Reply With Quote
Typical ESPN of recent past. Too much basketball and laughable force feeding their WNBA product. Never heard of half these broads and I grew up in the USA.
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id...s-21st-century
A number of nba players. Pretty bad list though.
Typical ESPN of recent past. Too much basketball and laughable force feeding their WNBA product. Never heard of half these broads and I grew up in the USA.
lol Messi not being number one
and you wonder why they are bust
.
Last edited by FrostKing; 07-18-2024 at 02:01 PM.
you can tell this was made by a re
was wondering what the issue was, seemed reasonable overall. then i realized
kobe #10 + timmy #16 + spurfan logic = "durhrhrhrhrhr
Simone Briles #7 after ting the bed... in her prime... the last time the World even saw her compete.
How is a car driver an athlete?
I would also say ranking Curry ahead of Duncan was also ridiculous. Tom Brady at number 5 was too low. With his dominance in his sport as a GOAT you would think he would be top 3.was wondering what the issue was, seemed reasonable overall. then i realized
kobe #10 + timmy #16 + spurfan logic = "durh
This list is basically who is the most popular athlete since 2000 with a little bit of compromise with ranking guys like Duncan who are not popular with high rankings to balance it out.
ESPN should just make a list that says most popular athletes since 2000 which they can then be honest with their biases.
Most popular American athlete.
Christine Sinclair not making it despite so many women’s player on the list is pure ignorance.
Not a single figure or speed skater, no divers, no cyclists.
Shockingly few track players with Usain Bolt ranking so low is just pure blasphemy.
Last edited by ambchang; 07-18-2024 at 08:49 PM.
Typical BSPN.
- Phelps at 1 in a sport where the pool is so shallow (mostly middle class and above white people).
- Brady at 5. Another sport where the pool is shallow (U.S.A. and to a far lesser extent Canada) and a sport of specialists.
- Bolt at 9 in a sport where he the pool is not only deep, but he put records that generally are broken relatively regularly out of reach.
- Bryant and Curry ahead of Duncan, O'Neal and Durant and S bag but no Davis is equally predictably and absurd.
i mean steph may not have a greater NBA resume than duncan
but his effect on the game of basketball and the sports world in general is incomparably greater
Federer over Novak
Was Caitlyn Jenner top 5?
Threads like these are exactly what the Heebs at ESPN were hoping to achieve
Are you serious?
The real question is how is a beisbô playan athlete?
I had to read that a couple times for obvious reasons
- Phelps at 1 in a sport where the pool is so shallow (mostly middle class and above white people).
- Brady at 5. Another sport where the pool is shallow (U.S.A. and to a far lesser extent Canada) and a sport of specialists.
- Bolt at 9 in a sport where he the pool is not only deep, but he put records that generally are broken relatively regularly out of reach.
- Bryant and Curry ahead of Duncan, O'Neal and Durant and S bag but no Davis is equally predictably and absurd.
I drive to work daily. Does that mean I can tell my doctor I exercise at least an hour a day?
As for baseball, they have to drive to the park so they are athletes too.
The ranking according to article was based on who accomplished the most in their sport since 2000 and not who had the greater impact. If you are basing it who accomplished more, I would say Duncan's accolades puts him head of Curry.
really? where did it say that?
Here:
Yes, ranking the top 100 most accomplished athletes since 2000 wasn't quite so easy after all -- but it sure was fun. Twenty-five years ago, the ESPN SportsCentury project ranked the top 100 North American athletes of the 20th century. Michael Jordan came in first, followed by Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown and Wayne Gretzky. (Ruth should have been No. 1, but hey, I'm a baseball writer.) We also ranked a horse: Secretariat came in at No. 35.
They could've put all of these names on a wall, then thrown darts em and it still would've been a better list than whatever the that was.
so it never said impact on the game had nothing to do with the ranking?
got it
ESPN canned most of their long time seasoned journalist over a Decade ago in exchange for high paid media personalities. They also shrunk their media coverage to overwhelmingly domestic sports and narrowed down even further to just a handful of them. Justifying the move because it's women playing.
Personally I rather watch men's rugby or cricket instead of women's version of bball, softball etc. We are being sold inferior/cheaper product on the heels of social guilt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
