jdswan922 0 Posted March 5, 2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2785765 I think Bo wins, hands down, any "best athlete" conversation and was always one of my favorite football players. I did not realize he averaged 5.4 ypc over his career. I think the guy could have been a hall of famer had his career not been cut short, even if he had continued to play baseball also. I am interested to see what other people's thoughts are... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_scooter 0 Posted March 5, 2007 Bo Knows... I loved Bo Jackson...hell of a talent and a career far too short. HOF fur sure if he hadn't been hurt - I don't think anyone would argue that. he had it all - hands, quickness, top end speed, moves, shiftiness, power, explosiveness - pretty much every cliche term used to asess a RB...Bo was a freak of nature on the football field. I put him in the elite class of RBs - Faulk at his best, Sanders at his best, Holmes at his best...Bo Jackson at his best was an elite talent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flushmonkii 0 Posted March 5, 2007 He would have had a major injury that ended his career. The real question should be what would come of him if he didnt get hurt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ignition Technition 0 Posted March 6, 2007 Check out Bo and bring back the memories 230 lbs 4.16 40 Time. No Training camps and still a 5.4YPC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JT 137 Posted March 7, 2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2785765 I think Bo wins, hands down, any "best athlete" conversation and was always one of my favorite football players. I did not realize he averaged 5.4 ypc over his career. I think the guy could have been a hall of famer had his career not been cut short, even if he had continued to play baseball also. I am interested to see what other people's thoughts are... Jackson was a great raw athlete, but his performance has been enhanced by time, highlight clips and Tecmo. Fact is, he wasn't even the best two sport athlete of his era. Deion Sanders...and this kills me to say, as I've spent 40+ years with a burning hatred for anything or anyone related to dallas...was an All Pro CB. He's going to the Hall of Fame, and was more dominant at his position (for longer periods of time) than Jackson was at his. Sanders also hit for a higher average (both career and best season) and higher OBP, and was a superior fielder. Jackson was Canseco without the average, baserunning skill, longevity, and negative press. Yes, Bo hit monster HR and ran over Bosworth. But he didn't produce in either sport at a consistently high level for any period of time, not even a full season. Like it or not, longevity is a factor that has to be considered. Otherwise, Mark Fydrich (sp?) is in the HOF. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frank 2,261 Posted March 7, 2007 Bo would have been #1 all-time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GhostofMeanMachine99 1 Posted March 7, 2007 Jackson was a great raw athlete, but his performance has been enhanced by time, highlight clips and Tecmo. Fact is, he wasn't even the best two sport athlete of his era. Deion Sanders...and this kills me to say, as I've spent 40+ years with a burning hatred for anything or anyone related to dallas...was an All Pro CB. He's going to the Hall of Fame, and was more dominant at his position (for longer periods of time) than Jackson was at his. Sanders also hit for a higher average (both career and best season) and higher OBP, and was a superior fielder. Jackson was Canseco without the average, baserunning skill, longevity, and negative press. Yes, Bo hit monster HR and ran over Bosworth. But he didn't produce in either sport at a consistently high level for any period of time, not even a full season. Like it or not, longevity is a factor that has to be considered. Otherwise, Mark Fydrich (sp?) is in the HOF. I hate to agree, but that is totally correct. Deion is one of the best CB's of all-time. And to boot, he was a pretty good baseball player. Now, he wasn't a 5 tool player like Jackson (even though no one thought Jackson could hit for average), but he got on base, stole bases, and played a good outfield. Basically, he did what he was asked to do. In football, Deion changed the way the other team played. I don't recall ever seeing a defender with his speed and quicks, ever. He literally could return every INT for a TD. And on special teams? Damn. Corporate America loved Bo. They liked Deion, but they didn't love him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdswan922 0 Posted March 7, 2007 Jackson was a great raw athlete, but his performance has been enhanced by time, highlight clips and Tecmo. Fact is, he wasn't even the best two sport athlete of his era. Deion Sanders...and this kills me to say, as I've spent 40+ years with a burning hatred for anything or anyone related to dallas...was an All Pro CB. He's going to the Hall of Fame, and was more dominant at his position (for longer periods of time) than Jackson was at his. Sanders also hit for a higher average (both career and best season) and higher OBP, and was a superior fielder. Jackson was Canseco without the average, baserunning skill, longevity, and negative press. Yes, Bo hit monster HR and ran over Bosworth. But he didn't produce in either sport at a consistently high level for any period of time, not even a full season. Like it or not, longevity is a factor that has to be considered. Otherwise, Mark Fydrich (sp?) is in the HOF. Actually, the point was that if he ever decided to focus on football he would have been a HOF player (assuming his career wasn't cut short by the injury). As an athlete, I still think he was better than Deion. His career BA was not exactly stellar. Deion hit .263 to Bo's .250. Deion only had one season in which he played more than 100 games in baseball, Bo had 4. Bo appeared in an all-star game, which Deion never did and a pro bowl. But referring to him being a better athlete than Deion, regardless of talent in a particular sport, they were both disgustingly fast, allegedly recording 40 times under 4.2. However, Bo was a physical freak. He was 6'1" 230 pounds of pure muscle. Deion was 6'1" 200. It is hard to say what Bo would have done, but he did extremely well in 7-11 games a season. It would have been interesting to see how any of those seasons would have finished had he gone all 16. I agree in evaluating a career, longevity counts, but not in measuring pure athleticism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wildman 0 Posted March 7, 2007 Bo Jackson was great. His numbers weren't great but if all you've seen is him run over Boz and equate one or two highlights to overhype, then you weren't paying attention, weren't born yet, or didn't watch football. He was one of the best running backs ever. You don't need the test of time to judge a player of his quality to say he was great. But that's the conventional point of view. Sometimes you just have to look outside convention and try not to define it so rigidly. Paul Hornung, Lenny Moore, and several other players were in awe of him as both a player and talent. Yes the media loved him, but don't let the hype blind you to the fact that he was good. He was far from overrated--just under utilized due to his part-time baseball interests, pairing with Marcus Allen, and shortened career. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gepetto 1,223 Posted March 7, 2007 Anyone that watched Bo play, knows his talent was bigger than the Pro Football HOF - if that makes sense - you know what I mean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,479 Posted March 7, 2007 I'm torn. I personally think he is the best athlete ever. At the same time, do us that think that, only think that because we "assume" what the rest of his career would have been? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sjanson 0 Posted March 7, 2007 He would have had a major injury that ended his career. The real question should be what would come of him if he didnt get hurt. That response right there is a "thread ender". Perfect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMoney 0 Posted March 7, 2007 I hate to agree, but that is totally correct. Deion is one of the best CB's of all-time. And to boot, he was a pretty good baseball player. Now, he wasn't a 5 tool player like Jackson (even though no one thought Jackson could hit for average), but he got on base, stole bases, and played a good outfield. Basically, he did what he was asked to do. In football, Deion changed the way the other team played. I don't recall ever seeing a defender with his speed and quicks, ever. He literally could return every INT for a TD. And on special teams? Damn. Corporate America loved Bo. They liked Deion, but they didn't love him. champ has been the only guy to really cut the field down since deion..but deion litterally eliminated half of the field for opposing offenses.... but no love for brian jordan? he was a decent 2 sport star and isnt ahead of deion...but close to bo.... i wonder how good frank thomas wouldve been had HE been a 2 sport star? or how good bo wouldve been had he stayed clean? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
56 0 Posted March 8, 2007 This talk of Bo Jackson as the greatest athlete ever is just plain silly. Jim Thorpe ate pancakes bigger than Bo Jackson for breakfast. Even if Bo never was hurt a day in his life, he would not even come close to Jim Thorpe. He was the first member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He's in the College Football Hall of Fame. He is in the Track and Field Hall of Fame. He had a 20 year baseball career playing with the Braves, Giants and (I think) the Reds. He was the first president of what is now the National Football League. He played for both the football and baseball NY Giants. He was an All-American in every sport he played in college. On a lark the guy went to the Olympics... he won gold medals in the Decathlon and Pentathlon. Bo Jackson, greatest athlete ever? Some of you folks really need to pick up a book once in a while. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdswan922 0 Posted March 8, 2007 This talk of Bo Jackson as the greatest athlete ever is just plain silly. Jim Thorpe ate pancakes bigger than Bo Jackson for breakfast. Even if Bo never was hurt a day in his life, he would not even come close to Jim Thorpe. He was the first member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He's in the College Football Hall of Fame. He is in the Track and Field Hall of Fame. He had a 20 year baseball career playing with the Braves, Giants and (I think) the Reds. He was the first president of what is now the National Football League. He played for both the football and baseball NY Giants. He was an All-American in every sport he played in college. On a lark the guy went to the Olympics... he won gold medals in the Decathlon and Pentathlon. Bo Jackson, greatest athlete ever? Some of you folks really need to pick up a book once in a while. His "20 year baseball career" included a .252 lifetime career BA, 91 run, 82 RBI in 289 AB. Hardly impressive. Maybe the book picking up should go to you... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JT 137 Posted March 8, 2007 Bo Jackson was great. His numbers weren't great but if all you've seen is him run over Boz and equate one or two highlights to overhype, then you weren't paying attention, weren't born yet, or didn't watch football. He was one of the best running backs ever. You don't need the test of time to judge a player of his quality to say he was great. But that's the conventional point of view. Sometimes you just have to look outside convention and try not to define it so rigidly. Paul Hornung, Lenny Moore, and several other players were in awe of him as both a player and talent. Yes the media loved him, but don't let the hype blind you to the fact that he was good. He was far from overrated--just under utilized due to his part-time baseball interests, pairing with Marcus Allen, and shortened career. Jackson was a terriffic player and a great talent. But you're wrong. Any inclusion in the "greatest ever" in any category has to include longevity, the "test of time". Whether it's conditioning, luck, or natural predisposition, the ability to stay on the field and be productive is a huge factor in separating the good from the great. Terrell Davis and Priest Holmes are current examples. Their production over a couple seasons is almost unrivaled. Are they included in your "greatest ever" list? How about Jamal Lewis? For one season, his numbers were staggering. Kurt Warner on your greatest ever QB list? I was paying attention, watching football, and plenty old enough to see Jackson play. In fact, I saw Jim Brown play, albeit at the tail end of his career. He had everything Jackson had, PLUS the ability to do it every week, year after year. Does Bo belong on a list of the greatest ever at the NCAA level? Sure. The NFL? Greatest potential, greatest raw talent. But among the greatest ever? Not even close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdswan922 0 Posted March 8, 2007 Jackson was a terriffic player and a great talent. But you're wrong. Any inclusion in the "greatest ever" in any category has to include longevity, the "test of time". Whether it's conditioning, luck, or natural predisposition, the ability to stay on the field and be productive is a huge factor in separating the good from the great. Terrell Davis and Priest Holmes are current examples. Their production over a couple seasons is almost unrivaled. Are they included in your "greatest ever" list? How about Jamal Lewis? For one season, his numbers were staggering. Kurt Warner on your greatest ever QB list? I was paying attention, watching football, and plenty old enough to see Jackson play. In fact, I saw Jim Brown play, albeit at the tail end of his career. He had everything Jackson had, PLUS the ability to do it every week, year after year. Does Bo belong on a list of the greatest ever at the NCAA level? Sure. The NFL? Greatest potential, greatest raw talent. But among the greatest ever? Not even close. I think the longevity argument is more of an argument for getting in the Hall. As far as whether he was one of the best ever at anything, that decision could be made based on performance over a short period. It is an opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JT 137 Posted March 9, 2007 I think the longevity argument is more of an argument for getting in the Hall. As far as whether he was one of the best ever at anything, that decision could be made based on performance over a short period. It is an opinion. But when you're talking "best of all time"...and that's where the poster I was responding to had him ranked...you're talking HOF caliber players. Regardless how much you might have liked Jackson, he's not one of those guys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kristv 0 Posted March 9, 2007 His "20 year baseball career" included a .252 lifetime career BA, 91 run, 82 RBI in 289 AB. Hardly impressive. Maybe the book picking up should go to you... After everything he laid out for you as proof that Thorpe is better, you're going to pick on THAT?? You must be joking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeshushu 51 Posted March 9, 2007 Greatest athlete of all time. I don't know he didn't look all that impresive on the tennis court. I did like that fly ball he caught and run up the side of the wall though. I tried that once and broke my ankle. Joe doesn't know stuff. I can hit a tennis ball between my legs though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted March 9, 2007 I hate these specutation articles they are just plain stupid. What if I were born with Bo Jackson's size and talent? Would I be the greatest athlete ever? Bo Jackson was a gifted athlete, he made his choices and he is what he is. A football player who never achieved his full potential. The fact remains that he never had a 1000 yard rushing season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wildman 0 Posted March 9, 2007 I think the longevity argument is more of an argument for getting in the Hall. As far as whether he was one of the best ever at anything, that decision could be made based on performance over a short period. It is an opinion. That's exactly my point. I'm not talking about HOF. Who cares? If you want to define greatness by what everyone judges according to an A-B-C structure, go for it. But if you are that rigid then of course I'm wrong. If you're willing to view what a player does on a field of play in terms of repeatedly making plays that few if any other's were capable, then you understand where I'm coming from. Numbers-oriented thinking can sometimes be the wrong way to go. Do you define great art by the price it's sold? Do you define great music or books by how many are sold? Glad the guy on the other post saw Jim Brown at the end of his career do amazing things. Of course Jim Brown was among the greatest ever. I didn't say Bo was the greatest ever. I saw he is among them in terms of what he was capable of doing. But I love the whole argument that Bo was an "aweseome raw" talent. Excuse me? Raw? What exactly about Bo's game was raw? Did he not catch the ball. Did he have trouble finding the hole? Finishing runs? Was it that he bumped Marcus Allen to the bench that he was raw because he only did it part of the time? Sorry, but Bo Jackson was not raw as a running back. He was a great running back. He may not be "great" by Hall of Fame standards (whatever those rigidly established standards are--I mean they define their standards in writing and it's experts in football vote--NOT!!!), but if you watched him run you could see the greatness in him at his job. Don't use a QB to argue about greatness in an RB. Warner played in a great system and eventually his weaknesses were exposed. RB is one of he most intuitive positions in sport. Bo Jackson would have shown his greatness regardless of the team. Edgerrin James and Corey Dillon are still the same runners with different teams as they were with their original. The yardage may be different, but the style/strengths/weaknesses are the same. While it was a good argument otherwise JT, we'll agree to disagree... I'm still sticking with mine Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdswan922 0 Posted March 9, 2007 After everything he laid out for you as proof that Thorpe is better, you're going to pick on THAT?? You must be joking. And his "20 year career" lasted all of 8 or 9 years, most of which was spent in the minors. Bo Jackson was a standout track and field start in college, but deicded against pursuing any accolades a la the Olympics or whatever. The argument is one of opinion, not fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted March 9, 2007 Here's a different take on the topic: If Bo had devoted himself to football, he'd have spent at least the first few years of his career as a Tampa Bay Buccaneer, and probably would have gotten frustrated with the team's lack of success, and gone back to baseball anyway. (But, in the meantime, he'd have been the best player in team history up to that point, other than maybe Selmon.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kristv 0 Posted March 9, 2007 And his "20 year career" lasted all of 8 or 9 years, most of which was spent in the minors. Bo Jackson was a standout track and field start in college, but deicded against pursuing any accolades a la the Olympics or whatever. The argument is one of opinion, not fact. It's not opinion that Thorpe played all of those sports and excelled at them. He made more of a name for himself in 3 sports than Bo made in 1. Thorpe is recognized on multiple levels; college, pro and olympic. This is a silly arguement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JT 137 Posted March 10, 2007 Don't use a QB to argue about greatness in an RB. Warner played in a great system and eventually his weaknesses were exposed. RB is one of he most intuitive positions in sport. Bo Jackson would have shown his greatness regardless of the team. Edgerrin James and Corey Dillon are still the same runners with different teams as they were with their original. The yardage may be different, but the style/strengths/weaknesses are the same. While it was a good argument otherwise JT, we'll agree to disagree... I'm still sticking with mine I'm still scratching my head over your argument a bit. So James and Dillon, who posted big numbers one place but not another, are still the same RB's. But Warner, who posted big numbers one place but not another, was the product of the system. My use of Warner was not to compare QB to RB, but to try to set some standards for your "among the greatest ever" category. You think a great two seasons, which is essentially the workload that Jackson produced over 4 years, qualifies (2700 yds, 16 TD). But a great two seasons doesn't, at least as it relates to a QB. Seems you want it both ways, as long as it supports your argument. Like you said, we'll agree to disagree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdswan922 0 Posted March 12, 2007 It's not opinion that Thorpe played all of those sports and excelled at them. He made more of a name for himself in 3 sports than Bo made in 1. Thorpe is recognized on multiple levels; college, pro and olympic. This is a silly arguement. It is far from a silly argument. It is the same type of argument as the Wilt Chamberlain is the best basketball player ever argument. I will always say it was Michael Jordan. Chamberlain had a lower level of competition when he played. He was physically superior to basketball players then, but he never would have put up the same number if he had to play players like Shaq, Ewing, Olaijuwon (sp?), Garnett, etc. The athletes that Thorpe went up against were not the same athletes that Bo played against. Put Thorpe against what Bo was up against, and we would see the real answer, but that is impossible, so yes, it is a matter of opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voice_Of_Reason 0 Posted March 12, 2007 Bo? the best multi sport athlete? Try this guy...Link to two sport legend Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrJ 0 Posted April 9, 2007 Greatest TD run in the history of EVER!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Durtee 0 Posted April 9, 2007 The real question isn't if Bo Jackson would have been one of the best ever, but what would have happened to already overrated Emmit Smith. If Bo Jackson and Barry Sanders wouldn't have cut their careers short, then Emmit Smith wouldn't even have been a top 5 back. Remember that Bo Jackson was splitting carries with Marcus Allen virtually the entire time he was with the Raiders and still managed to do what he did. Not to mention that in the early 90's the Raiders were borderline Super bowl contenders, so how many Super Bowls did they miss out on because of his injury. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites