# lance armstrong vs babe ruth



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

pretty good. sorry if posted already..

Babe Ruth vs Lance Armstrong. Epic Rap Battles of History Season 2 - YouTube


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

Nice. 

Pitting Lance against the Babe is fun, but in my opinion Babe Ruth showed the most outrageous step-increase in capability of any athlete ever, in any sport. His power stats were insane compared with anyone who came before. Lance's 7 Tours, Usain Bolt's records, and Barry Bond's 73 don't come close to Ruth's 54 in 1920. He changed the game almost beyond recognition. I can't think of any other athlete having as big an impact.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

You've got 3 strikes and only 1 ball. 

Babe's idea of PEDs was whiskey, hot dogs, and cigars. :lol:

Bear in mind that before 1920, he was a pitcher. I think he may still hold some World Series pitching record??


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

Slartibartfast said:


> Nice.
> 
> Pitting Lance against the Babe is fun, but in my opinion Babe Ruth showed the most outrageous step-increase in capability of any athlete ever, in any sport. His power stats were insane compared with anyone who came before. Lance's 7 Tours, Usain Bolt's records, and Barry Bond's 73 don't come close to Ruth's 54 in 1920. He changed the game almost beyond recognition. I can't think of any other athlete having as big an impact.


Babe Ruth by all accounts was outrageous but you really should look up Sir Don Bradman. He is arguably untouched as a the greatest batsman in cricket and statistically the greatest sportsman ever. No one has ever come close to his stats in cricket - he truly dominated the game . Look him up - here is the wiki link.

"Sir Donald George Bradman, AC (27 August 1908 – 25 February 2001), often referred to as "The Don", was an Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest Test batsman of all time. Bradman's career Test batting average of 99.94 is often cited as statistically the greatest achievement by any sportsman in any major sport."


----------



## baccilus (Apr 21, 2013)

Chris Oz said:


> Babe Ruth by all accounts was outrageous but you really should look up Sir Don Bradman. He is arguably untouched as a the greatest batsman in cricket and statistically the greatest sportsman ever. No one has ever come close to his stats in cricket - he truly dominated the game . Look him up - here is the wiki link.
> 
> "Sir Donald George Bradman, AC (27 August 1908 – 25 February 2001), often referred to as "The Don", was an Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest Test batsman of all time. Bradman's career Test batting average of 99.94 is often cited as statistically the greatest achievement by any sportsman in any major sport."


Sachin Tendulkar comes close on many records. Except the test average one.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

baccilus said:


> Sachin Tendulkar comes close on many records. Except the test average one.


But that is my point. Tendulkar was a great batsman (the second greatest ever according to Wisden) but Bradman was getting almost double the runs per innings ~53 vs 99. The aside from Tendulkar closest other batsman in history is only averaging 60.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

I thought cricket referred to an insect that you typically find outdoors during the night. Do what now?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> I thought cricket referred to an insect that you typically find outdoors during the night. Do what now?


That kind of ignorance deserves baseball....

The Don would have made a pretty good career in baseball, especially for getting hits, rather than as a power hitter. Ruth as a cricketer? Maybe a quick fifty lower down the order but that's about it.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

sir duke said:


> That kind of ignorance deserves baseball....
> 
> The Don would have made a pretty good career in baseball, especially for getting hits, rather than as a power hitter. Ruth as a cricketer? Maybe a quick fifty lower down the order but that's about it.


Apparently my ignorance is on par with your sense of humor. We should definitely bring up jai alai since we are discussing sports that 85% of the world does not understand or care to watch. Good thing India has over 1 billion citizens, or that number would be more like 99%. Don't get me wrong, I am sure a good cricket player has excellent eye-hand coordination.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> Apparently my ignorance is on par with your sense of humor. We should definitely bring up jai alai since we are discussing sports that 85% of the world does not understand or care to watch. Good thing India has over 1 billion citizens, or that number would be more like 99%. Don't get me wrong, I am sure a good cricket player has excellent eye-hand coordination.


You mean just like baseball - where the US and a few other countries play it with any seriousness. But yes you do need excellent eye-hand coordination.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Hows about Edison Arantes do Nascimento...aka Pele...

1282 Goals in 1366 games. Lead team to 3 world cups including the first at the age of 17 in 1958. Average goals per game .94. 3 FIFA World Cups, 1 FIFA World Cup Golden Ball. Messi holds a couple more individual records but in terms of consistency over a career and impact on the sport, I think Pele is on the caliber of "The babe", Merckx, etc.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Jul 22, 2007)

badge118 said:


> in terms of consistency over a career and impact on the sport, I think Pele is on the caliber of "The babe", Merckx, etc.


I'm no soccer expert, but that's what I've always heard. My original comment about Ruth concerned the "out of nowhere" nature of his first big season of power numbers, sort of like Armstrong's "out of nowhere" 1999 TdF. Maybe Pele and The Don were just as surprising to fans of their respective sports. Were they?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Apparently my ignorance is on par with your sense of humor...


Kind of you to say so, but I don't think I said anything _that_ funny..:thumbsup:


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Slartibartfast said:


> I'm no soccer expert, but that's what I've always heard. My original comment about Ruth concerned the "out of nowhere" nature of his first big season of power numbers, sort of like Armstrong's "out of nowhere" 1999 TdF. Maybe Pele and The Don were just as surprising to fans of their respective sports. Were they?


As I said earlier---he came out of nowhere because prior to that break-out season, he was the best left handed pitcher in baseball. 1919 was his first season as an everyday player, and the Red Sox still used him as a pitcher. He started 15 games that season, came in as a reliever in two others, and still managed 19 HR. He was traded to the Yankees before the 1920 season, and they decided to use him as a full time outfielder. And the rest, as they say, is history.

The ballpark matters, too. Fenway Park was never a friendly park for lefty pull hitters, when it came to HRs. With the Yankees, he started in the Polo Grounds which had a 250' fence down the right field line, and then moved to Yankee Stadium with its famous short porch in right.


----------



## skitorski (Dec 4, 2012)

I love you guys. I love cycling. I love it when we can get out of our provincial little bubbles and see what others see.

Baseball. Cycling. Babe vs Lance.

But there are crickets chirping.

Babe won 20 games before he was traded. That's the elite level in an elite sport.

No real enhancements used. Today, virtually no one is above suspicion in any sport. There are kids at my son's High School taking stupid but legal steroid spin offs. The coaches encourage it. Lift every day, get destroyed on Friday night in front of the home crowd. Torn ACl and a concussion for desert. Bring up the replacements. Hell, in Stockton California, just down the road from us, the coach went to American Samoa and recruited big boys to come and live in a slush funded house and play football. 17 year olds folks.

Insanity to win knows no boundaries or decency.

Babe was decent and an icon that is untouchable. Truly sorry I don't know cricket or soccer. Wouldn't Pele be a Babe of the sport ?


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

We've got cricket pitches in south San Jose here in California now. Schweet !!!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

There's no comparison to LA and the Babe.

LA is a bully. And like most bullies, when he didn't have his little group with him and he got punched in the mouth he ran... crying to Oprah. 

Babe Ruth was also a bit of a jerk. But he took his punches and held his ground. Can you every imagine Babe on Oprah? That's a funny thought...


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> Apparently my ignorance is on par with your sense of humor. We should definitely bring up jai alai since we are discussing sports that 85% of the world does not understand or care to watch. Good thing India has over 1 billion citizens, or that number would be more like 99%. Don't get me wrong, I am sure a good cricket player has excellent eye-hand coordination.


If you're going to dismiss a sport for lack of interest, get your figures right. Cricket is traditionally followed in countries across the world totalling 24% of the population. Compare that to baseball, which is followed barely a fifth of the world. And yet the US has the arrogance to use the term World Series!


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

ultimobici said:


> If you're going to dismiss a sport for lack of interest, get your figures right. Cricket is traditionally followed in countries across the world totalling 24% of the population. Compare that to baseball, which is followed barely a fifth of the world. And yet the US has the arrogance to use the term World Series!


If you look at individual countries the US is =/> Cricket, India skews the numbers for Cricket. Just saying


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

badge118 said:


> If you look at individual countries the US is =/> Cricket, India skews the numbers for Cricket. Just saying


Ok, just playing the numbers game, taking out India still leaves Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as countries where cricket is by far the most popular sport. Combined population: 300million, roughly equal to the U.S. If the U.S. didn't play baseball you'd be left with Japan/Korea and a few banana republics in the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. Face it, you can't even get the Canadians worked up about your 'national pastime'...and why should they, when they have the infinitely more watchable ice-hockey?


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

@Ultimobicci

4 continents and over 20 countries represented in MLB = "World Series". Do you feel strongly that we need representation from Lesotho first before we use such an "arrogant" term? 

Maybe they should do away with the "World Baseball Classic" too.

16 teams from around the world competed in 2008 Olympics in baseball.

Why no cricket in the Olympics? Heck, we have everything else now.

Not sure why I am defending baseball really...boring to me.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

[QUOTE

Not sure why I am defending baseball really...boring to me.[/QUOTE]

I admire your willingness to stand up for a lost cause, good on you.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

sir duke said:


> Ok, just playing the numbers game, taking out India still leaves Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as countries where cricket is by far the most popular sport. Combined population: 300million, roughly equal to the U.S. If the U.S. didn't play baseball you'd be left with Japan/Korea and a few banana republics in the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. Face it, you can't even get the Canadians worked up about your 'national pastime'...and why should they, when they have the infinitely more watchable ice-hockey?


Actually Holland, the Czech republic, New Zealand and other put forward good teams. PS I HATE Baseball, it is only surpassed by golf and Cricket in terms of boredom while watching imo. Educate yourself... http://web.worldbaseballclassic.com/index.jsp#

A similar argument could be made about cricket btw..."the only places it gets played are former British Colonies." Heck since Baseball is popular in places where the US had little such influence (read Holland, New Zealand Czech Rep etc.)... well you see the point I am trying to make.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

badge118 said:


> Actually Holland, the Czech republic, New Zealand and other put forward good teams. PS I HATE Baseball, it is only surpassed by golf and Cricket in terms of boredom while watching imo. Educate yourself... World Baseball Classic: Home
> 
> A similar argument could be made about cricket btw..."the only places it gets played are former British Colonies." Heck since Baseball is popular in places where the US had little such influence (read Holland, New Zealand Czech Rep etc.)... well you see the point I am trying to make.


Living in a baseball playing country, Japan, I consider myself pretty well educated on the global phenomenon of baseball. Holland and New Zealand play cricket too. Since we're handing out lessons... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_World_Cup



> The tournament is the world's third-most-viewed sporting event.[SUP][1][/SUP]


Yep, only the World Cup (football), and the summer Olympics are bigger in TV land. As for the colonial legacy...well the British Empire fell by the wayside many years ago. The former colonies were free to throw off all the cultural trappings of their former 'masters'. Yet they didn't, they just chose to be better at cricket than the English. Baseball has colonial origins in any case, taken to the Americas by the English. Gridiron too, developed from it's origins in rugby, which in turn started life when William Webb Ellis picked up the football one afternoon at Rugby school. Educated enough for ya?  I'll grant you I'd rather watch paint dry than watch golf.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

sir duke said:


> Living in a baseball playing country, Japan, I consider myself pretty well educated on the global phenomenon of baseball. Holland and New Zealand play cricket too. Since we're handing out lessons... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_World_Cup
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, only the World Cup (football), and the summer Olympics are bigger in TV land. As for the colonial legacy...well the British Empire fell by the wayside many years ago. The former colonies were free to throw off all the cultural trappings of their former 'masters'. Yet they didn't, they just chose to be better at cricket than the English. Baseball has colonial origins in any case, taken to the Americas by the English. Gridiron too, developed from it's origins in rugby, which in turn started life when William Webb Ellis picked up the football one afternoon at Rugby school. Educated enough for ya?  I'll grant you I'd rather watch paint dry than watch golf.


I know. My only point was to illustrate that Baseball is not restricted to the Americas, Japan and the RoK. I do not like it (just gave away Phillies tickets I won and they were damn good seats) but I think the fact it is called "America's favorite past time" means people under estimate how wide spread it is.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Nvm double post.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

badge118 said:


> I know. My only point was to illustrate that Baseball is not restricted to the Americas, Japan and the RoK. I do not like it (just gave away Phillies tickets I won and they were damn good seats) but I think the fact it is called "America's favorite past time" means people under estimate how wide spread it is.


Let's do the gentlemanly thing and call it a draw. I think we can both agree that we have better things to do with our time than watch 'basebore'. Not much point in arguing it's merits or lack thereof. One thing I would suggest, try watching 20-20 cricket. Dumbed down and speeded up, it's actually decent entertainment for an hour or two. Or not...


----------

