any football card depicting the player wearing a helmet, WITHOUT A FACE GUARD, is a classic great football card in my book. Can't even imagine the facial damage some of those guys endured. al.
The 55 topps all american set is a little better than 1960 fleer.
Topps is more contemporary, the star power is much higher (with only a 100 cards in the set), plus short prints. I think its somewhat analogous to 54/55 Topps hockey (vs the 51 parkhurst set being #1). And its better than the 55 bowman set. The tribute fleer baseball sets in the 60's aren't more valuable than the topps ones.
The all american 10's are pretty incredible. How many 10's do you see of 50's topps cards, in any sport. Without a cello find, or wax find, they're pretty rare. How many hockey collectors would like a gordie howe 10 or plante, or someone else? You could wait a lifetime to find a 10 of a 50's Topps star.
I would vote,
33 National Chicle Nagurski Then maybe Grange or Baugh Then maybe the 58 Topps Jim Brown 9
The Namath PSA 9 '65 Topps should be much higher. That's a pretty iconic card.
<< <i>Far be it from me to say -- but I think the greatest graded football card should be based upon aesthetic appeal. There are very, very few qualitative differences between a 9 and a 10, and to most laymen, between even an 8 and a 10.
Basing a ranking upon a population report number, or being a 10 instead of a 9 screams to me of pure silliness. Objective factors would include: rarity, aesthetic appeal, popularity of player, importance of set.
Aesthetic appeal to me consists of both the beauty of a card's design and format, and its general grade grouping, realizing that a NM-MT Grange likely will look better than a chipped Mayo of Beecher graded VG-EX. >>
Heres the most sensable post of the whole thread. I tend to agree that way to much attention and money is given to "10's" No doubt they are some of the most beautiful cards in the hobby, but really only a 9 on any given day.
I'll never understand the logic and thinking of TPGers. I do a SGC 1971 Topps Football set. No way you can tell me the Blazing 71's I sub that are lucky to get 8's are not every bit or better than the 55 AA Grange 10. Its just so subjective. The 71 Set being "Condition sensitive" is by far the most unfairly graded set in the hobby due to this Preconcived notion. I don't want to hear any of this Vintage vs Modern. A 10 should be a 10 straight across the board.
Now, I also do a 55 AA set myself and yes that 55 Grange 10 is KILLER!!! I think mine 10 is to:
That 48 Leaf set? Yuck!!!! I don't care who's in it. Them are butt ugly cards to me. I'll take the beautiful 55 AA's over them any day. Of coarse thats just my preference.
I love the 55 AA Grange, But I think the Thorpe, Horseman or Hudson are all three more "Historicly" important cards than the Grange.
In the end the I would tend to agree with most here:
A lot here are saying the '35 Nagurski. Now is that because it's the most valuable Football card in high grade or do you think he was the best player of that generation?
What if the Nagurski card was the easiest Chicle card in the set and could be attained for say $1000 in a PSA 8. Just pretend for a minute... Would you still think it's the greatest card ever?
Just wondering....
To me, I'd prefer the Sport King Thorpe or Grange cards. But that's me. If Don Hutson would happen to be in the Chicle set, I'd prefer that card too.
<< <i>A lot here are saying the '35 Nagurski. Now is that because it's the most valuable Football card in high grade or do you think he was the best player of that generation?
What if the Nagurski card was the easiest Chicle card in the set and could be attained for say $1000 in a PSA 8. Just pretend for a minute... Would you still think it's the greatest card ever?
Just wondering....
To me, I'd prefer the Sport King Thorpe or Grange cards. But that's me. If Don Hutson would happen to be in the Chicle set, I'd prefer that card too. >>
Of course value has to do with it, it just sounds like you place more emphasis on the eye appeal of the card. Speak to the top experts in the industry who are the premier football card dealers, it is the Nagurski. Rarity is king.
If you want to completely change the variables with your hypothetical, then of course it would be a different card. If you want to go with the most eye appealing card ever, maybe it is the Sport King Thorpe, the best player then it might be the 58 Jim Brown to many, or if someone is just hooked on a set(nothing wrong with that at all, just sayin) then maybe it is a 55 Red Grange.
<< <i>If value isnt in it. Id take a clear image 1958 Topps Jim Brown >>
So would I. Best player ever in my opinion. Dominated his position for nine seasons. Really, Jim Brown only had one off season where he didn't lead the league in rushing, which I believe was 1962. Even in his worst season, he was in the top five in rushing.
The only knock on Brown was he didn't have huge playoff games.
Plus he left the game at the extreme top at age 29. Who's to say he couldn't have played another five seasons and added 6000 more rushing yards and another 60 TD's to his resume. The Cleveland team he left in '66 was a veteran team and talented. Leroy Kelly, Browns replacement at RB, put up big numbers for three seasons in a row where he was the top back in the NFL.
I never saw Jim Brown play, so I can only take the word of those that did that he was something amazing. And his numbers support that. But, if Leroy Kelly took his place in 1966 and put up three consecutive years in which he led the NFL in rushing TD's, ran for over 1,100 yards, and had over 5 yards a carry, then doesn't that tend to give extra credit to the Browns and take something away from Jim Brown? The same argument applies to Joe Montana (where someone took his spot and did things that were very similar).
I hear what you're saying about Leroy Kelly, but he did make the HOF too. He wasn't just a three year wonder. The Brown's had a stellar offensive line during the 1950's and throughout the 1960's. This no doubt helped both Brown and Kelly attain their numbers.
Kelly had three big years in a row and a few really good years afterward. He was a solid running back and belongs in the HOF in my opinion.
Jim Brown, on the other hand, never really had a bad year in nine seasons. He averaged over 100 yards per game and over 5 yards per carry, thoughout his entire career. The only other back that's close to those numbers is Barry Sanders.
I think when you compare players, the best way to do it is compare them to other players in their era.
In 1958, his second year, Jim Brown had 1527 yards rushing, 5.9 avg., and 17 TDs in a 12 game season. He of course led the league in rushing that year. The runner up to him that year, Alan Ameche, had 791 yards rushing or a little more than HALF as many yards as Jim Brown.
In 1963, Jim Brown rushed for a then record 1863 yards, 6.4 avg. and 12 TD's in a 14 game season. The runner up was the Packers HOF great Jim Taylor, who rushed for 1018 yards, 4.1 AVG, 9 TDs. So Brown had 845 more rushing yards that season than the next best runner. His per carry average was over two yards better than Taylor's too.
In 1965, Brown's last season, he rushed for 1544, 5.3, 17 TDs. This may have been his best year. The runner up was the great Gale Sayers. Sayers rushed for 867 yards, 5.2, 14 TDs. That's 677 more yards than the second place rusher.
Now that's dominant.
Leroy Kelly's best seasons were in '66-68. He finished a close runner up to Gale Sayers in '66. Then Kelly led the NFL the next two years besting the runner up by 233 yards in '67 and 272 yards in '68. Great seasons by Kelly no doubt. But nowhere near the dominance of Jim Brown's best three years.
Really, the only other running back who had a season comparable to Jim Brown's best three years (when compared to the runner up rusher) is OJ Simpson's 2003 yards in 1973. The next best runner was Csonka with 1003 yards. OJ outrushed him by only 1000 yards that year!
The fact of the matter is Jim Brown is without question the single greatest professional football player of all time. However, much like one of the current greatest hoops player (think Lakers) he was a rapist and should have gone to prison. Lets not forget that.
Jim Brown---"Greatest ever" The reason that I can honestly say this is that I know some very racist old guys who even concede that. In 1963 it's surprising that Jim Brown didn't get like 30 touchdowns- with his yards per carry average.
It is interesting, but not surprising, that perhaps of all the football cards mentioned as being the G.O.A.T., there is only one where the player depicted is predominantly known as a defensive player. It is Chuck Bednarik's 1948 Leaf Rookie Card. (I think that L.T.'s was referenced in a jestering manner in light of recent events). His individual greatness and multiple world championships are probably helped by the relative scarcity of his rookie card, leading his PSA 8 to fetch $38K a few years ago.
Of course, whether it's sports cards, fantasy football, or TV, watching offensive players forever captures more of the football enthusiast's imagination and interest.
My Concrete Charlie:
Edited to add: This thread could also be named "The Thread That Refuses To Die."
Comments
I would sure be proud of that one, if it were in my collection.
Thanks for the eye candy.
-Keith
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Topps is more contemporary, the star power is much higher (with only a 100 cards in the set), plus short prints. I think its somewhat analogous to 54/55 Topps hockey (vs the 51 parkhurst set being #1). And its better than the 55 bowman set. The tribute fleer baseball sets in the 60's aren't more valuable than the topps ones.
The all american 10's are pretty incredible. How many 10's do you see of 50's topps cards, in any sport. Without a cello find, or wax find, they're pretty rare. How many hockey collectors would like a gordie howe 10 or plante, or someone else? You could wait a lifetime to find a 10 of a 50's Topps star.
I would vote,
33 National Chicle Nagurski
Then maybe Grange or Baugh
Then maybe the 58 Topps Jim Brown 9
The Namath PSA 9 '65 Topps should be much higher. That's a pretty iconic card.
<< <i>Far be it from me to say -- but I think the greatest graded football card should be based upon aesthetic appeal. There are very, very few qualitative differences between a 9 and a 10, and to most laymen, between even an 8 and a 10.
Basing a ranking upon a population report number, or being a 10 instead of a 9 screams to me of pure silliness. Objective factors would include: rarity, aesthetic appeal, popularity of player, importance of set.
Aesthetic appeal to me consists of both the beauty of a card's design and format, and its general grade grouping, realizing that a NM-MT Grange likely will look better than a chipped Mayo of Beecher graded VG-EX. >>
Heres the most sensable post of the whole thread. I tend to agree that way to much attention and money is given to "10's"
No doubt they are some of the most beautiful cards in the hobby, but really only a 9 on any given day.
I'll never understand the logic and thinking of TPGers. I do a SGC 1971 Topps Football set. No way you can tell me the Blazing 71's I sub that are lucky to get 8's are not every bit or better than the 55 AA Grange 10. Its just so subjective. The 71 Set being "Condition sensitive" is by far the most unfairly graded set in the hobby due to this Preconcived notion. I don't want to hear any of this Vintage vs Modern. A 10 should be a 10 straight across the board.
Now, I also do a 55 AA set myself and yes that 55 Grange 10 is KILLER!!! I think mine 10 is to:
That 48 Leaf set? Yuck!!!! I don't care who's in it. Them are butt ugly cards to me. I'll take the beautiful 55 AA's over them any day. Of coarse thats just my preference.
I love the 55 AA Grange, But I think the Thorpe, Horseman or Hudson are all three more "Historicly" important cards than the Grange.
In the end the I would tend to agree with most here:
Nagurski, Brown, Baugh are the Top dogs.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
What if the Nagurski card was the easiest Chicle card in the set and
could be attained for say $1000 in a PSA 8. Just pretend for a minute...
Would you still think it's the greatest card ever?
Just wondering....
To me, I'd prefer the Sport King Thorpe or Grange cards. But that's me. If Don Hutson would happen to be in the Chicle set,
I'd prefer that card too.
<< <i>A lot here are saying the '35 Nagurski. Now is that because it's the most valuable Football card in high grade or do you think he was the best player of that generation?
What if the Nagurski card was the easiest Chicle card in the set and
could be attained for say $1000 in a PSA 8. Just pretend for a minute...
Would you still think it's the greatest card ever?
Just wondering....
To me, I'd prefer the Sport King Thorpe or Grange cards. But that's me. If Don Hutson would happen to be in the Chicle set,
I'd prefer that card too. >>
Of course value has to do with it, it just sounds like you place more emphasis on the eye appeal of the card. Speak to the top experts in the industry who are the premier football card dealers, it is the Nagurski. Rarity is king.
If you want to completely change the variables with your hypothetical, then of course it would be a different card. If you want to go with the most eye appealing card ever, maybe it is the Sport King Thorpe, the best player then it might be the 58 Jim Brown to many, or if someone is just hooked on a set(nothing wrong with that at all, just sayin) then maybe it is a 55 Red Grange.
<< <i>If value isnt in it. Id take a clear image 1958 Topps Jim Brown >>
So would I. Best player ever in my opinion. Dominated his position for nine seasons. Really, Jim Brown only had one off season where he didn't lead the league in rushing, which I believe was 1962. Even in his worst season, he was in the top five in rushing.
The only knock on Brown was he didn't have huge playoff games.
Plus he left the game at the extreme top at age 29. Who's to say he couldn't have played another five seasons and added 6000 more rushing yards and another 60 TD's to his resume. The Cleveland team he left in '66 was a veteran team and talented. Leroy Kelly, Browns replacement at RB, put up big numbers for three seasons in a row where he was the top back in the NFL.
Kelly had three big years in a row and a few really good years afterward. He was a solid running back and belongs in the HOF in my opinion.
Jim Brown, on the other hand, never really had a bad year in nine seasons. He averaged over 100 yards per game and over 5 yards per carry, thoughout his entire career. The only other back that's close to those numbers is Barry Sanders.
I think when you compare players, the best way to do it is
compare them to other players in their era.
In 1958, his second year, Jim Brown had 1527 yards rushing, 5.9 avg., and 17 TDs in a 12 game season. He of course led the league in rushing that year. The runner up to him that year, Alan Ameche, had 791 yards rushing or a little more than HALF as many yards as Jim Brown.
In 1963, Jim Brown rushed for a then record 1863 yards, 6.4 avg. and 12 TD's in a 14 game season. The runner up was the Packers HOF great Jim Taylor, who rushed for 1018 yards, 4.1 AVG, 9 TDs.
So Brown had 845 more rushing yards that season than the next best runner. His per carry average was over two yards better than Taylor's too.
In 1965, Brown's last season, he rushed for 1544, 5.3, 17 TDs. This may have been his best year. The runner up was the great Gale Sayers. Sayers rushed for 867 yards, 5.2, 14 TDs. That's 677 more yards than the second place rusher.
Now that's dominant.
Leroy Kelly's best seasons were in '66-68. He finished a close runner up to Gale Sayers in '66. Then Kelly led the NFL the next two years besting the runner up by 233 yards in '67 and 272 yards in '68. Great seasons by Kelly no doubt. But nowhere near the dominance of Jim Brown's best three years.
Really, the only other running back who had a season comparable to Jim Brown's best three years (when compared to the runner up rusher) is OJ Simpson's 2003 yards in 1973. The next best runner was Csonka with 1003 yards. OJ outrushed him by only 1000 yards that year!
Of course, whether it's sports cards, fantasy football, or TV, watching offensive players forever captures more of the football enthusiast's imagination and interest.
My Concrete Charlie:
Edited to add: This thread could also be named "The Thread That Refuses To Die."
When we get that elusive Horseman 10 - I can re-up this thread again with that scan - and give a real exta boost to the thread that would not die.