The Respective Greats

[MXD]

Tennis : Rod Laver.

 

[Reds4Life]

Football (the original, not US version): Pele

 

[JackSlater]

Most basketball websites have kareem above wilt. Scoring in the 1960's is not the same thing as scoring in the 1970's and 1980's. Kareem has more mvps and more longevity, he has wilt beat.

Most credible rankings I have seen put Chamberlain above Abdul Jabbar, but that's beside the point. If someone really, strongly prefers longevity to peak/prime performance I could see Kareem above, but otherwise it has to be Chamberlain. Chamberlain's scoring isn't just impressive in raw terms, it's incredible in terms of comparison with the other top players in the league, which has little to do with the scoring level. During this period, Chamberlain was also the second best defensive player in the league. With both players at their respective bests, Chamberlain beats Abdul Jabbar in scoring, rebounding, passing and defence. I don't put much stock into NBA MVP awards, but keep in mind that Chamberlain was the best player in the NBA for his first 9 years, against tougher competition than Abdul Jabbar played against in the 1970s.

For football, its a 3 way race between Jim Brown, Jerry Rice and Peyton Manning in my opinion. People can hate peyton all they want but he is pretty much the best qb ever. Joe Montana is overrated, he is based more on team accomplishments. His regular season career is medocre, never lead the league in passing yards, above average passer rating. I

Johnny Unitas and Peyton Manning were more dominant qbs than Joe. If joe montana and tom brady are so great, why were they so average in college. Barry Sanders and Peyton Manning were rockstars since highschool, they were not products of systems like emmitt smith and steve young.

I find it rare but pleasing to see someone properly assess Manning.

 

[canucks4ever]

Most credible rankings I have seen put Chamberlain above Abdul Jabbar, but that's beside the point. If someone really, strongly prefers longevity to peak/prime performance I could see Kareem above, but otherwise it has to be Chamberlain. Chamberlain's scoring isn't just impressive in raw terms, it's incredible in terms of comparison with the other top players in the league, which has little to do with the scoring level. During this period, Chamberlain was also the second best defensive player in the league. With both players at their respective bests, Chamberlain beats Abdul Jabbar in scoring, rebounding, passing and defence. I don't put much stock into NBA MVP awards, but keep in mind that Chamberlain was the best player in the NBA for his first 9 years, against tougher competition than Abdul Jabbar played against in the 1970s.



I find it rare but pleasing to see someone properly assess Manning.

No, I disagree. Chamberlain would not average 20 rebounds per game if he were playing in the 1980's. Kareem won more rings, has more productive seasons and more mvps. By the way, chamberlain was also playing 46 minutes per game, while kareem played 37. On top of that, if Wilt played 20 seasons, his ppg would have dropped too. Jabbar>Chamberlain and most basketball webstes agree.

 

[canucks4ever]

How do you figure Montana has only an “above average†passer rating? When he retired, he had the highest passer rating in NFL history. The rest of the players above him are current, or recently retired players, which shows that the passing game has changed dramatically since Montana left the NFL. Unless you think Phillip Rivers is a better QB than Montana. The next highest QB who played a lot in the 80’s is Marino, and Montana is a full 6 points ahead of him. Montana was top 5 in passer rating 9 times in 13 full seasons, where Manning has finished top 5 9 times in 12 full seasons.

Peyton Manning has 12,000 more yards, an extra mvp award and he has 5 first team all stars compared to Montana's 3. Also factor in that Joe was throwing the ball to the best reciever ever, and its not really close.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Peyton Manning has 12,000 more yards, an extra mvp award and he has 5 first team all stars compared to Montana's 3. Also factor in that Joe was throwing the ball to the best reciever ever, and its not really close.

Are Montana's 3 Super Bowl MVP's and Manning's repeated playoff underachievements to be overlooked entirely? I see the Colts as similar to the 60's Blackhawks and 90's Atlanta Braves. Great team, won a championship, but going 12-4 for basically a decade and coming away with only one Super Bowl and one other appearance is disappointing.

What do people think of Bobby Orr/Sandy Koufax?

Koufax isn't held in nearly as high of regard in baseball circles, but baseball people value longevity to a much greater degree than hockey people. On peak/prime value Koufax is one of the very best pitchers ever, though he's rarely seen on somebody's top five pitchers list due to his short career.

To reach back a century, Newsy Lalonde and Cyclone Taylor/Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb. Indisputably the top players in their sports before the Ruth/Morenz era. Good arguments to be had over who indeed was the better of the two. Lalonde and Cobb were both rough and vicious players, hated intesnsely by their opponents, while Taylor and Wagner were more gentlemanly.

 

[JackSlater]

No, I disagree. Chamberlain would not average 20 rebounds per game if he were playing in the 1980's. Kareem won more rings, has more productive seasons and more mvps. By the way, chamberlain was also playing 46 minutes per game, while kareem played 37. On top of that, if Wilt played 20 seasons, his ppg would have dropped too. Jabbar>Chamberlain and most basketball webstes agree.

Where did I say that Chamberlain would average 20 rebounds? Most people agree that Chamberlain/Russell are the best rebounders ever along with Rodman, and it's not just from looking at raw statistics. They blew away the competition. Since Chamberlain was a better rebounder that Russell, Chamberlain is likely either the best or second best rebounded ever, and certainly ahead of Abdul Jabbar. Rings are a team accomplishment and have little relevance, especially since their careers barely coincided. I already said that Kareem has superior longevity, but that's it. Chamberlain at his sustained best was better than Abdul Jabbar at his sustained best in every meaningful area. Regarding the MVPs, take a look at some of those MVP results, or better yet watch games from that era. Chamberlain was robbed of the five MVPs he didn't win his first 9 seasons. Regarding playing 20 years, obviously his career ppg would drop. Career ppg was never mentioned up to this point, so I don't know why you even bothered mentioning it. I don't know what "basketball websites" you've been looking at, but unless you're counting championships or very, very strongly value longevity Chamberlain is better.

 

[Derick*]

No Jagr love?

Unfortunately Jagr wasn't in the right place and time to be an icon. He may have been better than Crosby but he was never the league's mascot like Crosby is. Jagr also had close competition he wasn't a rival with. Hasek, Forsberg, etc. They can romanticize Crosby despite Ovechkin because they can include him in the narrative.

For all time though, if we're speaking skill + exposure/notability, it's Gretzky, hands down.

This is a lot easier than people are making it out to be. Agree with the choice or not, most sports have a player unambiguously considered to be the best ever by most of pop culture. Basketball is Jordan, Hockey is Gretzky, Golf is Tiger Woods, Boxing is Ali.

It helps to be North American, good and famous when you were young, and in a lot of towel commercials.

 

[canucks4ever]

Where did I say that Chamberlain would average 20 rebounds? Most people agree that Chamberlain/Russell are the best rebounders ever along with Rodman, and it's not just from looking at raw statistics. They blew away the competition. Since Chamberlain was a better rebounder that Russell, Chamberlain is likely either the best or second best rebounded ever, and certainly ahead of Abdul Jabbar. Rings are a team accomplishment and have little relevance, especially since their careers barely coincided. I already said that Kareem has superior longevity, but that's it. Chamberlain at his sustained best was better than Abdul Jabbar at his sustained best in every meaningful area. Regarding the MVPs, take a look at some of those MVP results, or better yet watch games from that era. Chamberlain was robbed of the five MVPs he didn't win his first 9 seasons. Regarding playing 20 years, obviously his career ppg would drop. Career ppg was never mentioned up to this point, so I don't know why you even bothered mentioning it. I don't know what "basketball websites" you've been looking at, but unless you're counting championships or very, very strongly value longevity Chamberlain is better.

Well its pointless to debate this if you take his stats from the 1960s at face value, that wasn't modern basketball. Chamberlain was just a stats guy, his teams didnt win until he started giving up personal stats and becoming more of a team player. Its funny how you wont use mvps and rings because they dont support your player. I go on plenty of basketball sites and kareem is always held in a higher regard. Kareem was top 5 in mvp voting 15 times, wilt only has 11 good seasons. Kareem had the better field goal%, and his assists per 48 minutes is higher. As a matter of fact, thier points per 48 minutes are nearly identical and this is after kareem played an extra 6 seasons, which saw a drop off in his stats.

Jerry west and elgin baylor would not average the same stats had they played in the 1980's, its common sense.

In the playoffs, wilt averaged 8 more minutes per game, yet kareem had the better scoring average and more finals mvps. Wilt wasn;t exactly playing on weak teams either, the warriors had arizin and nate thurmond. The sixers had hal greer and billy cunningham, lakers had elgin and west. Yet all he has is 2 rings and 1 finals mvp to show for this?

 

[pluppe]

Unfortunately Jagr wasn't in the right place and time to be an icon. He may have been better than Crosby but he was never the league's mascot like Crosby is. Jagr also had close competition he wasn't a rival with. Hasek, Forsberg, etc. They can romanticize Crosby despite Ovechkin because they can include him in the narrative.

For all time though, if we're speaking skill + exposure/notability, it's Gretzky, hands down.

This is a lot easier than people are making it out to be. Agree with the choice or not, most sports have a player unambiguously considered to be the best ever by most of pop culture. Basketball is Jordan, Hockey is Gretzky, Golf is Tiger Woods, Boxing is Ali.

It helps to be North American, good and famous when you were young, and in a lot of towel commercials.

of course that helps....if you play North American sports...

 

[unknown33]

What do people think of Bobby Orr/Sandy Koufax?

Koufax isn't held in nearly as high of regard in baseball circles, but baseball people value longevity to a much greater degree than hockey people. On peak/prime value Koufax is one of the very best pitchers ever, though he's rarely seen on somebody's top five pitchers list due to his short career.
.

On Baseball sites with History sections even bigger than this one he isn't even regarded as a Top 20 alltime pitcher.

 

[Derick*]

of course that helps....if you play North American sports...

That's funny, because I thought that a second after posting.

When it comes to international sports, though, North American media will prefer a North American athlete. This is especially relevant in the last few decades with more foreign players competing against eachother in team sports and more sports becoming internationally popular. Hockey today is a perfect example for this. In Canada Russians are the bad guys and automatically assumed to be cheap/dirty/bad defensively/all flash no substance. Russians probably have their own biases and perceptions. And of course that's going to effect (or rationalize) Crosby/Ovechkin comparisons.

But that's still only in the eyes of North Americans or the region in question. So my statement was still pretty redundant. What really helps is to be from the same part of the world and speak the same language as the media/culture that happens to be under consideration, and in this case it's North America's.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

On Baseball sites with History sections even bigger than this one he isn't even regarded as a Top 20 alltime pitcher.

I'd definitely believe it, and it's really astounding how much emphasis is put on longevity and career numbers by baseball people. Mike Gartner would be considered a top 50 all-time player, and Bobby Orr wouldn't make the top-10 if hockey were evaluated by baseball criteria.

 

[JackSlater]

Well its pointless to debate this if you take his stats from the 1960s at face value, that wasn't modern basketball. Chamberlain was just a stats guy, his teams didnt win until he started giving up personal stats and becoming more of a team player. Its funny how you wont use mvps and rings because they dont support your player. I go on plenty of basketball sites and kareem is always held in a higher regard. Kareem was top 5 in mvp voting 15 times, wilt only has 11 good seasons. Kareem had the better field goal%, and his assists per 48 minutes is higher. As a matter of fact, thier points per 48 minutes are nearly identical and this is after kareem played an extra 6 seasons, which saw a drop off in his stats.

Jerry west and elgin baylor would not average the same stats had they played in the 1980's, its common sense.

In the playoffs, wilt averaged 8 more minutes per game, yet kareem had the better scoring average and more finals mvps. Wilt wasn;t exactly playing on weak teams either, the warriors had arizin and nate thurmond. The sixers had hal greer and billy cunningham, lakers had elgin and west. Yet all he has is 2 rings and 1 finals mvp to show for this?

I never once said anything about taking stats at face value, in fact I don't believe I've even listed a single statistic. The fact is that Chamberlain dominated his peers to a greater degree than Kareem ever did. You are the one who has started throwing out statistics without looking at their context. You note that Kareem had a higher career FG%. This isn't surprising considering that all players in Kareem's era shot a higher percentage than those in Chamberlain's era. If you look at league leaders, you'll see that Chamberlain led the NBA in this category 10 times. Kareem did it once. I wouldn't use FG% anymore to argue that Kareem was better. This works for any other individual category. Chamberlain led the NBA in scoring 7 times and rebounding 11 times. Kareem led the NBA in scoring 2 times and in rebounding once. Chamberlain even led the NBA in assists one year. Chamberlain did this in spite of generally stronger competition than Kareem faced, as the 1970s was a notoriously weak era in NBA history. I won't bother exploring the effect that playing 10 years with Magic Johnson had on Kareem's career and numbers.

Regarding Wilt's teams, he was only with Arizin for Arizin's last 3 seasons and only had 1 season with Thurmond, which was after Arizin had retired. Those Warrior teams never had a chance. Greer and Cunningham were both great, but in Cunningham's case he didn't even become great until the year after Chamberlain left. Greer was a great player, but it wasn't enough to match Boston's depth most of the time. In Los Angeles Chamberlain had a great player in West but ultimately their teams had terrible luck with Boston, although they would win one championship. You noted that Baylor played with them but by the time Chamberlain arrived he was injury riddled and only played one full season. I would guess that the main reason Chamberlain's teams didn't win all kinds of championships was because they had to play the Boston Celtics each spring, you know the most dominant team in NBA history. Had the finals MVP award existed for during the 1960s then Chamberlain would have exactly as many as Kareem does.

Peyton Manning has 12,000 more yards, an extra mvp award and he has 5 first team all stars compared to Montana's 3. Also factor in that Joe was throwing the ball to the best reciever ever, and its not really close.

Regarding Montana there is a decent chance that he was partially a product of his system, playing with a loaded team and for quite possibly the greatest offensive coach in football history. Regarding Manning's 5 first team all pro selections, he also finished second to Brees by 1 vote in 2006 I believe.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Nope, nor Hasek, Bobby Hull, Beliveau. This is the "Babe Ruth" of a sport not necessarily just the best of a time period nor is being the best enough. Need to be iconic AND the very best. Hull, Mikita or Beliveau may have been the best of the 60's but no one was arguing they were better than Howe at his best in the 50's so they don't make the list. Same with Jagr since he actually played with Mario and at the same time as Gretzky. I added Crosby and Ovechkin since they are from the next era and seem to have a real Bird/Magic iconic quality that transends what Jagr or Hasek or Forsberg meant in the 90's.

problem is, the way that list you made works, each player can legitimately be compared to or was better than the guy before him. howe > morenz. orr > or at the very least ~ howe. gretzky ~ orr. lemieux ~ gretzky (i find it far-fetched, but peak-wise at least you can argue it). crosby and ovechkin in no way can be compared to mario. there's no way you can make that comparison.

Basketball over time:

Mikan - Chamberlain/Russell - Kareem - Bird/Magic - Jordan - Shaq - Kobe

Generally the debate is between Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain for greatest ever with Jordan winning almost all the time.

same thing. shaq and kobe are nice, but to say nothing of the unmatchability of jordan territory, you also can't seriously put them in the conversation with wilt, russell, kareem, bird, or magic. there are different levels of being the best player in the world, and those guys were on a higher level of it than prime shaq or today's kobe. same with duncan, who i would put ahead of both; you just can't talk about duncan in the same breath as kareem, russell, or wilt (big drop off between the top six all time and the next tier). lebron, however, may have a shot at the top six though he isn't in that conversation yet either.

also, on this chamberlain v. kareem debate, does it really matter when both are behind russell? i'm not going to make the case for russell, bill simmons wrote a very convincing chapter about it in his basketball book. i do find it ironic that ushvinder faults montana for inferior stats and downplays his playoff resume because he played with better players when you could say the same thing about kareem in LA (and what kareem has over wilt is championships and longevity, and i don't think he has nearly as much of either without magic). and you could easily compare wilt to manning in terms of statistical and regular season dominance with disappointing playoff results.

top 15 all-time according to simmons (you can quibble with the order, but the top six is the top six and the second tier is the second tier):

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Tim Duncan
8. Jerry West
9. Oscar Robertson
10. Hakeem Olajuwon
11. Shaquille O'Neal
12. Moses Malone
13. John Havlicek
14. Elgin Baylor
15. Kobe Bryant*


* he has since written that bryant has moved up on that list, to 11 iirc.

 

[canucks4ever]

I never once said anything about taking stats at face value, in fact I don't believe I've even listed a single statistic. The fact is that Chamberlain dominated his peers to a greater degree than Kareem ever did. You are the one who has started throwing out statistics without looking at their context. You note that Kareem had a higher career FG%. This isn't surprising considering that all players in Kareem's era shot a higher percentage than those in Chamberlain's era. If you look at league leaders, you'll see that Chamberlain led the NBA in this category 10 times. Kareem did it once. I wouldn't use FG% anymore to argue that Kareem was better. This works for any other individual category. Chamberlain led the NBA in scoring 7 times and rebounding 11 times. Kareem led the NBA in scoring 2 times and in rebounding once. Chamberlain even led the NBA in assists one year. Chamberlain did this in spite of generally stronger competition than Kareem faced, as the 1970s was a notoriously weak era in NBA history. I won't bother exploring the effect that playing 10 years with Magic Johnson had on Kareem's career and numbers.

Regarding Wilt's teams, he was only with Arizin for Arizin's last 3 seasons and only had 1 season with Thurmond, which was after Arizin had retired. Those Warrior teams never had a chance. Greer and Cunningham were both great, but in Cunningham's case he didn't even become great until the year after Chamberlain left. Greer was a great player, but it wasn't enough to match Boston's depth most of the time. In Los Angeles Chamberlain had a great player in West but ultimately their teams had terrible luck with Boston, although they would win one championship. You noted that Baylor played with them but by the time Chamberlain arrived he was injury riddled and only played one full season. I would guess that the main reason Chamberlain's teams didn't win all kinds of championships was because they had to play the Boston Celtics each spring, you know the most dominant team in NBA history. Had the finals MVP award existed for during the 1960s then Chamberlain would have exactly as many as Kareem does.



Regarding Montana there is a decent chance that he was partially a product of his system, playing with a loaded team and for quite possibly the greatest offensive coach in football history. Regarding Manning's 5 first team all pro selections, he also finished second to Brees by 1 vote in 2006 I believe.

Wilt played when the nba was in its baby stages, dont act like his era was a gold standard. As a matter of fact, the average center in his days was 6'7. Kareem has better playoff numbers and his points per 48 minutes is identical to wilt's. Playing with magic johnson actually lowered his stats because he was sharing the ball. Wilt was simply a 'before his time player'. In modern basketball he would average 25-30 points per game and 13 rebounds at best, kareem doesnt need to match those 1960's stats to claim he's better. Opinion of magazine writers and his own hardware already suggest that he is better. I'll take 17 elite seasons over 11 elite seasons in the 60's any day of the week.

You keep mentioning competiton yet fail to mention that he spent a large portion of his career playing against centres like moses malone, bob mcadoo, bill cowens, bill walton, and a young hakeem olajuwon. Who exactly was guarding chamberlain? A 6'8 bill russell and a bunch of unathletic 6'7 guys.

I will just have to agree to disagree. Kareem>Wilt any day of the week

 

[canucks4ever]

problem is, the way that list you made works, each player can legitimately be compared to or was better than the guy before him. howe > morenz. orr > or at the very least ~ howe. gretzky ~ orr. lemieux ~ gretzky (i find it far-fetched, but peak-wise at least you can argue it). crosby and ovechkin in no way can be compared to mario. there's no way you can make that comparison.



same thing. shaq and kobe are nice, but to say nothing of the unmatchability of jordan territory, you also can't seriously put them in the conversation with wilt, russell, kareem, bird, or magic. there are different levels of being the best player in the world, and those guys were on a higher level of it than prime shaq or today's kobe. same with duncan, who i would put ahead of both; you just can't talk about duncan in the same breath as kareem, russell, or wilt (big drop off between the top six all time and the next tier). lebron, however, may have a shot at the top six though he isn't in that conversation yet either.

also, on this chamberlain v. kareem debate, does it really matter when both are behind russell? i'm not going to make the case for russell, bill simmons wrote a very convincing chapter about it in his basketball book. i do find it ironic that ushvinder faults montana for inferior stats and downplays his playoff resume because he played with better players when you could say the same thing about kareem in LA (and what kareem has over wilt is championships and longevity, and i don't think he has nearly as much of either without magic). and you could easily compare wilt to manning in terms of statistical and regular season dominance with disappointing playoff results.

top 15 all-time according to simmons (you can quibble with the order, but the top six is the top six and the second tier is the second tier):

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Tim Duncan
8. Jerry West
9. Oscar Robertson
10. Hakeem Olajuwon
11. Shaquille O'Neal
12. Moses Malone
13. John Havlicek
14. Elgin Baylor
15. Kobe Bryant*


* he has since written that bryant has moved up on that list, to 11 iirc.

There's a big difference though in my analysis. Wilt Chamberlain was a great individual talent. You can put him on garbage teams and he will still own the stats books. Guys like joe montana, emitt smith and steve young are depended on team success rather than thier own individual ability.

The onlly 'offensive' football players that I consider as all time greats on an individual basis are peyton manning, jim brown, barry sanders and jerry rice. Jerry Rice was still lighting the league on fire in 1986 when he had a mediocre qb that season. Even in 1991 he was still great when he played with different qbs and as an old man too in oakland. No matter who the qb was, rice was catching the ball.

I also think karl malone is getting severely underrated for not winning a ring. Playing twice against the bulls is the same thing as winning 2 rings when jordan sits out. From 1998-2003 Malone was still an all star, while olajuwon became a bench player. He has the most all nba first team selections, not ranking him in the top 15 is a crime.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i agree with you on wilt vs. kareem. kareem was a winner. but my point was isn't manning basically wilt? or is it just that the NFL doesn't have a russell or kareem at QB to be better than him? to my eyes, they seem so comparable-- "great individual talents," as you say; great regular seasons, but much more playoff failure, often as heavy favourites, than glory.

i'm trying to think of a hockey comparable, but can't. among the top 25 all time, glenn hall maybe, but i've read convincing things on this board about how hall was much better than his playoff record indicates.

 

[canucks4ever]

i agree with you on wilt vs. kareem. kareem was a winner. but my point was isn't manning basically wilt? or is it just that the NFL doesn't have a russell or kareem at QB to be better than him? to my eyes, they seem so comparable-- "great individual talents," as you say; great regular seasons, but much more playoff failure, often as heavy favourites, than glory.

i'm trying to think of a hockey comparable, but can't. among the top 25 all time, glenn hall maybe, but i've read convincing things on this board about how hall was much better than his playoff record indicates.

Johnny Unitas would be a good comparable in a way because he was a winner and unlike Montana, he actually lead the league in passing yards many times.

I actually think glenn hall does suffer in his rankings. He has twice the amount of first team all stars than roy or plante. His save percentage rankings was also quite strong.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Passer rating, actually along with every other passing stat, is highly influenced by era. It is one of the most meaningless stats in football when it comes to comparing quarterbacks from different generations because its equation does not take into account the evolution of the game over time.

Look at the list of the NFL's career passer rating leaders. Of the top 20 career passer rating leaders, 15 of them started playing in 1997 or later. The other 5 (rank) are Steve Young (1), Joe Montana (6), Otto Graham (16), Dan Marino (17), and Brett Favre (17).

The fact of the matter is that the current-day NFL is tailored towards the passing game and the quarterback in a way that drastically inflates passer ratings. The major components of the passer rating equation are touchdowns, completions, attempts, passing yards, and interceptions. Considering how pass-happy NFL offenses have become, it's not difficult to understand why a high passer rating is so common nowadays as opposed to the past. There also have been a slew of new defensive penalties created to protect both the quarterback and receiver from the bone-jarring physical defense that was so rampant up through the late 1990's. Roger Staubach was dead on when he said that quarterbacks of his time had lower passer ratings because of the NFL they played in.

Joe Montana's career passer rating of 92.3 is simply remarkable given the era he played in and the offensive scheme of Bill Walsh. Montana played in a league defined by extraordinary running backs and dominant defenses. In his era, the NFL was a decidedly run-first league, and it didn't help that the West Coast offense turned a large number of his passing attempts into glorified running plays. Montana retired with the highest passer rating in NFL history, a good 6 points ahead of anyone else. His passer rating was far higher than his contemporaries of the era, Dan Marino and John Elway. Most notably, until the year 2000, Montana and Steve Young were the only two QB's in NFL history to post career passer ratings over 90.

You cannot compare quarterbacks from different eras based on statistics like passing yards, passer rating, or touchdowns. Montana may not have the raw numbers Manning does, but that is a result of circumstances that he could not control. As a frequent HOH poster, you should know that raw numbers are often skewed by era.

Peyton Manning is the greatest of his generation, and will likely finish in the top 3 all-time, but his legacy will be of overwhelming numbers and mixed playoff success. You can't be compared to Joe Montana if you have a mixed playoff legacy.

 

[JaymzB]

Passer rating, actually along with every other passing stat, is highly influenced by era. It is one of the most meaningless stats in football when it comes to comparing quarterbacks from different generations because its equation does not take into account the evolution of the game over time.

Look at the list of the NFL's career passer rating leaders. Of the top 20 career passer rating leaders, 15 of them started playing in 1997 or later. The other 5 (rank) are Steve Young (1), Joe Montana (6), Otto Graham (16), Dan Marino (17), and Brett Favre (17).

The fact of the matter is that the current-day NFL is tailored towards the passing game and the quarterback in a way that drastically inflates passer ratings. The major components of the passer rating equation are touchdowns, completions, attempts, passing yards, and interceptions. Considering how pass-happy NFL offenses have become, it's not difficult to understand why a high passer rating is so common nowadays as opposed to the past. There also have been a slew of new defensive penalties created to protect both the quarterback and receiver from the bone-jarring physical defense that was so rampant up through the late 1990's. Roger Staubach was dead on when he said that quarterbacks of his time had lower passer ratings because of the NFL they played in.

Joe Montana's career passer rating of 92.3 is simply remarkable given the era he played in and the offensive scheme of Bill Walsh. Montana played in a league defined by extraordinary running backs and dominant defenses. In his era, the NFL was a decidedly run-first league, and it didn't help that the West Coast offense turned a large number of his passing attempts into glorified running plays. Montana retired with the highest passer rating in NFL history, a good 6 points ahead of anyone else. His passer rating was far higher than his contemporaries of the era, Dan Marino and John Elway. Most notably, until the year 2000, Montana and Steve Young were the only two QB's in NFL history to post career passer ratings over 90.

You cannot compare quarterbacks from different eras based on statistics like passing yards, passer rating, or touchdowns. Montana may not have the raw numbers Manning does, but that is a result of circumstances that he could not control. As a frequent HOH poster, you should know that raw numbers are often skewed by era.

Peyton Manning is the greatest of his generation, and will likely finish in the top 3 all-time, but his legacy will be of overwhelming numbers and mixed playoff success. You can't be compared to Joe Montana if you have a mixed playoff legacy.

Totally agreed. It should also be noted that Montana's one of the very few QB's who's stats in the playoffs actuall improve vs. regular season #'s, which is remarkable given the higher level of competition in the playoffs. His passer rating actually goes up from 92.3 to 95.3, where Manning's falls from 95.5 to 87.6 (which again, would make sense given the level of competition).

Also, since someone mentioned why Montana wasn't a star in HS/College, he was an All-American as a senior in HS, and lead Notre Dame to a national Championship in 77. His draft position was low because teams didn't think he had the physical attributes to be a NFL QB...how wrong they were (and how right Walsh was).

 

[vippe]

Alpine Skiing - Ingemar Stenmark

 

[JackSlater]

Wilt played when the nba was in its baby stages, dont act like his era was a gold standard. As a matter of fact, the average center in his days was 6'7. Kareem has better playoff numbers and his points per 48 minutes is identical to wilt's. Playing with magic johnson actually lowered his stats because he was sharing the ball. Wilt was simply a 'before his time player'. In modern basketball he would average 25-30 points per game and 13 rebounds at best, kareem doesnt need to match those 1960's stats to claim he's better. Opinion of magazine writers and his own hardware already suggest that he is better. I'll take 17 elite seasons over 11 elite seasons in the 60's any day of the week.

You keep mentioning competiton yet fail to mention that he spent a large portion of his career playing against centres like moses malone, bob mcadoo, bill cowens, bill walton, and a young hakeem olajuwon. Who exactly was guarding chamberlain? A 6'8 bill russell and a bunch of unathletic 6'7 guys.

I will just have to agree to disagree. Kareem>Wilt any day of the week

Wilt's competition was greater when it came to winning awards/leading the league in a category. He was competing against Russell, West, Baylor, Robertson and later Thurmond and Lucas for those things. Kareem won his individual accolades during the 1970s, when NBA top end talent had gone down due to ABA/drug issues. Regarding the players guarding Chamberlain I am aware that the centres were generally smaller, and that would be a valid reason to rank Chamberlain lower than Kareem, if they had dominated their competition to the roughly the same degree. The fact is though that Chamberlain dominated to a MUCH larger degree, which I already demonstrated. Kareem has better "hardware" only in terms of MVPs, where voting has been suspect at best. If the NBA gave hardware for leading the league in scoring or various other statistical categories then Chamberlain would blow him away. As far as magazine writers, from everything I've read there are more credible sources that list Chamberlain ahead.

You have also neglected to mention the period during which both players were in the league, which should remove any complaints about quality of competition. Washed up Wilt Chamberlain bettered prime Kareem in terms of rebounding and was the superior defensive player. It isn't hard to imagine the prime Chamberlain outscoring Abdul Jabbar in addition to outrebounding him and playing superior defence. Oh yeah and Magic Johnson deflating Kareem's stats is somewhat akin to suggesting that Gretzky had a negative impact on Kurri's stats.

 

[IggyFan12]

In football one day we WILL be saying Chris Johnson is the best HB ever. He's simply amazing.

CFL: Doug Flutie. He was made for Canadian Football.

Tennis: Nadal

Hockey: Wayne

MLB: Babe Ruth

 

[canucks4ever]

Wilt's competition was greater when it came to winning awards/leading the league in a category. He was competing against Russell, West, Baylor, Robertson and later Thurmond and Lucas for those things. Kareem won his individual accolades during the 1970s, when NBA top end talent had gone down due to ABA/drug issues. Regarding the players guarding Chamberlain I am aware that the centres were generally smaller, and that would be a valid reason to rank Chamberlain lower than Kareem, if they had dominated their competition to the roughly the same degree. The fact is though that Chamberlain dominated to a MUCH larger degree, which I already demonstrated. Kareem has better "hardware" only in terms of MVPs, where voting has been suspect at best. If the NBA gave hardware for leading the league in scoring or various other statistical categories then Chamberlain would blow him away. As far as magazine writers, from everything I've read there are more credible sources that list Chamberlain ahead.

You have also neglected to mention the period during which both players were in the league, which should remove any complaints about quality of competition. Washed up Wilt Chamberlain bettered prime Kareem in terms of rebounding and was the superior defensive player. It isn't hard to imagine the prime Chamberlain outscoring Abdul Jabbar in addition to outrebounding him and playing superior defence. Oh yeah and Magic Johnson deflating Kareem's stats is somewhat akin to suggesting that Gretzky had a negative impact on Kurri's stats.

Wilt wasn't chosen to the all defensive team in 1969, 1970 or 1971. He was only chosen in 72 and 73, when his stats hit an all time low. Kareem was on the all defence team in 70 and 71, so your theory of superior defense goes out the window. Wilt's stats also went downwards in the playoffs.