My Mount Rushmore of all around American athletes is....
- Thread starter SEPATOPTEN
- Start date
Not only that, but he looked exactly like Burt Lancaster!
At least 8 separate incidents in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. As people debate this, they ought to keep in mind that had he gone to prison, as he would be WAYYY more likely to do today, then his record would not be nearly so impressive.
Last edited:
Absolutely correct.
At the same time, he was one of the nation's best proponents of Anti-gang activism in the USA and should be lauded for such.
Jim Brown was revered in the CLE inner city where domestic abuse is often "excused" and gang violence runs rampant (Heartless Felons Gang). He was also very active in LA. You can google it and find dozens of complimentary articles.
So JB leaves a complex legacy, as I noted in my OP. But I think every leader leaves a complex legacy when you bore down into the granularity of their life. It was released, yesterday, that there is ample evidence that Bill Gates was extorted by Jeff Epstein after Epstein learned of an affair Gates had with a much younger Russian Bridge player. Clinton, Musk, Wilt, Bush, Kennedy, MLK, J E Hoover,....it is a complex situation.
OK, but there is a HUGE RIVER of difference between infidelity and beating the sh!t out of your partner. And a lot of difference between private allegations and criminal charges.
by today's standards, I agree. the problem is that many of these people lived in a time of different standards so there weren't criminal prosecutions back before the 90s' and arguably before MeToo.
We’re not talking about the difference between the 70’s and 80’s and much as the athletes from even farther back…Jim Thorpe’s discus throw wasn’t even as far as Brian Milne threw the discus in high school. Athletes today are bigger, stronger and faster than the athletes in the 70’s and 80’s and they are light years ahead of the athletes prior to that time period.
Jim Thorpe ran in shoes he found in a dumpster! If you check out his famous photo you’ll see his does don’t match. He took them out of the trash. In fact, if you look closer you’ll see he is wearing two pairs of socks on one foot. Why? That shoe was bigger and he needed two socks to fit them.
And when Usain Bolt was young, he ran in his bare feet….want to guess which one was faster?
Huh? Why be arguementative? The point we are both making is that things have changed. I was simply saying that equipment and environment have changed as well. When I ran track, we were transitioning from cinder surfaces to rubberized asphalt. I ran the high and intermediate hurdles. I took a second off my time the first time I ran on rubberized asphalt.
Didn’t mean to be argumentative, I just hate when people think athletes from 100 years ago were better athletes than they are today. Yes, they dominated their sport, but not nearly as many people competed and they may have just been the best athlete out of a small number….big fish in a little pond.
no problem, brother.
BTW, I heard that today was some anniversary when Jesse Owens broke 3 world records and ties a fourth all on the same day.
Considering the time, equipment, conditions and BS he endured, he was probably the greatest all around track and field athlete in history. And yes, I'm aware of Usain Bolt and Carl Lewis
Definitely would. No one was better in the clutch. (Tiger his equal) In his young days would easily be in top 5 or 10 in distance off the tee now. Even more impressive, when needed most he would hit his best drives. Same with putting. Here is list of top 60 players in world now. Look at players 3-12 Very good, but wouldn't hold a candle to Nicklaus over time. Top 2 haven't proved they would sustain excellence over time.
Also, even with better equipment and balls no one on tour today approaches Ben Hogan's ball striking skills. (although towards the end of his career he had serious putting problems)
Jordan Spieth, a great guy and very good but flawed player, had 3 majors by the time he was about 23 years old. Can't sustain it like Nicklaus could. Nicklaus is easily a much better player than Spieth.
Golf is definitely the type of sport where great players from the past could still be great, much like bowling. Not so much for football, basketball, baseball, etc.
No doubt and Jack was my all time favorite golfer (I'm ancient). But I have to agree that both him and Woods would come nowhere near their records - and majors - today. Just a ton of more excellent golfers today - WORLDWIDE - to compete against and even Jack said much of the same during his Memorial Tournanment a few years ago. Now would he, Woods, Hogan, and Bobby Jones still be among the all time greats if not still the greatest ? Absolutely, but it's just looking at the situation with blinders on not wanting to accept how good the kids are today
Could be, I don’t follow golf so I have no idea. But the same could be said about football, basketball, etc…back in the day a lot of college players didn’t go pro because there wasn’t any money in it, so there weren’t nearly the number of great players there are today.
Winning Majors is all about performing well on the last nine on Sunday of the major. Nobody was better than Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods on the back nine on Sunday in a major. about 20 years ago Tiger Woods won four majors in a row. There is no one in today's golf that could achieve that.
In the 2003 season for instance Tiger Woods was competing against Vijay Singh, retief Goosen, Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, Freddie couples, John Daly and Davis Love the Third.
Last edited:
I'm absolutely not trying to diminish what past athletes accomplished but let's face it, they're just bigger, faster and stronger today and far more to choose from IN ALL SPORTS. They'll be saying the same thing in 30 to 40 years from now.
But I've also learned that it's useless to argue with old timers that are stuck in the past - won't do any good. And I'm in my 70s.
Don't even try to figure it out. Some just refuse to admit that youngsters today are just better athletes today than in the past and far, far more to choose from. It's much harder to dominate any sport today than in my days. And like mentioned a few times, they'll be saying the same thing after we're dead and gone. But it's useless to argue with some that have blinders on and refuse to advance to the present
If the greats of the past grew up with the same training, same diet, same nutrition, same tech as the athletes of today they would still be great. Unfair to denigrate athletes of the past by comparing them to today. Everything has changed. Not to mention the ridiculous dedication that's required from a very young age to become a pro athlete today. Those kids live and die their sport every day. The training from a young age is ridiculous. It's practically a full time job. Heck, mlb players used to have jobs in the off season. Times change. Not necessarily for the better.
Not to mention the advances in equipment and facilities (including training equipment and facilities). This person's notion that Ted Williams or Babe Ruth would not have been dominant hitters with the proper dedication in today's game is extremely flawed (for one thing, baseballs are way harder and more lively than those of even 50 years ago). The notion that today's pitchers are better than Don Larsen, Sandy Cofax, Denny McLain, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer, etc.... simply because they play today rather than when these players played 50 and 60 years ago is laughably ridiculous.
Synthetic track surfaces are probably 2 seconds faster than tracks of 100 years ago... or even 50 years ago.
Excellent points and I agree 100%. And I would also add there are far more to choose from - WORLDWIDE - today. All of these are factors that some of us were trying to point out in previous posts. But a handful - stuck in the past - refuse to acknowledge. They'll be saying the same stuff in future decades.
Since Golf seems to be a popular subject in this thread, I'll stick with it. I grew up in what I consider the Golden Age of golf - Jack, Arnie, Gary Player and Trevino. Jack is my all-time favorite player. But they had maybe a dozen - or so - great players who could challenge. Today, there are probably 60 or 70 (or thereabouts and maybe even more) WORLDWIDE that can win on the PGA. Just look at the players from Europe, S. America, Asia, Australia, Canada and Mexico that have a chance to win today on the Tour. Just look at the International golfers that have won Majors in recent years. Europe has turned the tables in the Ryder Cup the last few decades. You just don't see PGA players with big guts (with Shane Lowry maybe the exception) and smoking on the course like they did several decades ago. 95% of these kids today are really in shape and I think you can give the credit to Tiger Woods.
It kind of reminds me of my Dad and Granddad talking about Bobby Jones and how the golfers of the 1960s couldn't carry his jockstrap. He dominated the game every bit as much as Nicklaus and Woods in his day. But, as some today, they were locked in the past and refused to admit how all sports - with maybe the exception of baseball - has leaped forward over time, Just the way it is. Some of us have our favorites locked into our minds and refuse to see just how good the current crop of athletes are
Last edited:
All the points you bring up regarding the training and equipment are especially valid in baseball today. They are guys of been released from big league teams or even minor league squads and go get individualized, drive line or velocity training and all of a sudden or throwing 5 or 6 miles an hour harder with six extra inches of bite to their offspeed pitches. similar things happen with bat speed. I can only imagine how good Ted Williams would be with these training methods and like you said, hitting a baseball that is significantly harder than it was 50 years ago.
I don't think that anyone is doing that - most are saying that you just can't say that players like Jack Nicklaus, Jim Brown and Jesse Owens could fast forward to today and still dominate like they did in their eras. Besides the points that you made, numbers to choose from is also huge, especially in Golf which is now a worldwide game which just wasn't the case a few decades ago especially in the Jack and Arnie era. Even Jack - whom I consider the GOAT - mentioned it a couple of years back at his Memorial Tournament
I'll use Jim Brown - my greatest RB of all-time - as my prime example. His big thing was absolutely overpowering defensive players - a freak in his time. Would he do that today? Have you looked at the size, speed and strength of today's NFL LBs? Would he still be great ? Absolutely but just wouldn't dominate the freak athletes today like he did in his time.
Last edited:
Yeah, Mount Rushmore of morons.
LOL. Yeah, I had the same reaction when I read it.
He missed Hugh Green. That imbecile belonged in a cave not a college.
But where does it end? At some point, they have to stop getting taller, bigger, faster, etc. I read some research several years ago that theorized the maximum theoretical height for humans was between 10 and 11 feet. At that size, simple falls would result in many serious injuries (skull fractures for example) and deaths.
Stayed out of this one until this. Jack Nicklaus was a great golfer. No way he does that today. Too much competition today compared to back then. Letting your Buckeye bias get you.
I didn't hit me that both Jack and the Dailybuck poster were both Buckeyes till you posted this. Now it makes sense
Yeah, I think most of us consider either Nicklaus or Woods as the GOAT but Dailybuck is obsessed with Nicklaus and I agree that the worldwide competition today makes it impossible for anyone in their 20s and 30s to win a ton of tournaments and Majors going forward. I've stated that Jack is my favorite all-time but Jesus H. Christ, you have to have Nicklaus blinders on to think he'd dominate today like he did in the past.
I also did some research on Ben Hogan and think he could have been right there with Woods and Nicklaus if he didn't serve a few years in WW2 and lose some of his physical abilities to that near fatal car crash in his prime.
3 great one there in Nicklaus, Woods and Hogan
Research Byron Nelson.... was Hogan's peer both knew each other in Texas. Nelson had more majors than Hogan when he retired at 34 to buy a cattle ranch. He had 54 Career PGA Tour wins and 5 Major wins (2 Masters, 2 PGA and a US Open) despite retiring at the height of his prime in 1946 (Nelson won 18 PGA Tour Events in 1945 including the PGA).
Byron's Legacy
There is a reason why he was the first professional golfer to have a PGA TOUR tournament named in his honor. Mr. Nelson won 54 career victories, including winning two Masters (1937 and 1942), two PGA Championships (1940 and 1945), and the U.S. Open (1939).
Last edited:
Most definitely Bobby Jones. I believe he was the first dominant American golfer - even more so than Nicklaus and Woods and retired at a very early age. But then again, he didn't have anywhere near the competition that the later golfers would have and especially what we see today. But Jones was most definitely one of the top 3 or 4 golfers of all time - the one that got the American golf train a rollin.
We also have Bobby Jones to thank for the Masters as he was the driving force behind that golf tournament. Just one of the all time greats, if not the greatest.
Last edited:
He won 13 majors in 8 years making no money doing it, and driving it about 250 yards with that technology.
You are wrong on both points. Way more than a dozen or so players who could challenge Nicklaus. There are not 60 or 70 great players now. Xander Schauffle (sp), Max Homa and Patrick Cantlay are currently in the top six. (They are very good but not great) There are lots of very good players and substantially more than in previous times, but not very many who could challenge Nicklaus or Woods [Please note that I have mentioned Woods in this discussion] on back nine of a major on the final day of the major.
Going through the people who won in 1972 her are some really good players. Tony Jacklin (international), Tom Weiskopf, Gary Player (international), Lee Trevino Dave Hill, Chi Chi Rodriguez, Bruce Devlin, Doug Sanders, Jim Colbert, JC Snead, Lou Graham, Lanny Wadkins, David Graham & George Archer. A partial list of those winning in 73 includes, Billy Casper, Bruce Crampton, Gene Littler, Dave Stockton, Johnny Miller, Ben Crenshaw and Hale Irwin. Some non-winners during those 2 years included, Tom Watson, Ray Floyd, Tom Kite. (I didn't research this closely) All of these players could compete on today's tour and do well.
Would add that I used to be a Palmer fan mainly, but Nicklaus won me over with skill and sportsmanship. Ohio ties have nothing to do with it, and for instance, I don't like the way he designs courses. From what I have heard his redesign screwed up OSU Scarlet.
The mistake you make is equating golf (which is at least half mental) with very physical sports like football and basketball. I can see how people can question whether Jim Brown would be as dominant now as he was in past because he wasn't as fast as the top runners today like Saquon Barkley. (maybe with training he would be. He was an extremely great athlete). Anyone who watched closely when Nicklaus and Tiger were playing knows that their mental toughness over long periods of time greatly exceeds that of any of today's players. Maybe someone will jump out of the pack, but so far it hasn't happened.
In any event, here is Nicklaus talking about his 3 best shots, all 1-irons, including a 242 yard 1 iron (almost certainly with a balata ball) at the 1975 Masters which he had to hit high to hold the green. Very few of today's golfers could hit that shot and even fewer could hit it on the back nine of the final round when it mattered most.
In your opinion. Read everybody else's comments. Come out of the past Buckeye
