Who’s the most beloved athlete in your state?

@BigRedMoe shouldn't have quit the innerneps today. They PRODUCE!!

good_times_BDD.jpg
 
trojanfan12 said:
For California: Magic Johnson
Click to expand...
California would be tricky. The vote would be split between NorCal and SoCal and even San Diego might booger things up in SoCal with a flood of Tony Gwynn votes
 
huskers1217 said:
Lance Armstrong LOL

  • Alabama – Charles Barkley
  • Alaska – Curt Schilling
  • Arizona – Billy Graham
  • Arkansas – Scottie Pippen
  • California – Tiger Woods
  • Colorado – Vincent Jackson
  • Connecticut – Floyd Little
  • Delaware – Randy White
  • Florida – Roy Jones Jr.
  • Georgia – Jackie Robinson
  • Hawaii – B.J. Penn
  • Idaho – Jake Plummer
  • Illinois – Dwyane Wade
  • Indiana – Larry Bird
  • Iowa – Kurt Warner
  • Kansas – Barry Sanders
  • Kentucky – Muhammad Ali
  • Louisiana – Peyton Manning
  • Maine – Edmund “RIP” Black
  • Maryland – Babe Ruth
  • Massachusetts – Patrick Ewing
  • Michigan – Magic Johnson
  • Minnesota – Kevin Garnett
  • Mississippi – Brett Favre
  • Missouri – Jayson Tatum
  • Montana – Phil Jackson
  • Nebraska – Gale Sayers
  • Nevada – Andre Agassi
  • New Hampshire – Carlton Fisk
  • New Jersey – Rick Barry
  • New Mexico – Jim Everett
  • New York – Alex Rodriguez
  • North Carolina – Michael Jordan
  • North Dakota – Roger Maris
  • Ohio – Jack Nicklaus
  • Oklahoma – Jim Thorpe
  • Oregon – Danny Ainge
  • Pennsylvania – Wilt Chamberlain
  • Rhode Island – Vinny Pazienza
  • South Carolina – Joe Frazier
  • South Dakota – Billy Mills
  • Tennessee – Reggie White
  • Texas – Lance Armstrong
  • Utah – Jim McMahon
  • Vermont – John Leclair
  • Virginia – Allen Iverson
  • Washington – John Elway
  • West Virginia – Jerry West
  • Wisconsin – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
  • Wyoming – James Johnson
brobible.com

Who's The Most Popular Athlete From Your Home State? This Map Reveals Who Fans Love Most

Have you ever wondered who the most popular athlete is in the world right now? My guess would probably be either LeBron James or Cristiano Ronaldo, but,
brobible.com brobible.com
Click to expand...
No way Favre beats out Archie
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
California would be tricky. The vote would be split between NorCal and SoCal and even San Diego might booger things up in SoCal with a flood of Tony Gwynn votes
Click to expand...
And if there’s a runoff, NorCal will throw their support to Gwynn just to keep an L.A. player from winning.
 
williewilliejuan said:
I’ve made no secret of my appreciation for Bonds nor have I sought to minimize his negatives. He’s one of the best players to have ever played the game and he is a flawed human being as well. His arrogance led him to PEDs because he couldn’t stand the attention others were getting. That said, if I was picking up teams and had to choose Bonds or Ortiz to be on my team, I would choose Bonds so fast it would make your head spin as would anyone who actually understands baseball.

The bottom line is either cheating matters or it doesn’t. Ortiz shouldn’t get a free pass because he’s more likable or because he reminds people of Florida from Good Times. If he’s in, Bonds should be in since he was a far better player. If Bonds is out, Ortiz should be out.
Click to expand...

I’ll just move past the statement about picking bonds over Ortiz as I never said I’d pick Ortiz over bonds. I INITIALLY made the argument that IMO Ortiz is more LOVED than Brady in MA.

Your arguments about if Ortiz is in the HOF then so is bonds is a common one. Oh not with respect to comparison with Ortiz but with really any player and bonds. But, what are the standards for getting into the HOF? I mean, if you hit 500 home runs or have 3,000 hits (both widely recognized bench marks in hitting) are you in? Should that alone get you in? The answer is no. Why? Because there aren’t any standards or benchmarks. There aren’t any hard and fast numbers ALONE that make you a HOF player.

Instead the criteria is much more nebulous. The criteria is based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. Those are very subjective criteria. Not only are the criteria subjective so is the AMOUNT a voter applies of each criteria.

Any time an organization has SUBJECTIVE criteria and no hard and fast standards it opens itself up to criticism. What one voter might consider HOF worthy another voter may not. It is truly in the eye of the voter. Therefore, it’s completely inappropriate to say as an ABSOLUTE “if player X is in then that means player Y MUST be in also.” No… a player is judged by voters on ALL of the criteria on their career as a WHOLE.

Bonds is being judged just the same as ALL potential HOF players are judged. He’s being judged on his ENTIRE body of work. Each voter is placing the emphasis he/she wants to on each criteria. Bonds is responsible for his entire body of work. He’s not a victim. He has made his bed and now he has to lie in it. It’s HE who wants to be judged differently than other players… not the other way around. Short of proving an actual conspiracy amongst voters to “keep him out” he’s being judged just like everyone else… in the eye of the voter. In fact, to try and apply some hard and fast standard (ie number of hits, HRs, walks, MVPs, etc) would be in violation of the voting rules.

Should Bonds be in the HOF? Should Pete Rose be in the HOF? Should Clemens be in the HOF? Should a part time player like Ortiz be in the HOF? These are all subjective questions with subjective answers. The voters will decide who’s in and who’s out. They will use the same subjective criteria for each player.

Those are the rules.
 
dbldwn711 said:
I’ll just move past the statement about picking bonds over Ortiz as I never said I’d pick Ortiz over bonds. I INITIALLY made the argument that IMO Ortiz is more LOVED than Brady in MA.

Your arguments about if Ortiz is in the HOF then so is bonds is a common one. Oh not with respect to comparison with Ortiz but with really any player and bonds. But, what are the standards for getting into the HOF? I mean, if you hit 500 home runs or have 3,000 hits (both widely recognized bench marks in hitting) are you in? Should that alone get you in? The answer is no. Why? Because there aren’t any standards or benchmarks. There aren’t any hard and fast numbers ALONE that make you a HOF player.

Instead the criteria is much more nebulous. The criteria is based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. Those are very subjective criteria. Not only are the criteria subjective so is the AMOUNT a voter applies of each criteria.

Any time an organization has SUBJECTIVE criteria and no hard and fast standards it opens itself up to criticism. What one voter might consider HOF worthy another voter may not. It is truly in the eye of the voter. Therefore, it’s completely inappropriate to say as an ABSOLUTE “if player X is in then that means player Y MUST be in also.” No… a player is judged by voters on ALL of the criteria on their career as a WHOLE.

Bonds is being judged just the same as ALL potential HOF players are judged. He’s being judged on his ENTIRE body of work. Each voter is placing the emphasis he/she wants to on each criteria. Bonds is responsible for his entire body of work. He’s not a victim. He has made his bed and now he has to lie in it. It’s HE who wants to be judged differently than other players… not the other way around. Short of proving an actual conspiracy amongst voters to “keep him out” he’s being judged just like everyone else… in the eye of the voter. In fact, to try and apply some hard and fast standard (ie number of hits, HRs, walks, MVPs, etc) would be in violation of the voting rules.

Should Bonds be in the HOF? Should Pete Rose be in the HOF? Should Clemens be in the HOF? Should a part time player like Ortiz be in the HOF? These are all subjective questions with subjective answers. The voters will decide who’s in and who’s out. They will use the same subjective criteria for each player.

Those are the rules.
Click to expand...
That’s a whole lot of words to say you can’t defend including Ortiz while excluding Bonds.
 
dbldwn711 said:
I’ll just move past the statement about picking bonds over Ortiz as I never said I’d pick Ortiz over bonds. I INITIALLY made the argument that IMO Ortiz is more LOVED than Brady in MA.

Your arguments about if Ortiz is in the HOF then so is bonds is a common one. Oh not with respect to comparison with Ortiz but with really any player and bonds. But, what are the standards for getting into the HOF? I mean, if you hit 500 home runs or have 3,000 hits (both widely recognized bench marks in hitting) are you in? Should that alone get you in? The answer is no. Why? Because there aren’t any standards or benchmarks. There aren’t any hard and fast numbers ALONE that make you a HOF player.

Instead the criteria is much more nebulous. The criteria is based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. Those are very subjective criteria. Not only are the criteria subjective so is the AMOUNT a voter applies of each criteria.

Any time an organization has SUBJECTIVE criteria and no hard and fast standards it opens itself up to criticism. What one voter might consider HOF worthy another voter may not. It is truly in the eye of the voter. Therefore, it’s completely inappropriate to say as an ABSOLUTE “if player X is in then that means player Y MUST be in also.” No… a player is judged by voters on ALL of the criteria on their career as a WHOLE.

Bonds is being judged just the same as ALL potential HOF players are judged. He’s being judged on his ENTIRE body of work. Each voter is placing the emphasis he/she wants to on each criteria. Bonds is responsible for his entire body of work. He’s not a victim. He has made his bed and now he has to lie in it. It’s HE who wants to be judged differently than other players… not the other way around. Short of proving an actual conspiracy amongst voters to “keep him out” he’s being judged just like everyone else… in the eye of the voter. In fact, to try and apply some hard and fast standard (ie number of hits, HRs, walks, MVPs, etc) would be in violation of the voting rules.

Should Bonds be in the HOF? Should Pete Rose be in the HOF? Should Clemens be in the HOF? Should a part time player like Ortiz be in the HOF? These are all subjective questions with subjective answers. The voters will decide who’s in and who’s out. They will use the same subjective criteria for each player.

Those are the rules.
Click to expand...
TLDR

Everyone you wrote about is a fag anyway.

The correct answer is Bo Jackson.
 
williewilliejuan said:
That’s a whole lot of words to say you can’t defend including Ortiz while excluding Bonds.
Click to expand...

actually, I just did. It’s not my fault you can’t understand it or won’t accept it.
 
Big Papi’s entire career was based off roids.

He got cut, couldn’t play defense worth shit and saw the writing on the wall.

It’s cool he’s so friendly, but I don’t think anyone outside Boston mistakes him for a great baseball player.

If someone says they’ve seen a better player than Bonds, I assume they’re prolly mid sixties at the youngest. Or are lying.
 
Quantifiable tangibles vs unquantifiable intangibles.
 
For Oklahoma it's Jim Thorpe as he is regarded as the greatest athlete of all time.

But these deserve a shout out...

Mickey Mantle
Johnny Bench
Steve Largent
Lee Roy Selmon
Shannon Miller
 
dbldwn711 said:
Bonds is being judged just the same as ALL potential HOF players are judged. He’s being judged on his ENTIRE body of work. Each voter is placing the emphasis he/she wants to on each criteria. Bonds is responsible for his entire body of work. He’s not a victim. He has made his bed and now he has to lie in it. It’s HE who wants to be judged differently than other players… not the other way around. Short of proving an actual conspiracy amongst voters to “keep him out” he’s being judged just like everyone else… in the eye of the voter. In fact, to try and apply some hard and fast standard (ie number of hits, HRs, walks, MVPs, etc) would be in violation of the voting rules.
Click to expand...

I agree on much of this.

However, imo, any of the "steroid era" guys who have the numbers, should be in the Hall of Fame, especially if they never tested positive. Along with their bust, each player has a plaque that talks about their careers. If it's steroid era guy, include that on the plaque.

The reason I feel that the steroid era players should be in is because MLB was culpable in what happened. They didn't even start testing until 2003. They were coming off a strike season with a canceled World Series and attendance and viewership were down.

Then, baseballs started flying out of ballparks at record rates, we had the home run record chases with McGwire, Sosa and Bonds. Folks started showing up to ballparks and watching on tv again...so baseball looked the other way.

It wasn't until reporters started sniffing around and reporting on it that MLB decided to act.
 
trojanfan12 said:
I agree on much of this.

However, imo, any of the "steroid era" guys who have the numbers, should be in the Hall of Fame, especially if they never tested positive. Along with their bust, each player has a plaque that talks about their careers. If it's steroid era guy, include that on the plaque.

The reason I feel that the steroid era players should be in is because MLB was culpable in what happened. They didn't even start testing until 2003. They were coming off a strike season with a canceled World Series and attendance and viewership were down.

Then, baseballs started flying out of ballparks at record rates, we had the home run record chases with McGwire, Sosa and Bonds. Folks started showing up to ballparks and watching on tv again...so baseball looked the other way.

It wasn't until reporters started sniffing around and reporting on it that MLB decided to act.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t the reporters that got MLB to act.

John McCain gave them an ultimatum. He set January 05 as a hardline date for MLB testing or he’d push legislation to test all professional athletes.

They announced their new plan, in January 05. Can’t screw around too much in order to make as much money as possible, if you don’t want to lose Monopoly exemption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top