In a message dated 7/11/2003 11:07:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Yeah, that's my entire point. He's a fine running > back. But it takes more than that to be "the best ever". Well how about Jim Brown. Walked away from football still in his prime after several dominant years. Some people say he was the best ever. Played in a different era so hard to compare to current players. But he was just that much better than everyone else. I think that is my point. In comparing eras lots of things change. But there will still be a mean of skill and a distribution. It seems to me that Koufax was several standard deviations above the mean, a few more than Pedro or anyone else. By the way by your criteria of greatness Newton and Einstein could not be considered amoung the greates physicist ever. Each had one breakout year and a few years of major productivity. Both kind of faded after that. It is accomplishment not longevity that makes one great (although longevity is in itself an accomplishment). _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
