Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ThunderRam

  • Birthday April 22

Recent Profile Visitors

1,034 profile views

ThunderRam's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular
  • Reacting Well
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. Only because it’s become a trendy thing. Trends to get their 15 minutes, then people eventually get bored and move on. Odds are that 10 years from now you won’t be talking about this anymore. Maybe one of the programs builds something up in that time and becomes a mainstay. But I doubt it. If Deion has success at Jville State, he’ll get poached by a mainstay. In the end odds are quite strong that the elite programs will still be the ones that have been the elite programs for 75-100 years.
  2. I actually figured it was just a matter of until we started seeing this. With more and more parents starting their kids out early like Earl Woods and wanting to break new ground. Lo and behold I’ve now had an ambidextrous tennis player and a football player brought to my attention over the past week. FWIW, this topic has always fascinated me because I’m ambidextrous and have wondered why more athletes haven’t tried this.
  3. I bet the wrong long shot, Summer Is Tomorrow. Thought about betting Richstrike, but Summer was 22-1 according to NBC but I got him at +7500. Thought I had better odds on a long shot with a more realistic chance to win. That line of thinking surely cost me.
  4. Um, yeah there is. The 2020 pandemic season being chief among them. And I say this as a lifelong LA Dodgers fan. I don't completely discount that title because the circumstances were mostly the same for each and every team. But it still wasn't close to the same as a normal season. For a bunch of reasons everyone should already be aware about. Same goes for a strike-shortened season. The 2020 NBA Bubble season was even more bogus. It pretty much leveled out everything that happened from Oct 2019 through March 2020. And included a huge layoff before games were played again. In nothing but neutral sites under odd conditions. And while some of the games biggest stars were out for the season. We've seen what the Lakers have looked like in the other 3 seasons since LBJ has been there. They've missed the postseason TWICE and lost in the 1st round once. The 2020 bubble season was a lucky, lucky anomaly. You'll never convince me it wasn't a ruse to produce a "feel good" story after the Kobe Bryant tragedy. I told my wife in the immediate aftermath that the NBA would do everything they could to gift the title to the Lakers. And they did just that. The rest of the season shouldn't even have been played, but somehow there was a lot of urgency to make it happen. I don't wonder why. As for the 2nd title he claimed was "bogus", I'm guessing he's referring to Ray Allen bailing out LeFraud James with his game tying 3 in game 6 against San Antonio to avoid elimination. Notice I said "Ray Allen". Because LeFraud has always needed someone else to make the big shot. The biggest play LeFraud has ever made was the chase down block on Iguodala (which was indeed incredible) but he still needed Kyrie Irving to make the game-winning 3. Which may be the actual bogus title he's referring to due to Draymond Green's suspension. While there are 4 titles on LeFraud's team career record, it must be acknowledged that he was eerily close to only 1. If Allen misses that 3 and Green doesn't get suspended or Kyrie doesn't make a three, there's 2 titles gone. And the bubble season easily could have (and should have) never been played. Seriously, LBJ has no valid argument to be listed above Kobe Bryant, let alone Michael Jordan. None. I'd still take Tim Duncan over him in a heartbeat. And Shaq.
  5. I've been telling people the same exact thing for decades. I'll never understand the rationale of only counting Finals, Super Bowl, World Series, etc, appearances. People resting their case upon Michael Jordan's teams being 6-0 in the Finals and Joe Montana's teams being 4-0 in Super Bowls completely miss the point that every season they didn't advance to the SB was a loss too. The fact that the loss occurred in an earlier round or that they didn't even reach the postseason doesn't somehow make the failed season better. I've postulated many times that a 4-5 record in a title game/series is vastly superior than a 4-0 record. Because it matches the same number of wins while advancing further than the other player/team did an additional 5 times. Same thing applies to a sport like tennis. The goal is to advance as far in the tournament as you can. The way I look at it is: Michael Jordan's teams were 6-9 (.400) during the 15 seasons he played. Kobe Bryant's teams were 5-15 (.250) during the 20 seasons he played. LeBron James' teams are 4-15 (.211) during the 19 seasons he's played. Lastly, I strategically and purposely use the word "teams" for a reason. It's become extremely popular among fans and those among the sports media to position as "Tom Brady has won 7 Super Bowls" as if "team" sports are somehow comparable to singles tennis or some other singles-based sport. Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, John Elway and Dan Marino should be the greatest examples of how individuals, no matter how great they are, don't win titles by themselves. Or even mostly by themselves. Chamberlain was arguably the most dominant single player the sport of basketball has ever seen. Yet he was only part of 2 titles during his 14 season career. Meanwhile his rival's team won 11 titles over 13 seasons which largely overlapped Wilt's career. Because the Celtics were a much superior "team". Michael Jordan didn't begin winning titles until his 7th season in the league when Scottie Pippen came into his own and the overall talent around him improved. John Elway's teams were blown out of 3 Super Bowl's during the prime of his HOF career and it wasn't until nearly a decade later when he was a shell of his former self when his Broncos won a couple titles largely due to a dominant rush attack and stellar defense. Elway was a much better QB the years his team didn't win than he was when they did win. The Broncos 1997 and 1998 teams were just a lot better than their 80's teams. And Dan Marino was arguably the greatest pure passing QB the game has ever seen, but was held back by super flawed teams devoid of defense and a rush attack. Despite that, he was able to lift them to 1 SB appearance and numerous deep playoff runs. Circling back to the main point, every season counts and every loss counts. No matter what round it occurred.
  6. Come on aboard, my friend! I’ve been a long suffering fan since I was 6. I was too young to watch or remember the 71, 72, 73 Super Bowl teams, so I’ve yet to see them win the big game. But Im forever hopeful. I really have a good feeling about Mike McDaniel and where the team is headed.
  7. One of my favorite Dolphins. Both he and Sam Madison are coaching up the DB’s. And former Dolphin Wes Welker is the WR coach.
  8. Imagine if the 75 yard gift TD to Tee Higgins had been correctly called offensive PI? Burrow would have thrown for a whopping 188 yards and no scores. Thank the football gods!
  9. @Atticus Finch@steeler01 I still find it hilarious that this douche continues to latch on to a QB from Iowa that played HS ball in Ohio and spent the majority of his collegiate career at Ohio State as “one of his inbred Lose-ee-anna own”. It really doesn’t get any better than that! Lmfao
  10. Chrissy was my mom's all-time favorite before Agassi. While I fell hard and fast for NFL football at 6 years old, my mom was a tennis nut that introduced me to the sport around the same age. My formative years were spent watching Martina and Chrissy and Borg, Mac and Jimmy. I played and took lessons from a pro from about 10 til my early 20's. Never committed to it like I did football, so I have no idea how good I could have been. But by the time I was in HS I was a fan of Becker, Chang and Lendl ... until Andre Agassi came along. And then Rafa. And Chrissy remains an all-time fav too. I've seen Chrissy, Martina, Mac, Andre, and Pete (I was seated behind his super hot wife once) all play in person a few times. But never in major. Great story regarding your daughter! That's awesome!
  11. An important factor rarely brought up when comparing the big 3 is that RF won a good portion of his titles over a period of a few years when Sampras and Agassi were either well past their prime or out of the game completely and also before Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic came to prominence. Fed had a fairly long window of opportunity from the 2nd half of 2003 through 2007 when he didn't have an all-time great with which to compete. Sampras appeared and won his final slam at the US Open in 2002. Agassi won his final slam at the Aussie in 2003 and only made one more GS finals appearance after that point. Meanwhile Roger won his 1st slam at Wimbledon in 2003 and essentially had an unfettered path until 2008 when Rafa began winning outside of Roland Garros. Novak Djokovic didn't come along and really start stealing slams from the two of them until 2011. Rafa has always had to deal with at least one of the two throughout his career, and has overlapped both of their primes. Novak has always had to deal with Rafa and Roger, but largely only had to deal with Fed on the backside of his career -- including a 6 year period from 2011 through 2016 when Fed only won 1 slam. Fed is the only one of the BIG3 that enjoyed a period of time without the other two. That's pretty significant. Clearly not his fault, as he could only play whomever was in front of him but still notable nonetheless. There were some good players around, such as Lleyton Hewitt, but nobody of any historical significance. Actually he did participate in the Aussie in 1974. But just that one time. I've brought up this point many times why I believe Bjorn Borg often gets overlooked as one of the greats. It's one of the many problems I have with any GOAT debate. Not all factors were equal. In the case of Borg, Connors and Mac (and even Chris Evert on the women's side), they were really only able to participate in 3 GS tournaments during the primes of the careers. Because the Aussie experience was very subpar and didn't re-invent itself and become a must play tournament until 1988. Borg only participated once. Connors twice. And McEnroe only twice before the makeover in 1988. Martina and Chris didn't really start playing there until 1980/81. Circling back to Borg, what if he had been able to play that tournament as they play it now? Even retiring at 26 he may have won another few titles. He never won the US Open on hard court, so who knows. Regardless his 11 titles in such a short span is most impressive. Chris Evert -- who is considered by some as the greatest clay court player of all time -- also won the US Open on clay. In fact she won it all 3 years it was played on clay. Regarding the Aussie, as a I talked about above, it didn't become a priority until 1988. Which was a huge disadvantage for the old guard with regard to building career accomplishments. As are surfaces. As you said, at one time 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass. For a short 3 year period 2 were played on clay and 2 on grass. And since 1988 2 have been played on hard court. What if Pete Sampras and Roger Federer had played during a time when 3 were on grass? What if Rafa and Chris Evert played their entire careers with 2 on clay?? It changes things dramatically. Until 2002 when the type of grass was changed, the serve and volley'ers were able to be highly effective at 3 of the 4 slams and dominate. Basically the era's of Martina, Pete and Steffi. But had the 2 of the 4 been on clay or had the grass at Wimbledon been altered sooner, the slam picture might look a whole lot different. Surface advantage is one of the big points I always bring up when discussing the the current big 3. Novak's best surface is clearly hard court where he's won 12 of his 20 slams. And 2 of the slams are played on that surface. And while grass is a different surface, the speed and other factors make it so that hard court specialists and grass court specialists typically have an easier time transitioning their game between the two. Martina, Fed, Pete and Becker were all dominant grass court players that were nearly as dominant on hard court, but not so much on clay. It's much more difficult and rare for dominant clay court players to transition their game and find success on grass and/or hard court. IMO that's what makes Borg, Rafa and Chris Evert so special. I really believe that with the surface disadvantage each season, it's really amazing that Chris Evert won as many singles slams as Martina (and close to Graf) and that Rafa Nadal has won more than Fed and Joker.
  12. Understanding and acknowledging that which someone else can't or won't doesn't qualify anyone as a know-it-all. But I totally understand why someone lacking the ability to combat the argument I'm making would see it that way.
  13. If you truly believe any player qualifies as GOAT due to “team” and “org” success and accomplishments ….. you unequivocally don’t understand football or more specifically team dynamics. Furthermore, if you aren’t fully educated regarding the vast differences not only between eras, but also between org’s and surrounding talent and postseason qualifications throughout the history of the game and aren’t factoring that in — then yes, you don’t know what you’re talking about and have formed an “opinion” whilst missing most of the puzzle pieces. Don’t feel bad, though. You’ve got a lot of company. And the above does make perfect sense to those that are able to understand that which you do not. There simply is no such thing as GOAT. At best you can hold an educated yet biased opinion on the greatest player you ever witnessed during the era(s) you were able to follow. But even that opinion is flawed if it lacks fundamental understanding how team sports operate. The above applies to everyone. But by all means continue on under the delusion that your very limited and biased view, capturing maybe 20% of the overall picture if you’re lucky, somehow equates to being knowledgeable. As for this reveal coming across as “condescending” to you, I can’t help you with that. It is what it is.
  14. One more thought/point. There are still a lot of folks that view Roger Federer as the best all-around player ever. He is probably, at worst, still regarded as the greatest grass court player ever, if not Pete Sampas. (Grass conditions drastically changed circa 2003/04 negating serve and volley’ers) To those people I’d offer up the following. RF’s greatest and most dominant years occurred in between 2003 and 2010, as he won 16 of his 20 Slams during those 8 years. He won 3 of the 4 slams in 2004, 2006, and 2007. From 2003 to 2009 he won Wimbledon 6 out of 7 times, including winning 5 consecutive. His only loss was in the Finals against Rafa in a match some consider the greatest ever played. Point is, the 2 Wimbledon Finals, 5-set matches Rafa played against Fed in 2007 and 2008 (one loss, one win) might be the best indicator of Nadal’s greatness. As dominant as Fed was at that time, especially on grass, I’m not sure any other player in modern history could have competed and pushed Roger to the same degree Rafa did during those two years. I don’t believe prime Novak from 2011 to now could have competed the same, let alone beaten RF during that time. The only other player I can fathom having a chance was Pete Sampras, but not on the newer grass surface that largely negated his serve and volley game. Lastly, with exception of 2009 when Rafa’s family experienced turmoil, nobody was able to compete and push Rafa at Roland Garros (during his best prime years) anywhere near the same degree that Rafa competed against RF at Wimbledon in 2007 and 2008. Not bad for a “one-trick pony, clay court specialist” that experts predicted wouldn’t have a long career.
  15. People can think whatever they want. It’s subjective opinion. Supposition. Not only is a person’s opinion on matters such as these largely influenced by personal bias and experiences, but almost always lacks or disregards a lot of additional info and context. Basically people don’t know what they don’t know (e.g., not knowing or understanding or forgetting the differences in the game, teams, situations, rules, etc., between eras). Furthermore in the case of team sports there is a widespread lack of understanding of how team sports operate, as well as organizational structures. Especially when compared to other team sports where the amount of players and moving parts are much less. Lastly, many are further influenced and led astray by what they hear most media outlets regurgitating ad nauseam. It’s akin to the long-standing phenomenon of the average person usually believing what they read. It becomes truth even if it really isn’t.
  • Create New...