05 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightHi Red, interesting thread.
Another person quoting wikipedia????
You realize these articles are written by anyone. They don't carry any scholarly weight.
Anybody can go in and make changes to the text.
I can go in and say that Dan Broadman was a 7 foot tall green space alien. (Now, eventually something like that will get changed...but it doesn't change the fact that entries are mostly just someone's opinion.)
I'm intrigued by your attempts to disparage cricket over this and other threads. Why not enjoy both cricket and baseball for what they are - two very different games.
Anyway on this Babe Ruth thing ...
Trying to make any sort of claim that one athlete or another is the 'greatest ever' is going to be a bit difficult given the changing nature of sports.
Taking your cricket example Don Bradman is of course recognised as one of the greats, but he played at a time when there was significantly less cricket played than there is today and players were amateurs - barely paid, and usually keeping down a full time job at the same time.
I'm not sure how it was with Babe Ruth when he played baseball but I suspect something similar.
Which raises the perennial question of course - how would any of these greats Babe Ruth, Don Bradman, Pele or whatever, go in playing the modern versions of the games they excelled at? There's no answer to that of course, people will have their own opinions.
Mine is that comparisons are pointless.
Comparing players from one era to another is pointless.
Comparing sports to other sports is pointless.
Just enjoy each sport for what it is.
I like watching soccer when soccer's being played; I like watching baseball when it's being played (and when the Australian networks will deign to show it); and so on.
Although I've got to admit a soft spot for cricket and Australian rules football having played them both, it doesn't stop me from enjoying many others.
05 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightYou will notice, though, that most Wikipedia articles contain references to other sources. In fact, studies have shown that in general Wikipedia articles have similar accuracy to supposedly more "definitive" articles.
Another person quoting wikipedia????
You realize these articles are written by anyone. They don't carry any scholarly weight.
Anybody can go in and make changes to the text.
You have to be careful, but I wouldn't automatically consider Wikipedia to be less reliable than any other Internet source. (Several of which you've quoted 🙂)
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by amannionHi Amon:
Hi Red, interesting thread.
I'm intrigued by your attempts to disparage cricket over this and other threads. Why not enjoy both cricket and baseball for what they are - two very different games.
Anyway on this Babe Ruth thing ...
Trying to make any sort of claim that one athlete or another is the 'greatest ever' is going to be a bit difficult given the c ...[text shortened]... n rules football having played them both, it doesn't stop me from enjoying many others.
Believe it or not, I didn't start this. Some one else started this lunacy by attacking American football and baseball. Since that point it has spun out of control.
Actually, Ruth was a professional. The first professional athlete to make $100,000 per year. (In the 1920s!!!)
Whether Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time cannot be proven. I actually don't think that he is. But, if you look in another thread, most of the posters did.
And, I agree with you: people should enjoy their games as much as they can. Sport is a beautiful thing.
Our sports network, ESPN, was showing Australian Rules Football for a while and it was pretty entertaining and pretty easy to follow. Not sure why they stopped.
I would probably watch cricket highlights if they were on TV. I doubt I would ever attempt to watch more than the highlights for very long.
Back to Ruth: He may not be the greatest, he may not be the best, BUT it is pretty clear that he has an enduring legacy and is still a recognized name all around the world 60 years after he finished playing. That is amazing!
Almost anywhere in the world, if you say the name Babe Ruth, people will know who you are talking about.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightI agree with you.
Hi Amon:
Believe it or not, I didn't start this. Some one else started this lunacy by attacking American football and baseball. Since that point it has spun out of control.
Actually, Ruth was a professional. The first professional athlete to make $100,000 per year. (In the 1920s!!!)
Whether Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time can ...[text shortened]... where in the world, if you say the name Babe Ruth, people will know who you are talking about.
Cricket is a tough one. It's a cultural thing here in Australia - young boys (mostly boys anyway) are inculcated into the game by their fathers. You watch it, and then play it, and keep watching it, and after a while what would be a mindless drudge for anyone else (watching 5 days of it) becomes an obsession.
My wife (same age as me, 100% Australian) was asking me the rules of cricket and how you win the game yesterday, as we watched Australia produce an upset over the English. And she's been surrounded by it her whole life as I have.
Go figure.
On American football and baseball, I actually like the glitz and glamour that your guys seem to throw into your games. They become spectacles - or at least, that's what we see of them here in Australia anyway.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by amannionCongratulations on Australia's stellar victory!!!
I agree with you.
Cricket is a tough one. It's a cultural thing here in Australia - young boys (mostly boys anyway) are inculcated into the game by their fathers. You watch it, and then play it, and keep watching it, and after a while what would be a mindless drudge for anyone else (watching 5 days of it) becomes an obsession.
My wife (same age as me, 100 ...[text shortened]... s. They become spectacles - or at least, that's what we see of them here in Australia anyway.
Normally, I wouldn't give a Cricket score the time of day, but I think this was an important victory and one that needs to be celebrated here on the forums!
US sporting events can be quite the spectacle. So are soccer matches almost anywhere in the world.
06 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightI only ever knew of Babe Ruth through U.S baseball movies. I doubt many non-English speakers would know of him at all.
Back to Ruth: He may not be the greatest, he may not be the best, BUT it is pretty clear that he has an enduring legacy and is still a recognized name all around the world 60 years after he finished playing. That is amazing!
Almost anywhere in the world, if you say the name Babe Ruth, people will know who you are talking about.
Dan Broadman, on the other hand, is a well known figure throughout the cricketing world.
It's telling that good old Dan, who is far more famous worldwide, only just came to your attention, while I've known of Mr Ruth for some time. Tisk tisk.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by dylThat is telling.
I only ever knew of Babe Ruth through U.S baseball movies. I doubt many non-English speakers would know of him at all.
Dan Broadman, on the other hand, is a well known figure throughout the cricketing world.
It's telling that good old Dan, who is far more famous worldwide, only just came to your attention, while I've known of Mr Ruth for some time. Tisk tisk.
This is even more so:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=babe+ruth&word2=don+bradman
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red Nighthttp://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=cricket&word2=baseball
That is telling.
This is even more so:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=babe+ruth&word2=don+bradman
Do you believe that accurately reflects their popularity worldwide?
06 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightYou're being silly. As soon as we include India in the equation (population 1.1 billion) it's clear that cricket and Sir Donald Bradman are more popular worldwide than baseball is by a long, long way.
Maybe.
Cricket would cover other things as well.
I'm not sure how accurate the google fight is.
What do you think?
I know you Yanks are very inward looking culturally and tend to inflate the importance of local events and people, but you've increased Ruth's fame in proportion to his waistline. The American film industry is the only reason Babe Ruth is well known in the English speaking world.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by dylNow you're the one being silly.
You're being silly. As soon as we include India in the equation (population 1.1 billion) it's clear that cricket and Sir Donald Bradman are more popular worldwide than baseball is by a long, long way.
I know you Yanks are very inward looking culturally and tend to inflate the importance of local events and people, but you've increased Ruth's fame in proportio ...[text shortened]... ican film industry is the only reason Babe Ruth is well known in the English speaking world.
India/Pakistan is a big country, housing probably 3/4 (or more) of the world's cricket fans. The rest of the fans come from Australia/NZ, England, BWI, and SA.
Baseball is played in:
USA, Japan, Korea, all over the Caribean, Cuba, Latin America, South America, Taiwan, Canada, China (I see your India and raise!), and it is growing in popularity all over continental europe and africa.
And you really missed the point of this thread. Babe Ruth is a legendary character, his name and reputation transcend his admittedly gargantuan accomplishments on the field.
EVEN your OWN newspapers were calling Bradman "The Babe Ruth of Cricket" at least as early as the 1930s.
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightPlease.
Baseball is played in:
USA, Japan, Korea, all over the Caribean, Cuba, Latin America, South America, Taiwan, Canada, China (I see your India and raise!), and it is growing in popularity all over continental europe and africa.
And you really missed the point of this thread. Babe Ruth is a legendary character, his name and reputation transcend his a ...[text shortened]... OWN newspapers were calling Bradman "The Babe Ruth of Cricket" at least as early as the 1930s.
I believe baseball is struggling to find it's way into Chinese culture.
In the Caribean and Africa, cricket is played and watched much more than baseball.
In India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, cricket is basically a religion.
06 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Red Nighthttp://www.cricketworldcup.com/Teams.html
Now you're the one being silly.
India/Pakistan is a big country, housing probably 3/4 (or more) of the world's cricket fans. The rest of the fans come from Australia/NZ, England, BWI, and SA.
Baseball is played in:
USA, Japan, Korea, all over the Caribean, Cuba, Latin America, South America, Taiwan, Canada, China (I see your India and raise!), an ...[text shortened]... N newspapers were calling Bradman "The Babe Ruth of Cricket" at least as early as the 1930s.
How many countries are participating in the baseball world cup? I doubt there's more than 4 or 5. In fact, as far as I know baseball is only biggish in Cuba and Japan (outside the U.S). Cricket is the second most popular sport in the world.
But really, popularity of a sport means little. I just wish you'd believe me when I say that Babe Ruth is not that well renowned a figure - he's only known to me through U.S baseball movies, and in fact I only heard the name for the first time about 6 years ago (in a movie, as stated).
06 Dec 06
Originally posted by CrowleyI've had this debate before with stubborn baseball fans. One produced a list of baseball playing countries and Australia was in the top 5. I nearly died.
Please.
I believe baseball is struggling to find it's way into Chinese culture.
In the Caribean and Africa, cricket is played and watched much more than baseball.
In India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, cricket is basically a religion.