Options
Our hobby’s Mount Rushmore
Goldenage
Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭✭✭
Which four faces from our hobby’s history belong there ? Representing the ones who had the most positive impact on our “nation”.
0
Goldenage
Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭✭✭
Goldenage
Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady
4 is too small of a group for that distinction.
5 would be Gretzky of course
Absolutely. But Jordan is not any more deserving than Gretzky, so it's hard to put a number 5 on it.
Pele is in the top most group too. So call that top 6 in no particular order. But then need to add other names such as Clay (Ali), Howe, Messi, Jim Thorpe, Don Bradman, etc. Opening it up to all sports means there are plenty more than 4 top tier names to consider.
Most positive impact on our nation Jim Bunning, Jackie Robinson, Babe Didrikson Zaharias, Jessie Owens
The Mt. Rushmore of the hobby should be iconic cards, and probably 1 per big 4 sport... not players... So you have the 52 mantle (over honus wagner), 86 Jordan, 79 Gretzky, For football you could have Brady, but I don't know that his rookie card (I guess the contender) would really be considered iconic.. Hell, I'd probably say put the 1989 UD Griffey up there and forget football!
I think you're on the right track, but I say Wagner, Mantle, Griffey, and Jordan. Easy to make the case that only the Griffey is a rookie.
For me and their cards it's
52 Mantle
86 Jordan
79 Gretzky
58 Jim Brown
How about
Sy Berger
Woody Gelman
Steve Hart
Joe Orlando
I agree but I might put Joe Namath over Jim Brown.
Goldenage
Don't forget Mr Mint + Frisch!
hey balco758,
you typed that faster than I did; yeah I was thinking Al Rosen & Larry too.
Then I thought about Kit Young and Bill Henderson.
No wrong answers here. Except Pikachu. That would be a wrong answer.
If its players important to the hobby, I would say Mantle, Griffey, Jordan and possibly Montana. I remember him being so crucial to football cards really coming to prominence in the late 80s, early 90s
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
We all know Mints story about the case where all the 52 Mantles came from.
Well, Woody Gellman did this every year. My good friend from Ocean City NJ who is now 85 years old told me great Gellman stories from the late 60s and 70s when Gellman would rent out a hotel room and call all the east coast dealers when and where to come get what they wanted to buy.
He told me stories of stacks and stacks of Namath, Seaver, and Ryan rookies sitting on a table in that room, along with case upon case in the room and in Gellmans van.
These cases had what 25-50 of each player ? Can’t remember. Anyway, I would sift through 200 to 300 of some gem mint cards from the 60s and 70s at his Ocean City house.
I have great memories of this guy. What a treasure us older (me 57) guys can pass on to the kids growing up. Great stories of yesteryear.
Woody Gellman in my view is #1 on
the list. 2-4 is up for grabs.
In that case, Charizard takes slot 5! And then Adam Bomb!
This is more what I thought when I saw the title. Hobby pioneers, movers and shakers, not the athletes (cards).
Burdick and Beckett probably have to be given strong consideration for a spot on that Rushmore, but there could be others that were highly influential, but not as well well known both from the card maker side and the card collector side.
I'd rather see the latter 2 dropped off for a more historical viewpoint. They seem more business driven names than hobby/collecting names.
Spence had put together some impressive collections over the years.
if we are talking about hobby pioneers, I agree with Jefferson Burdick and James Beckett. Burdick should be the first name on the list.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Wait .. it's not Bonds, Clemens, Mcgwire, and Sosa?
Brien Taylor, Ben McDonald, Tony Mandarich, Brian Bosworth, Ryan Leaf, Greg Oden, Zion Williamson
**> " I agree but I might put Joe Namath over Jim Brown." **
You own the distinction as being the only person ever to have written or said that.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
For cards, I'll obviously take Jim Brown over Barry Sanders. But as a running back, Barry is ahead of Brown in my book. Biased for sure, as I am a lifelong Michigan resident and watched Barry but Brown was earlier than my time.
I think football and basketball, unlike baseball, have improved so much that it is obvious that a star player of a previous generation simply wouldn't be today. You could argue, and I don't know enough to one way or the other, that those players would greatly improve by using today's training methods, medical treatments, nutritionists, etc.
I recall reading maybe five years ago someone watching a hockey game from the '70s and being astonished at how slow it was and how long the shifts were.
It is only because I like quarterback cards more than running back cards. Jim Brown is obviously a better player but I prefer QBs.
Was thinking exactly that. Card not the player.
This is incorrect in regards to basketball.
Better shape? Sure, chemicals and trading can do that. However, most guys playing now can’t play better with four players around them and often can play worse. The NBA has also changed the rules (significantly) of basketball to make the game much more guard oriented.
Elgin Baylor and George Gervin were both tremendous athletes. Part of the reason you don’t see their highlight reels of dunks is because back then there was ‘pain in the middle’ which mostly kept the guards out of the lane or when they came in anyway, there were big men there to put them down on the hardwood.
Realistically, it was nearly as much the flagrant foul as it was Michael Jordan that helped the Bulls finally get past the Pistons; and yes, flagrant fouls was a rule passed in 1980 and only started to be enforced in?
1991
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The best athletes from any time - if born in this era and still being lucky enough to be born into a country that affords them opportunity - would still be the best. Plop one in a time machine they would not be able to adjust - but have them grow up with the equipment, coaching, training and general better quality of life (childhood disease, more readily available food etc.) they would still be the best.
Perhaps, but the best players are not always, one might be tempted to say "rarely", the best athletes. Herb Washington, even in his specialty as a Designated Pinch Runner, was a great athlete, terrible baseball player. Counterexample is John Kruk who was a good, not great, player and famously disclaimed any ability as an athlete.
How much would Walter Johnson have stood out in an era where even the top starters rarely take a third turn through the lineup? Or Wilt Chamberlain in an era when Karl-Anthony Towns shoots 41% on his 366 three point attempts?
Many athletes are very gifted the way Secretariat was gifted with a heart twice the size of a normal horse.
Bobby Orr and Connor McDavid are gifted with the quickest feet and initial speed burst hockey has ever seen and would be great in any era.
Ted Williams was gifted with super human hand eye coordination and would dominate in any era.
Messi gifted with an incredible speed burst and eye foot coordination above others.
Swimmers and track athletes gifted with superhuman fast twitch muscles that have records that could be out of reach.
Walter Johnson’s domination of Babe Ruth head to head tells me he would be a force even today.
Top starters going max effort for 6 would still be dominant.
I am not going to divide up the sports evenly. This is my opinion of strictly impact only.
These cards transcend the hobby. People that don't collect cards know these cards. Well, maybe not the Ruth, but everyone know who Babe Ruth is and I picked his rookie card. Maybe a better pick would be one of the 1933 Goudey Ruth's.
Here is my list.
T206 Honus Wagner
1916 Sporting News Babe Ruth
1952 Topps Mickey Mantle
1986-87 Fleer Michael Jordan
Shane
To revisit the above, I agree with three of these four with the Upper Deck Griffey replacing the Ruth. While Ruth is undoubtedly an iconic, perhaps THE iconic, player, he really has no "must have" card. The Jordan stands for all "non-baseball" cards as it really showed for the first time that the other sports could have value. Plus, there is no hockey, let alone football, card nearly as iconic.
Also, as I mentioned before, it is amusing given the laser focus on rookie cards, it's funny that only one of these is a rookie card.
I could actually get on board with that. You talked me into it. The difficulty for me is that the Griffey is soooo mass produced and so common. It's value, to me, doesn't make total sense. But..... I can go with it because it is an important card.
Shane
I think these four cards are pretty representative of the hobby:
T206 Cobb (red back)
1952 Topps Mantle
1989 Upper Deck Griffey
2011 Topps Update Trout
Though I own none of them, these seem to me to cover the baseball card collecting era well and represent some of the biggest chase cards of several generations and those that came after. Each one seemed to ignite the hobby for a new generation and become the premier card - both at the time and in perpetuity - for many, many collectors. These cards are base cards and therefore accessible (via population, anyway) which helps both their appeal and collectability.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Don West.
If the 1979 Gretzky is on the list, the 1954 Topps Gordie Howe should be considered as well.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
The Baltimore News Ruth
T206 Wagner
Cracker Jack Ty Cobb (Maybe Shoeless Joe from this set)
52 Mantle