Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

Kutcher55 · #1 11-10-2021, 04:47 AM

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.

Mark17 · #2 11-10-2021, 05:10 AM

Quote:

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 · #3 11-10-2021, 05:56 AM

Quote:

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 · #4 11-10-2021, 06:21 AM

Quote:

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 · #5 11-10-2021, 07:58 AM

Quote:

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 · #6 11-10-2021, 08:03 AM

Quote:

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 · #7 11-10-2021, 08:27 AM

Quote:

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

Tabe · #8 11-10-2021, 02:49 PM

Quote:

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.

Peter_Spaeth · #9 11-10-2021, 09:42 AM

Quote:

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.

Re globalization: Abebe Bikila. 1960, I think? Kip Keino by the mid 60s. It's not new.

Kutcher55 · #10 11-10-2021, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Re globalization: Abebe Bikila. 1960, I think? Kip Keino by the mid 60s. It's not new.

It has proliferated at a considerably slower pace than you are asserting with this comment. Up until 1988, an African had never won the Boston Marathon. Competition has increased dramatically since the time of Roger Bannister, which was my point. It has also increased dramatically since the 1960s.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lefty Grove = Lefty Groves... And Lefty's 1921 Tip Top Bread Card	leftygrove10	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	10-15-2019 01:55 AM
62 koufax ,59 mays,72 mays vg ends monday 8 est time sold ended	rjackson44	Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once.	3	05-22-2017 06:00 PM
Final Poll!! Vote of the all time worst Topps produced set	almostdone	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	22	07-28-2015 08:55 PM
Long Time Lurker. First time poster. Crazy to gamble on this Gehrig?	wheels56	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	05-17-2015 05:25 AM
It's the most wonderful time of the year. Cobb/Edwards auction time!	iggyman	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	68	09-17-2013 01:42 AM