Better offensively: Jagr vs. Howe
View Single Post
07-30-2014, 07:22 PM
Join Date: Mar 2013
Originally Posted by
Czech Your Math
And same with Wilt Chamberlain, who won scoring titles by 18.8 and 10.8 PPG, while Jordan could only manage an 8 point margin at best. So Wilt was a better peak offensive player than Jordan, case closed right?
The fact that Wilt, Ruth, or Howe were bigger, stronger, and/or better at a time when most weren't of the same caliber in those areas is really not relevant, correct?
By the same prinicple, if there were two cavemen, and one was faster than the other in the 100m by a larger % than Usain Bolt, then he was the best sprinter of all time. Because those cavemen were shorter and smaller, and ran in their bare feet on rocky, uneven soil, not in track cleats on synthetic tracks. Any discussion on the matter would seem unnecessary, since Gwar was way faster than his peer Grog. Yep, sounds completely fair and logical.
So if Usain Bolt was born 100 years earlier and didn't have access to the same training and nutrition but still destroyed his peers by more than any other modern athlete he couldn't be the greatest of all-time simply because he was born in the wrong time? If this is the case whats the point of ranking the best players, if they are all just going to inferior to the next wave of players?
View Public Profile
Beau Knows's albums
Find More Posts by Beau Knows