rikberry31
We Are Tennessee
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2019
- Messages
- 4,987
- Likes
- 12,862
Are our secondary woes due to talent or coaching? In year 1 I would have said talent. At the end of year 2 I lean toward coaching. Sometimes we just looked totally lost back there, but I’m no X’s and O’s guru. Discuss.
Comparing athletes across generations is a useless activity. All you can do is talk about what you witnessed. Barry Sanders made you want to watch the Lions play. He was unbelievable. I don't care how he compared to Payton or Sayers or Faulk.Gotta love you Tyson fanboys...I get it, I once bought in to all the hype myself.
There is hope for you though, maybe someday you will wake up.
I think you’re making my point. Great ones are great regardless of outside noise and influence. They are different mentally not just physically.He was no longer in his "prime" because he had fallen sway to outside influences. He should have still been in his prime, but he basically just threw it all away by making poor decisions outside of the ring. As I said before, it really all traces back to the loss of Cus. Then he split with Rooney, and no one was looking out for his best interests anymore. Dude spiraled fast and hard.
Tyson was an incredible athlete, 5'11" 225 lbs of absolute whup ass. Truly the power that he generated out of a small compact area was super impressive. All that mass weighed heavily and didnt fare well for longevity. Dudes that could make it past the fourth or fifth usually won. He never had a marquis win.Comparing athletes across generations is a useless activity. All you can do is talk about what you witnessed. Barry Sanders made you want to watch the Lions play. He was unbelievable. I don't care how he compared to Payton or Sayers or Faulk.
Prime Mike Tyson -- no reason to discuss ANY athlete out of their prime -- was fun to watch and scared the hell out of his opponents. I've never seen anything like it before or since. There was a criminal element to his attacks. You wanted to see him destroy the other guy. Marvis Frazier didn't want to be in the ring with him and neither did Michael Spinks. You could see it in their eyes. It was awesome.
Dominating around 1930 was more impressive… they averaged more runs at that time… it’s impossible to judge players across eras like that…. So many changes that affect the game…. They had to change the mound height to give the hitters a chance against Bob Gibson.Id argue that dominating in the steroid era was more impressive.
Good question…. I think it’s a bit of both. If we are the same again in Yr 3 I’d like to see Martinez git, possibly Banks. Garner is the piece we can’t lose. Personally, I wish we would go after Gary Patterson as DC but I know that relationship with UT is probably strained/soured a bit.Are our secondary woes due to talent or coaching? In year 1 I would have said talent. At the end of year 2 I lean toward coaching. Sometimes we just looked totally lost back there, but I’m no X’s and O’s guru. Discuss.
I'm not even wasting time looking up stats.Steroids don't help you hit ball, they just help you hit it harder. For about 6 years in the golden age of baseball Koufax was unhittable.
Listened to a Dan Carlin interview with a boxing historian called "Boxing with Ghosts"...they made a very convincing argument that boxing is different when it comes to the "different eras" thing.Comparing athletes across generations is a useless activity. All you can do is talk about what you witnessed. Barry Sanders made you want to watch the Lions play. He was unbelievable. I don't care how he compared to Payton or Sayers or Faulk.
Prime Mike Tyson -- no reason to discuss ANY athlete out of their prime -- was fun to watch and scared the hell out of his opponents. I've never seen anything like it before or since. There was a criminal element to his attacks. You wanted to see him destroy the other guy. Marvis Frazier didn't want to be in the ring with him and neither did Michael Spinks. You could see it in their eyes. It was awesome.
They couldn't hit Koufax. Striking out is striking out no matter how much power.I'm not even wasting time looking up stats.
A) if there were no benefit, why did 85% of players use them?
B) Why did a 60+ home run record get shattered by multiple people?
The long ball is what is taught now. Its all about offense.
When you're a pro, you can already 'hit the ball.' Steroids give power to an already good or great swing, so, your point has not merit here.
Dude...my opinion of Mike Tyson is not unique...a lot of boxing savants that are way smarter and knowledgeable about the sport than I am feel the same way that I do about him.Keep the faith. I know I still have hope you'll eventually get your head dislodged from your ass.