Whos the best player in every sport?

Easily...not question.

I think he will become better than Lumieux and Gretzky when he is done in the league if he doesnt get injured or kills somebody in a car.

I also think that being in this league now adds even more credibility to Crosby because I hate to say it, Gretzky had it easier in the earlier 80's while Lumieux during the prime of his career had some of the worst defensive hockey ever played.

Originally posted by teampac08
Well at least football doesnt rely on people fighting each other like hockey. Only time when hockey is even slightly interesting is when the players brawl. Even then, it's still a boring ass sport. No one cares about men skating on ice who try to be tough by fighting every now and then. And who the **** is Luongo? That shows the appeal of hockey to the casual sports fan. No one outside of a hockey fan would know who the **** this guy is.

I like how this post is pointless.

Makes for good discussion.

Hockey doesn't rely on fighting either. Which you would know if you've watched a hockey game. Fights don't occur all that often.

The game itself is very fast paced, always something going on. As opposed to bursts of action like in Football, followed by massive downtine.

And it matters that casual sports fans don't know who a player is. It also matters that hockey isn't popular in America, because popularity = quality. Just like you = smart.

See that? Both statements were wrong. Hope it didn't go over your head.

Hockey is one of the best sports to watch in person, it has such in intimate vibe to it, plus it is twice as excited in person than it is on TV. But I've lost alot of interest in the sport since the strike.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Easily...not question.

I think he will become better than Lumieux and Gretzky when he is done in the league if he doesnt get injured or kills somebody in a car.

I also think that being in this league now adds even more credibility to Crosby because I hate to say it, Gretzky had it easier in the earlier 80's while Lumieux during the prime of his career had some of the worst defensive hockey ever played.

2000-1 Lemieux got 76 points in 43 games. 2002-3 he got 91 points in 67 games. If was in good health in that part of his career he would still have dominated while Gretzky would have become a great player, but far from the best. That is why Lemieux is the best player (or at least the most talented) to ever live imo.

Bobby Orr would be up there too. Just compare him to the second best defenseman of his time (Brad Park). No one else has been that much better than everybody for that long.

Anyways:
Hockey - Mario Lemieux
Football (soccer) - Pele
Baseball - Babe Ruth
Basketball - Michael Jordan
American Football - haven't decided yet

Originally posted by Smasandian
Yeah right.

People more talented than him at that young age?

Who? And who has more potential than Crosby, please elborate because correct me if I'm wrong but what other teenage has scored the most amount of points in the league? Or heck, who has more points than him right now?

Name me one person who has more talent than him, and more importantly, who has more potential to become an great hockey player than him?

If you say Ovechkin, I'm seriously going to hit you.

Err, well people that have the potential to be more talented. As of this moment he is the most talented youngster but that, of course, can change with new people like Staal, and Malkin, ect...

There is more to being a good hockey player than just getting a ton of points. As you can see, his "excellent" point record and talent did not get him far in the playoffs.

Ovechkin.

Yeah, he didnt go far into the playoffs, but how good was the team in the past 2 years?

Oh wait a minute, dead last. So your saying a guy who resurrected an franchise from one of the worst teams in the league to the fourth best in the conference isnt a good achievement?

Unlike most young players like Ovechkin, who is still in a bad team.

Staal will be a great player but wont be as good as Crosby and Malkin could be better. But as of right now, Crosby is considered to be one of the best players in the league, and at such a young age, has the most potential.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Yeah, he didnt go far into the playoffs, but how good was the team in the past 2 years?

Oh wait a minute, dead last. So your saying a guy who resurrected an franchise from one of the worst teams in the league to the fourth best in the conference isnt a good achievement?

Unlike most young players like Ovechkin, who is still in a bad team.

Staal will be a great player but wont be as good as Crosby and Malkin could be better. But as of right now, Crosby is considered to be one of the best players in the league, and at such a young age, has the most potential.

You have a point about him resurrecting the franchise, but also note that the coach for the Penguins was nominated best coach of the year. It could very well be his efforts that helped turn the team around to becoming one of the best.

Sorry, someone tried to call basketball the world's second most popular sport?

Holy geez no.

Something that has to be underatood here is that sports that are popular in the States are not popular globally and vice versa.

Cricket is a bigger sport than basketball can ever dream of being.

Cricket is also a shitter sport than anything can ever dream of being, to be fair.

-AC

It's got to be something like:
Football
Cricket
Basketball
Baseball
Ice Hockey
American Football

I'm not sure where to put rugby and field hockey.

On that ice hockey argument:
Hockey is a major international sport. It is a huge sport in the nothern States, Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Belarus, Latvia, Germany, and Switzerland. And it is growing in popularity in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if basketball is a bigger sport, but not by nearly as much as is being suggested.

No rugby would come above baseball definately.

Are we trying to assemble an objective list of popularity here?

-AC

I believe that was what Nellinator was trying to do, yes.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Are we trying to assemble an objective list of popularity here?

-AC

Cricket, and the word sport shouldn't even be used in the same sentence unless it goes something like this.

"How can anyone actually consider Cricket a sport?"

Oddly enough, exactly the same thing a lot of people say about hockey (ice hockey, anyway)

It's stupid to say either, really.

Sportsmen and women don't play their sport for the crowds, it just happens that crowds tune in or turn up, but if we're discussing spectating, I will sit here until the end of time and listen to anyone trying to describe why cricket is worth it, I still won't see it.

Ice hockey is, at least, pacey with a guaranteed result, usually.

-AC

So has a riot.

Whilst the convo has drifted off into comparitive popularity and seeing as I just made the distinction myself, it should be pointed that that (field) hockey is much more widespread, globally, than ice hockey. Again, American sports don't really tend to penetrate.

I'm really not sure about this basketball thing being so high, either.

I do enjoy riots more than cricket.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak
So has a riot.

Whilst the convo has drifted off into comparitive popularity and seeing as I just made the distinction myself, it should be pointed that that (field) hockey is much more widespread, globally, than ice hockey. Again, American sports don't really tend to penetrate.

I'm really not sure about this basketball thing being so high, either.

I would say that Ice Hockey is more of an Canadian sport and Eastern European sport than American...but I assuming you meant American as in North American and not the US.

But even that, the sport is played in most Eastern European country plus Scandiavian countries as well.

But I also think that the popularity of hockey is based on countries that have freezing weather than of the sport.