Jordan was hardly a two sport athlete. He was a sideshow, and while he was not totally awful at Double A baseball, he was pretty bad. He never ever had a shot to go to even Triple A, and certainly not the big leagues. If his name had been Michael Jones instead of Michael Jordan, he would not have even lasted as long as he did in the minors. Jordan's dabbling in baseball was an interesting sideshow at the time, but has no relevance to the discussion at hand.
If his name was Michael Jones rather then Michael Jordan, he likely would never gotten the chance to play MINOR leaague baseball whatsoever. And his dalliance in baseball is relevant here, as it shows Jordan wasn't the freak of nature who could successfully play any sport he chose that he's been painted out to be. All three athletes could easily have haad doors opened for them based on their name value and played a different sport at a lower level, had they chose. It's just that Jordan was the one who lost his passion for basketball, and tried another. There's a reason he played for Chicago's farm team, and not someone else's. His name.
Golf may be the sexy choice here. Football, hockey, basketball, even baseball, bring certain aspects to sports that golf does not bring. But that does not mean that golf at the upper echelon, at the level of Tiger, does not involve a physical specimen like Tiger to dominate it.
Golf isn't the sexy choice, so to speak, because it's not the correct one. There's no possible way to argue that golf requires the athletic ability that these other sports do. If it did, all golfers would be in the same shape as Tiger Woods. As we know, that's haardly the case. Many golfers look your average Canadien or American male, and have no reason not to. The physical endurance, speed, agility, and durability aren't necessities. When's the last time you've seen a fat hockey player? You haven't, and for a reason. Because hockey requires so much more athletic ability then golf does.
Jordan was hardly a two sport athlete. He was a sideshow, and while he was not totally awful at Double A baseball, he was pretty bad. He never ever had a shot to go to even Triple A, and certainly not the big leagues. If his name had been Michael Jones instead of Michael Jordan, he would not have even lasted as long as he did in the minors. Jordan's dabbling in baseball was an interesting sideshow at the time, but has no relevance to the discussion at hand. You don't have to be able to play multiple sports to be considered the ultimate athlete.
This I agree on, and my argument is noted. Jordan played for the Birmingham Barons, of the Southern league, which is considered to be the weaker of the Doube-A leagues. What's further, he had to show improvement just to be bad at it. If he was Michael Jones instead of Michael Jordan, he never would have had the opportunity to flirt with the Mendoza line in the minor leagues. Any argument of what he "could have been" given the right training is irrelevant, because that's not what happened. All we can go by is the stats, and they were bad, in low Minor League ball at that. Lemieux and Woods would have had the same opportunity to "play their craft" in a different way had they chosen to, but didn't. Lemieux never lost his passion for his game. Woods lost his self-control, which has cost him his game.
You have to be physically dominant in your one sport, which Jordan certainly was, but so was Tiger, except even more so. It just so happens that Jordan had a baseball history, and was able to flirt with it a little. Who knows what Tiger may have been able to do had he a history with something else? I don't even care because it is irrelevant. Just like Jordan's media circus in the minor leagues was irrelevant too.
When's the last time Tiger's been dominant within his sport though? He's still at prime age, considering his sport. Yet his play continues to slip. No tournament victories, a lost number one ranking. He's a shell of his former self. Consider the body of work, more then anything else. You have Jordan who scores the lowest points totals of his career, by far, at the end. You have Woods, who lost his mental focus and sense of inhibition, and it has carried over into his golf play. You can make all the arguments you want that its not relevant, but statistics don't lie. Lemieux averaged the most points per game of all players in the NHL over 2000-06, and the only thing that held him out of games was injury. His PPG average shows that he still had it. Jordan didn't, and Woods hasn't shown he has.
I somewhat agree, it is difficult to compare accolades from two such different sports. Both guys do have impressive accolades (of course, Tiger has more of them and they are more impressive
).
It's IMPOSSIBLE to compare accolades from basketball or hockey with that of Golf. There are four majors each year, combined with countless more tournaments in Golf. In hockey, or basketball. there's ONE championship to win each year, and you know this. An impossible comparison.
My point here may in fact be debatable. Then again, so is your paragraph here. I am not totally sold on basketball being second only to soccer in profile on a global scale. And I am not sure that it is far more popular than golf is as you suggest. Safe to say, much to my chagrin, that hockey is well off the pace (which is the case in the US, in addition to globally). Which takes Lemieux out of the discussion in this aspect.
With all due respect, this isn't round 3. We had the debate over "Most Internationally Famous Athlete" then. Suffice to say, all 3 men are likely household names across the world and there's no proof otherwise. When you're as dominant in your sport of choice as these three have been, fame and notoriety will follow. Soccer isn't worth a darn in North America, but i know who Ronaldo and Pele are. Fame and success at one's sport transcends cultural popularity.
It is irrelevant. After Jordan retired for the second time and then returned to basketball, to the Wizards, he was a shadow of his former self. This did not adversely affect his legacy, his legend had already been more than established by this time. He had done what he had done, and his stats at this time did nothing to detract from the fact that he was the greatest basketball of all time. Same applies to Tiger. His legend has already been well established. Anything left to come just potentially adds to it, but cannot detract from it. I am not stopping Tiger's career in 2009, i am simply saying that even if you did, the point is still the same
.
Both men were and are shadows of their former self.All we can look at are what we've seen with regards to Woods. And that's been sloppy play, missed cuts, and a failure to win a tournament since his return. Jordan had the two lowest point totals of his career upon his. Lemieux showed he could step onto the ice in what would be the twilight of most's careers, as all Lemieux did was lead the NHL in points per game from 2000 until his retirement. Not the players in their prime such as Forsberg, Modano, Federov, Sakic's, or Jagr. What happened to Tiger Woods #1 golf ranking? He lost it recently. None of the men were their former selfs during the twilight of their careers. The only difference is, Lemieux's was due to injury, and not declining play, as the PPG figure shows.
An excerpt from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Lemieux
On December 27, 2000, he returned to the NHL against the Toronto Maple Leafs.The game was nationally broadcast on ESPN2 in the U.S. and on Hockey Night in Canada Lemieux proved that his scoring touch had not disappeared by scoring a goal and three points, including an assist 33 seconds into the first shift of his return. While Jaromír Jágr remained captain of the Penguins, Lemieux was named captain of the North American All-Stars during the midseason All-Star game in Denver, Colorado. Despite playing in only 43 games in 2000–01, Lemieux scored 76 points to finish 26th in scoring, finishing the season with the highest points-per-game average that season among NHL players.
In fact, he had the highest points-per-game average amongst NHL players for the entire period from his 2001 return until his final retirement in 2006. Lemieux was one of the three finalists for the Hart Memorial Trophy and Lester B. Pearson NHLPA awards and earned a selection on the postseason NHL All-Star Second Team.
I never once solely relied on Jordan being the best athlete because he was the greatest basketball player. That was one of many reasons I had don't put words in my mouth. You saying Lemieux having better intangibles is 100% opinion based. Lemieux had some nice dekes, Jordan has crossed over many in his career. He has also completely changed direction in mid air to avoid defenders and score. MJ's intangibles are easily on par with that of Lemieux's.
And Michael Jordan actually did possess strength to go inside and score on bigs. He actually did have the quickness of a point guard. He did have tremendous hand eye coordination. Unless the two have a foot race there is no way to realistically judge who was better at what but I'll take MJ all day.
Most of what we're doing here is opinion based. To narrow what Lemieux did down to some nice dekes(which im not saying you're doing), would be incredibly shortsighted. He had a cannon for a shot. He was a precision passer. Lemieux defined "no look" passing in the NHL, as he could and often did put pucks on other players sticks without even glancing at them. He could muscle the strongest players in the league off the puck due to his size, and skate by them or past them due to his speed or agility. See my reference to him holding the all-time record for shorthanded goals in a season to note his defensive prowess. Jordan had phenomenal intangibles, and I won't and haven't even try to argue that he didn't. You've missed that fact over and again. Ive said repeatedly that Jordan is the SECOND greatest athlete of all time. But that still puts him firmly behind Lemieux, and his intangibles are one reason.
As for the part in bold, there's a huge difference between the two sports, making your foot-race argument a non-sensical one. They're two entirely different sports. That would like me saying "lets have Jordan put on a pair of skates and see who was the faster skater." And of course, Lemieux would win there. Again, im not arguing that Jordan didn't have the intangibles. As his career wore on, he did develop the strength to go inside and score on the bigs. Before that, it was his incredibly ability to make people miss that allowed him to score layups and phenomenal dunks. Lemieux combined those things from day 1 of his career, Day 1.
Do you actually read what I say or do you enjoy putting words in my mouth. I had Jordan had the athletic capabilities to succeed at other sports. It takes more then that, however, to actually be successful. If MJ put the dedication and passion into baseball or football like he did with basketball at a young age, then he was more then athletic enough to succeed. I can't say the same about Mario. I know damn well Jordan played a full season of minor league baseball and wasn't very good. Did you know it was a game that he hadn't played for 19 years?
Did you know he showed tremendous improvement throughout the season and actually impressed then manager Terry Francona? The fact that he looked competent at a sport he hadn't played for 19 fucking years is remarkable and it's false to say otherwise. Do you think Mario could have done the same thing? Fuck no.
I read what you said. And again, it's a silly argument. I didnt put words in your mouth, you said he could have succeeded at any sport. And when he tried, he didn't. Of course it takes years to perfect a craft, but there' no evidence that Jordan would have. He played for a Duble-A club in the inferior Southern League, and barely stayed afloat. As Ive shown with regards to Lemiuex, his size strength, agility and haand-eye coordination were more then enough that he could have succeeded at another sport had he played it from a young age. We'll never know. What we do know that is if you quantify "improvement" as raising your average over the Mendoza line in a "prospect league", the bar's been set awfully low.
As for showing improvement, of course Im aware. Ive noted on several occassions that Jordan was(and is) my favorite basketball player of all-time. So I sure as heck followed his career throughout his one season in the Minors. I didn't need to look up the fact that he played for the Birmingham Barons, I knew. I followed the man's career from start to finish. As for looking competant, that's debatable, as .202 for an inferior Southern League team is quite poor. Most players do show improvement throughout the course of an entire season. Because of the qualities listed above, there's no doubt in my mind that Lemieux could have done the same. He was born and raised a hockey player from age 3, however. And suggestion on my part that he would have succeeded would be exactly what yours is, speculation. He didn't need to try his hand at another sport, although there's no doubt that with his size, speed, strength, and agility, combined with his passion and incredible ability to succeed no matter the circumstances(back, cancer anyone?) he could have. I'll settle for him being the greatest athlete of all time.
Don't ever question the "passion" of Michael Jordan. MJ lost the most important person in the world to him, his father. His fathers dream was that Michael play professional baseball. That coupled with the fact that he was burnt out from nearly a decade of carrying a team, winning 3 titles, and playing in the Olympics all contributed.
I didn't question the passion Jordan, the man did himself. It was the reason he gave for walking away from the sport in the first place! It was only after finding that he couldn't be successful with regards to his father's dream that he came back to basketball. I don't deny Jordan was passionate, but Lemieux, moreso. Playing hockey on the same night you received radiation treatment and scoring three points that same night blows away any passion Jordan may have shown. Lemieux had nothing more to prove in the game of hockey, could have walked away, and noone would have blamed him. But it was his passion for the game that kept him going. It was his passion that lead to him playing in a game and scoring perhaps the most incredible goal in NHL history after missing the previous game because of his bad back. This is the passion I speak, part of the intangibles that make him the greatest player ever.
I apologize for two very minor errors that in the long run are irrelevant to the point I was making. Ron Francis was traded for later in the season so he didn't carry them in the regular season the first year but Recchi did. And both were very important to that first cup run. Recchi wasn't part of the second cup run but he did play part of that second season for them and in return they got two good players that helped them win the second cup. The point I was making is that Lemieux had more then his fair share of help. Help that you seem to think wasn't there.
You made the comparison to Francis being to Lemieux what Pippen was to Jordan, so id say it's more then a small error. And thanks for putting words in my mouth, as I never even suggested Lemieux didn't have help. He simply was far and away the best player and catalyst for the Penguins success, both in winning Stanley Cups, but in making Pittsburgh a prominent hockey franchise to this day. And of course Lemieux had help, Ive never suggested otherwise. Im simply suggesting that he had less help then you think. Did you know the Penguins gave up 40 goal scorer John Cullen to get Francis? Cullen in fact outscored Francis 110-87 that year! He had a young Mark Recchi who undoubtably will be a Hall of Famer one day. He had a young Jaromir Jagr who will also be a hall of Famer one day. But their goalie, Tom Barrasso, finished 40th in the league in Goals Against Average during 1990/91, and was 39th in 91/92, despite being 5th and 10th in wins respectively. Factor out some of the players who played only a handful of games and he's in the middle of the 20's, which is horrendous considering there were only 21 NHL teams at the time.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/careerstats....rage&viewName=statsLeadersSingleSeasonGoalies
So as much as you'ld like to factor in the players who helped Mario win, which there were, my point is that there are times you have to look at the players he won in spite of. And anyone who'ld suggest goaltending isn't a major factor in winning doesn't follow hockey closely. Most teams, regardless of who they have up front, don't win without an excellent goaltender, and Lemieux never played with one in Wendell Young, Ken Wregget, or Tom Barrasso.
Goddamn are you overrating Jordan's supporting cast. While Lemieux played with multiple HOFers and multiple other great players. MJ had one HOFer in Pippen and one very good player in Horace Grant for 3 and then a HOFer in Rodman replaced Grant for the last 3. Will Perdue was complete and utter shit. He never even averaged double figures in any season. His highest ppg average with Jordan was 4.7. Bill Cartwright was good player early in his career but by the time the Bulls started winning titles he was 34 years old and didn't do all that much. Stacey King is another guy who did jack in his career. John Paxson could hit the open three but that's about it. He only had two seasons in his career where he averaged double digits and neither came during the Bulls title winning seasons.
The only consistent prime player Jordan had with him during all of his titles was Pippen. Lemieux had Ron Francis, who was also a HOFer, for both cup runs. Not a complete season in the first cup win but he was there for all of the playoffs. By the time Jagr was entering his 3rd year he was becoming an elite player and yet Lemieux was unable to win another Cup. Jordan in no way had more support. My comparison of Pippen to Francis may be speculation but about 90% of your argument is speculation so you can;t really say much.
I think you're understating the support that Jordan had. Cartwright, for one, was brought in specifically to fit into Jackson's system and help combat some of the size within the Eastern conference. Ive already mentioned how B.J. Armstrong lead the league in 3 point shooting overall during the 3 year span of which the Bulls won their first championship. Paxson was a very solid point guard and a clutch shooter. He only made the game winning three against Utah in their series clinching victory in their 3rd championship season, after all. Perdue and King weren't much, but they were role players. Every team has them, the Penguins were full of them with guys like Bob Errey, Jay Caufield, and Kjell Samuelsson. None of them were impactful players, but they served a role. Same with some of the Bulls players.
And Jordan was given even more help in his second championship run. He had a third Hall of Famer in Dennis Rodman. Ron Harper was solid albeit unspectacular. Steve Kerr was as good a three point shooter as there was, and as clutch shooting in big games this side of Robert Horry. Toni Kukoc was a double digit scorer in each of the three years, and Pippen was certainly that solid number two go to guy outside of Jordan.
Jordan may have had Phil Jackson but Lemieux had two great coaches as well. Bob Johnson was only a coach for a few years but he was successful in those years. His untimely death then brought the Penguins arguably the greatest hockey coach of all time in Scotty Bowman who was working in the front office before hand.
The thing you're neglecting or don't know is that the Penguins HATED Scotty Bowman. They refused to play his system and locked him out of practice after he was instrumental in trading Recchi and Paul Coffey away. Bowman thought his system was bigger then the players and the players threatened to quit on him if they couldn't practice without him, so they did. There's a reason Bowman's contract wasn't renewed a year later, outstanding coach or not. You can be outstanding and it doesn't matter a darn bit if the players won't LET you coach, which is what happened here. This wasn't an isolated incident, as Bowman had similar issues with a star player in Detroit with Sergei Federov. With regards to coaching, Jordan won all six of his rings under Jackson, and none before or after him. Lemieux won his Cups with two different coaches, one he despised. The argument here can certainly be made that while Lemieux won Cups despite any type of system in place, part of Jordan's winning was due the Triangle offense Phil Jackson implemented. In the case of coaching, Jordan certainly had the advantage over Lemieux.
You are out of your mind if you think Michael Jordan had more help then Lemieux did during their respective title runs. At the very least they are even but give the edge to Lemieux's supporting cast.
The only consistent prime player Jordan had with him during all of his titles was Pippen. Lemieux had Ron Francis, who was also a HOFer, for both cup runs. Not a complete season in the first cup win but he was there for all of the playoffs.
But Jordan had that consistent sidekick during his entire time, which is certainly worth a mention. Recchi was that for the first Cup run, but he wasn't for the second. It's worth mentioning that the Penguins traded away 40 goal scorer John Cullen to get Ron Francis, and Cullen outscored Francis 110-87 during the 90/91 season! Francis only produced 17 points to Mario's 44 during that years Cup run and 54 points to Lemieux's 131 the entire next season. With regards to plus/minus, he was a minus player during the second Cup run.
http://forecaster.thehockeynews.com/hockeynews/hockey/player.cgi?341
Many of Francis' numbers came without Lemieux, and while a HOF, he was hardly the second to Lemieux that Pippen was to Jordan.
By the time Jagr was entering his 3rd year he was becoming an elite player and yet Lemieux was unable to win another Cup. Jordan in no way had more support. My comparison of Pippen to Francis may be speculation but about 90% of your argument is speculation so you can;t really say much.
That's what we do here, correct, is speculate? We use some factual evidence, but much of it is made up with our opinions on things. Of course Lemieux is going to be viewed at having the greater cast, as hockey teams roll with 4 lines, 6 defenseman, and at least one goalie per game. The maximum number of players that even can be active for an NBA game is 12, so the depth in the NHL is greater simply due to number of players. Your argument of Pippen to Francis is
innacurate, not speculative, as Ive shown. Much of Lemeiux not winning another Cup with the Lemieux/Jagr combo was a second back surgery for Lemieux, cancer, and the fact the Penguins were porous with regards to playing defense and got bad golatending. You don't win Cups when your goalie doesn't stop pucks, which Ive shown their starter during Lemieux's glory days, Tom Barrasso, didn't do well in comparison to the rest of the league.
You act like Jordan never had great playoff performances. I mentioned the flu game already but let's also not forget he averaged over 30 ppg in every single playoff run he ever had with the exception of his first as a rookie. That time he only averaged 29.3.
And you like to talk about people putting words in others mouths. I said it before and I'll say it again. Jordan was, is, and always will be my favorite basketball player. I grew up watching him, and I remember his fantastic playoff performances. I am taking NOTHING away from him. I am simply stating Lemieux once again holds the edge here It's by virtue of him scoring 44 points while missing 3 games in the 01 Cup run. it's him leading the team to victory for a second consecutive year with a broken freaking hand after a purposeful slash by the Rangers Adam Graves in the second round against the Rangers, one that was supposed to end his season. Instead, he returned four games later, finished off the favorite Rangers, then lead the team to back to back sweeps over Boston and Chicago. Despite missing those games and playing in shorter series' he still lead the NHL with 34 points in the playoffs. Ill take that over what Jordan did anytime.
So you're admitting that both players did extremely remarkable things. Some things that may never be seen again and some that the great players of today are doing similarly.
Ive acknowledged that on multiple occasions. Being 28, I grew up with both men plastered all over my wall. There are things that were done that will absolutely never be duplicated, by both men. But again, I give the edge to Lemieux here. Coming back the night of radiation from cancer to score a goal and assist on two more and turning the hated Flyers crowd towards a standing ovation. The aforementioned playing through a back issue to score the most incredible goal in NHL history. Having his hand purposefully broken by a Ranger and returning that series then leading his team to two sweeps and a 2nd Cup following. That is something truly remarkable, especially with the importance of grip to most of what one does in hockey. Him scoring five goals five different ways, still the only NHL player to ever do so. Him showing his defensive prowess, setting and owning the NHL's all-time record for shorthanded goals at 13.
Also notably, in 2002, two nights before Christmas, ESPN sports radio host Mark Madden in Pittsburgh called Lemeiux out. There was one thing Lemieux had never done before, and that was score a goal off a faceoff. Madden offerred $6,600 hundred dollars to the Mario Lemieux Foundation for cancer research if Lemieux could EVER score a goal off a faceoff. What did Lemieux do that night against Buffalo? Read about it, and watch for yourself.
http://www.espn.go.com/nhl/conversation?id=221223016
[YOUTUBE]m7S9oRoqfMA[/YOUTUBE]
Simply put, Lemieux could do what he wanted when he wanted to do it, and he could do so even injured. Noone could turn their game up and make players around him better the way Lemiuex did. You mentioned Jordan's supporting cast, and their failure to do certain things. When you played on a line with Lemieux, you produced. Noone took the talent Lemieux did and made them look great, in the history of any sport. If there is one thing you can say about the great Michael Jordan, it's that he didn't do the same his entire career. Mario was a complete player who made everyone around him better. Look no further then Rob Brown. He scored 115 and 80 points respectively in 88/89 and 89/90 playing with Lemieux, on his line. After leaving Pittsburgh, the following year his highest total in the NHL was 42.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=619
His other linemate much of the time was Kevin Stevens. Stevens scored no less then 86 points and a high of 123 from 1988/89 to 1993/94, playing with Lemieux. His highest total after leaving Pittsburgh? 43 points FIVE years later.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=5177
If that's not a testament to Lemieux's ability to elevate the game's of players around him, nothing is. It's also another testament of him being the greatest athlete of all time.
You completely mistook my statements about MJ and his ability at other sports.
No, I took a vague statement and responded to it. You noted that Jordan could have succeeded at a multitude of sports. End of. I noted how he tried, and didn't find success.
The Recchi and Francis errors were very minor and were not all that relevant to the main point I was getting across about Lemieux having plenty of help for his Cup runs.
They weren't minor, and they were very relevant. You can backtrack from them now, but it doesn't change the fact. Recchi was only present for one Cup run. Francis wasn't even apart of the team for much of the first Cup run, and his impact was minimal. The following season, he put up mediocre numbers. You were saying that francis was to Lemieux what Pippen was to Jordan, and Ive shown that to be entirely false, both in regards to his time with the team, and his numbers.
Your errors have been major parts of your arguments that were false. Basically your errors far >>>> my errors in terms of relevance to the debate and arguments.I also don't care all that much that Lemieux led the league in points per game during his first year. Considering he only played half the season it doesn't really show me much. Whats to say he doesn't slow down at the end of the year because of his age? It's very rare that a player especially at that age keeps up a point per game average throughout an entire season.
My only error is that I left "per game" off the end of Lemieux's first season, and failed to note how he lead the league in scoring from the time he returned until the end of the season, not the season itself. Thats a MINOR mistake. Seeing how he trailed only 28 men of the 690 that played the same number of games as Lemieux did or more, Id say he did alright for himself after 3 and a half years off. In fact, with Lemieux being ranked in the top 30, the person closest to him in games played was 69, 26 games more then him. And he outscored Lemieux by 1 point, just to put things into perspective. And I guess it's a good thing that Lemieux was the overall leader in points per game from 2000 until 2006, when he returned until he retired, as I showed Habs earlier.
You showed some of those things but at every single turn I showed you how Jordan was greater when it came to all of those things. Lemieux was great but no way is he a better athlete then Michael Jordan.
Ive shown a multitude of things including Lemieux's unmatched agility, speed,
eye-coordination and strength, which have been re-emphasized in this post. Ive shown how Lemeieux's defining moments trump anything that Jordan or Woods has ever displayed. Ive shown how Lemieux has shown the ability to play any type of play, in any way, evidenced most in his five goals in five ways. Ive shown his ability to elevate those around them, with two relevant examples. Ive shown how while Lemieux did have a good supporting cast, he was easily the greatest, with no equal. Ive demonstrated Lemieux's on-ice skills in a multitude of ways, unparralled by any others. I've shown how his ability to come back from injury, disease, and retirement haven't impaired his level of play. Most importantly, Ive shown how in comparison to Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan with respect to their collective sports, Mario Lemieux is the greatest athlete of all time.
Ill have my final argument up tomorrow.
