they set the record first and used to be #1" we would NEVER include any athlete past the 60's in discussions of "best ever", it goes both ways. Baseball is unlike football because most it has to do with eye and hand coordination and technique when batting. Speed is a factor in stealing bases but it's also about timing and studying the pitcher. There is a reason many records in baseball haven't been broken that were set decades ago. It's almost the complete opposite with baseball as the game has changed in the way it's played, not so much the player has changed (with the exception of the steroid era)

On the one hand it does seem like mostly hand eye and technique but on the other hand why do people start putting up massive HR totals when they go on steroids and or crank up their workouts?

[Runscott]

I think Buddy has a point, given that football players are now huge compared even to the '70s, but I don't think it would affect quarterbacks or defensive backfield all that much - quarterbacks are still dependent on how well their O-line stacks up against the D-line, and linebackers and safeties were plenty fast back in the day.

But the game of baseball HAS changed a lot, so stats that are holding up today are mainly due to rule changes and today's emphasis on power ($$) - I think the old players would do just fine today, perhaps better in some cases. Baseball was more popular back then, with almost every town, no matter how small, having a semi-pro team, so there was a lot of competition for only 16 teams. And if they had let black players play...