Who wins? John L Sullivan or Wladimir Klitschko?!!!

Actually, he is credited with developing variations of both the hook and uppercut.

 

I don't want to hijack this thread with too much BB talk, but I suspect you are just another guilty of romanticizing the players of yesterday, without giving enough regard to the advances made since then.

And it's certainly not a FACT that he was a better athlete than Shaq. I say he wasn't, and both of us having nothing but opinion at our disposal. There's no empirical measure of overall athleticism.

You're being silly to suggest it has nothing to do with his competition. It has a great deal to do with that, and although I agree he'd still be an excellent player, he lacked the power, overall skill (particularly as a passer with his back to the basket) or competitive drive as Shaquille.

Oh, and Wladimir annihilates Sullivan under your rules or mine.

 

Absolutely not. Vertical leap is one of the most fabricated and inaccurate measures in all of sports. It remains totally unreliable today, and certainly back during Wilt's day. It's right there with times for the 40-yard dash, both for unreliability and lack of translation to actual play. It's a candy stat.

.

False. I've seen high school kids pull shots out of the air (not many, but a few), and in a couple cases by people a good bit shorter than Wilt. It amazes me every time, yes, which is why I (and many others) consider basketball athletes the most rare in all of the sports. Finding guys who can do what they can do physically -- and at those heights -- is mind-numbing. I don't question Wilt was an athletic freak for his era, and even today he would be a "good" (just not great) athlete in the NBA. It's not the insult you interpret it to be.

All you've done is describe a great play made by Wilt. I can think of many for Shaq as well, so it seems pretty pointless to me to go back and forth along those lines. And then you have the vertical leap stat, which in my opinion is worthless.

My mistake on this. I got sidetracked into the "better player" argument (an easier one to make in Shaq's favor), so you are correct here. Having said that, one can appear more athletic against inferior comp, but that's not the crux of my argument.

 

Under 1880's rules....Wlad beats Sullivan but ends up with a broken nose.

Under 1940's rules....Wlad KO1

Under 2000's rules.....Wlad KO1

 

Yes!!! Without a doubt. College coaches in both football and basketball -- trained professionals with many years of experience -- always prefer to evaluate players against the best competition possible.

"Small school syndrome" is very real, and coaches always are wary of the superstar who moves likes like Jim Brown/Michael Jordan against 1A competition.

You can tell that someone is athletic in any context, but relative athleticism -- what we're discussing here -- is much more complex. Certainly, part of what they're watching is skill (which obviously is affected directly by level of competition), but even pure athleticism also is colored by the competition.

 

Are you suggesting that *I* am Magnum? My knowledge is nowhere near that level!

Besides, everyone knows that Zakman/Amsterdam/China_hand_Joe are all the same person.:yep

 

Explanation.

 

Which cuts to the heart of the matter. You can believe Ali was great because he beat Frazier and Foreman, who were also great because Frazier beat Ali and Foreman beat Frazier. Or you can conclude that one of them was a bum and therefore all of the other ones were too.

Either way you're playing dominoes.

 

Sure. Certain elements of athleticism are more overt, while others are very subtle. Reaction time, agility and balance sometimes cannot be accurately observed unless the athlete in question is pushed, for lack of a better word.

In real world terms, two identical players can dominate competition based on an equally elite level of quickness and leaping ability. It isn't until better competition enters the picture that one separates himself from the other in terms of the other athletic components.

That's true whether you're talking basketball, soccer, boxing, whatever. Good athletes stand out against average comp, while only great athletes stand out against good comp.

Does that make more sense?

And by the way, I appreciate your civil tone of disagreement.