quote:
The argument I used against Sayers being in the HOF was solely based on career stats and even though he doesn't rank in any significant catagory (not even close)

You are using stats accumulated in the 30 years after he was inducted into the Hall. So unless you think voters should be clairvoyant, not ever vote anyone in because future players may be better or perhaps that players should be booted out of the HOF, you argument is not reasonable.

Part of the argument for Sayers when he was elected was the career cut short argument. I agree that that is a lame argument and I know some voters at the time didn't agree with it either. If you want to use Sayers stats or the injury excuse to say someone else should be in the Hall, that is a more rational argument. Terrell Davis for example was an absolute beast who had his career cut short by injury and has way more yards than Sayers. He also won a league and Super Bowl MVP. I know the Sayers is in cause of injury argument was used to get Dwight Stephenson, who was regarded as the GOAT at center, into the Hall after injuries cut his career short.

quote:
is still open to reasonable opposing argument

you are not open to reasonable arguments at all. You start with an unreasonable premise then reject all arguments as bs romanticizing by old men. You seem overly influenced by an unknown writers blog post basically holding past racism against as he put it trailblazing players. Guys like Jim Brown, Willie Mays and Wilt Chamberlain were ahead of their time, yet he wants to hold that against them.

This post was edited on 12/12/09 at 12:45 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by H-Town Tiger

Member since Nov 2003

60944 posts

Posted on 12/12/09 at 12:33 pm to Amadeo

quote:
I think the weakness of my argument is not my lack of understanding of contex

I respectfully disagree. To use the golf example, you may not know enough about golf to compare courses, but you can at least understand that some courses are much harder than others. Assuming you know that the lower score in golf is better, a 74 for 18 holes is not nearly as good as a 140 for 36 holes. That's what is meant by context.

quote:
more an obsessive belief, for good or ill, in the superiorty of todays players.

I don't think any rational person disputes that, I certainly wouldn't. But I do think you have to compare guys against their contemporaries. If they were the best of their era, they should be in the Hall. That they wouldn't be as good today is not really relevant except for a theoretical arguments about who is the best of all time, while those arguments can be fun, its just for fun.

quote:
Honestly H-town, which of these two would you rather see coming on a blitz.

Merlin Olsen was listed as 6'5" 270 or so in his day. That is still a pretty good size, with modern weight training he may be able to add the 25-35 LBs that DT's have today. In any event, that Lewis is faster and scarier looking that Olsen's yearbook photo, doesn't mean they didn't have some mean, tough hombre's back in the day. Its not like we could say Deacon Jones or Dick Butkus are pussies because 40-50 years later guys will be bigger and faster. remember too, they have changed the rules, back then players could be and were much dirtier.

No one is suggesting Olsen or the guys or the 60's are better athletes than today's guys like Ray Lewis. Just like in 2030 they will probably be some one better and scarier than Lewis.

This post was edited on 12/12/09 at 12:34 pm

Page 1 2 3 4