Andrew
12/2/2011 4:38:00 AM
On Dec 1, 7:59 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 3:21 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 3:25 am, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 30, 10:23 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 30, 11:27 am, Paul L <p...@kbtrans.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 11/29/2011 9:35 PM, Neil X. wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 29, 8:06 pm, Andrew<amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Nov 29, 4:43 pm, "Ray O'Hara"<raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> Do you remember Hershal Walker, brilliant athlete.
> > > > > >>> one of the best college players ever, just like Tebow.
>
> > > > > >> You're right (there's something I've never said to Ray Ray), Herschel
> > > > > >> too was one of the greatest football players ever.
>
> > > > > > No one who was an excellent player for only 3-4 years qualifies as a
> > > > > > "great football player." You've got to be stellar for a lot longer
> > > > > > than that to be great. Feel free to call college players who were
> > > > > > really good "great college football players." But to be a truly great
> > > > > > football player, that requires playing at a high level far longer than
> > > > > > only 4 years.
>
> > > > > > Peace,
> > > > > > Neil X.
>
> > > > > Billy Simms was a great football player who played in 60 NFL games.
>
> > > > No, he wasn't.
>
> > > > Peace,
> > > > Neil X.
>
> > > Agree with X.
>
> > It's amazing to me that Deadheads are so quick to throw away flashes
> > of greatness in favor of longevity at a lesser level. Sure, the GD had
> > longevity, but I don't think anybody loves the GD because they were
> > really good for a long time. They love the GD because they had moments
> > and stretches of pure genius. If the GD had ceased to exist after the
> > 2/27/69-3/2/69 run, they still go down as one of the greatest bands
> > ever, IMO.
>
> > Billy Sims, Gale Sayers, Bill Walton, Earl Campbell, Bo Jackson. They
> > may not have had the longevity, but anyone who wants to pretend that
> > they didn't attain greatness is operating under a drastically
> > different set of parameters than I am.
>
> Hey, I didn't say Gale Sayers wasn't great, but as someone who grew up
> as a Bears fan, absolutely LOATHING the Cowboys, your assertion that
> Sayers was greater than Emmit Smith is beyond ridiculous to me. How
> far are you going to take this logic? In your perspective 3 years is
> enough to be a "great" player.
Nah. 1 game is enough to be a "great" player.
> Why is 3 the magic number.
I dunno. I never mentioned 3.
> How about
> 1 year?
Sure.
> Or one great game?
Hell yeah, assuming that game is actually great and not just a result
of other factors combining to produce a good outcome.
> Was Harvey Haddix a "great" baseball
> player because his 13 inning perfect game was beyond sublime?
(1) Who the hell is Harvey Haddix and (2) I'm no more able to consider
greatness in baseball than I can determine greatness in darts or
bowling or pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey... Really, who cares?
> Was
> Akili Smith a "great" football player because he threw 32 TD passes
> in one season at Oregon?
Akili Smith wasn't even the greatest QB in the Pac-10 that year. Akili
Smith was a really good football player. Greatness to me requires a
mastery of whichever artform we're talking about. Just as importantly,
people deal with all sorts of limitations in attempting to master
their artform. For Doug Flutie, to take an extreme example, to become
a great QB (which he undoubtedly was, to my perspective at least)
required more than for Ryan Leaf to do so. In judging those two, I'd
give Flutie more of the benefit of the doubt and I'm not going to ding
him if physical limitations prevented him from having success at the
highest level of the games, much like I'm not going to ding Sayers or
Sims for the physical limitations that they came up against.
> Longevity is clearly a criteria in
> greatness.
For you.
> You've got to be able to perform at a stellar level over
> many years to be truly great.
I appreciate your take. To me, I'm perfectly fine with calling a
shooting star great. If you can approach perfection at your given
artform for a year, a game, an hour, a minute - fuck yeah. And I'd
much rather see a player, an artist, a musician - whatever - get as
close to perfection as possible for a brief amount of time, than see
somebody do something at a slightly lower quality for longer times.
Ken Kesey wrote two great books and more or less disappeared from the
landscape of literature (overstating the case, but certainly all other
books besides SAGN and OFOTCN were minor works at best). In no way am
I going to ding him (or F. Scott Fitzgerald or Harper Lee) for their
limited output.
I'll take quality over quantity in anything.