(Difference between revisions):::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg:::You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---egNot too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }
I see some issues with this list; as an avid follower of basketball and football, I will attempt to rebut some of the claims made in this article.
Kobe Bryant (who the article says has not won a championship except under the coaching of Phil Jackson) has played 11 of his 16 seasons under Jackson. He was not the leader of the Lakers his first 3 seasons (that would be Shaq) and was only 17 when he was drafted, so let's write those off. Since then, he played one season (in which he was injured) under Rudy Tomjanovich, and one under Mike Brown. Hardly a large sample size. Say whatever you'd like about him, but he won two championships as the leader of the Lakers without Shaq, lifting an average supporting cast. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Bryant couldn't win after Jackson left. Enough said. Jackson has a phenomenal record of winning championships no matter whom he's coaching.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Jackson's been gone for ONE season. One. That is nowhere near a reliable sample size. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) For what it's worth, Michael Jordan never won a title without Phil Jackson either. I hardly think that takes away from his accomplishments. --Krayner 10:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Magic Johnson is one of the greatest, most versatile players in NBA history, and turned in the greatest Finals performance ever (Game 6 in 1980, when he had 42 points and 15 rebounds in plaee of the injured Kareem at center...as a ROOKIE). Basketball is a team sport and it is rarely fair to attribute most or all of a team's success to one player (although in rare cases that may be done, like Kobe post-Shaq); calling those teams Kareem's is patently false. They belonged to Kareem, Magic, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, and every other player. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) What was Magic's shooting percentage??? Look, Magic with good teammates had trouble beating Bird with nobodys as teammates for the NCAA championship, and Michael Jordan nearly swept Magic when they finally met in an NBA finals.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Magic primarily played point guard, a position that places much more emphasis on passing. The fact that he averaged 18-20 points a game is a testament to his offensive ability. And of course Jordan is better, he's the best player of all time. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) The only weakness in Magic's game was three point shooting, and that was a new thing in the 80s, so most people couldn't shoot threes. Jordan couldn't until the 90s. I think the fact that Larry grew up dirt poor in the middle of nowhere helped him, cause you're just gonna move further back to have something to entertain yourself with. But other than that, Magic was probably the most versatile player of all time, I mean he played center for crying out loud! Bird could probably play any position offensively, but probably wasn't fast enough to play guard very well defensively. Jordan wasn't tall enough to be a big man. As for teams, the 85-86 Celtics was probably the best group of players ever assembled. 5 Hall of Famers plus another All-Star. And the entire 80s was based on loaded teams (Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons), so that argument doesn't work. A lot things about this list are wrong, but Magic is the most glaringly obvious. Gtbob12 14:09, 1 July 2012 (EDT) Would anyone want a "versatile" football or player??? In the big leagues, praising someone for his versatility is a back-handed compliment, something to say when the player is not the best at anything else. Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all. He never broke 25 ppg in a season. Michael Jordan was so much better than Magic in the 1991 finals that it wasn't even close.--Andy Schlafly 14:25, 1 July 2012 (EDT) "Magic's weakness was not simply three-point shooting, but scoring field goals at all" -- that's very inaccurate. He scored an extraordinary number of points for a point guard at very high efficiency (52.0%, with a high free throw percentage as well) while dishing out more assists per game than any other player in history. If he were to force more shots, it would take away from his distribution. Allen Iverson is the only point guard (if you count him as a point guard) in history with more points per game, and he was a much less efficient scorer (42.5% vs 52.0%) and a much weaker passer (6.2 assists vs. 11.2). Since Magic was among the best scorers of all time at his position, it is ridiculous to claim that scoring was a weakness in his game. The fact that he was outplayed, in his second to last season, by Michael Jordan in his prime, does not invalidate his accomplishments. KingHanksley 08:32, 2 July 2012 (EDT) But football is a game where positions are extremely specialized. In basketball, the positions do different things, but don't have different rules. Any player is allowed to take the ball at any spot, shoot, pass, rebound, whatever. An interior lineman can't go out for a pass. His job is to block, and only to block. In basketball, versatility is very important. That's what makes Michael and Larry great as well. Bird was a small forward who averaged 6-8 assists and over 10 rebounds, a great scorer and arguably the NBA's first great three point shooter. If all Michael did was score, he wouldn't be the best. But he rebounded, passed, and played great defense as well. Based just on scoring, Kobe is probably Jordan's equal (His career average being lower because he came straight out of high-school and didn't start immediately). But Kobe can't rebound, pass, or defend like Mike, and is a less efficient shooter. And 11.2 assists per game? Not even Stockton did that and Magic was a much better scorer and rebounder. Gtbob12 10:44, 5 July 2012 (EDT) Magic shot 52% for his career, an absurdly high number for a point guard, and he is almost without dispute, the greatest point guard in NBA history. He won multiple titles by beating Bird's Celtics in the NBA.--Krayner 10:57, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Magic Johnson was a true great who was completely unrivaled at his position. And the idea that Bird has "nobodys as teammates is absurd." Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson are all Hall of Famers. McHale in particular was one of the most efficient scorers in history, the only player to ever shoot better than 60% from the field and better than 80% from the line in the same season.KingHanksley 11:26, 28 June 2012 (EDT) The relevant questions are (1) is he rated higher than someone else who's actually better? and (2) is this because of some liberal ideological reason, such as promoting the gay lobby's contention that AIDS is not a gay disease? --Ed Poor Talk 11:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Obviously there is no entirely unquestioned ranking of NBA players, but Magic Johnson is rightly regarded as one of the 2 or 3 greatest point guards ever and one of the top 12-15 players ever. And his ranking has nothing to do with politics, and Johnson is not homosexual. He contracted HIV through unprotected sex with a woman. AndrewTompkins 11:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Kareem was well past his prime during all but the first of the Showtime Lakers titles, and only played that long because he got bad financial advice and wanted to make more money. All in all, the Celtics had far better big men than the Lakers in the 1980s. Gtbob12 13:55, 1 July 2012 (EDT) LeBron James (who by any stretch is NOT "far from the best" in the NBA) is certainly one of the top 5 players in the NBA today. And this "overrating" by the media...LeBron has been the villain of the media narrative for the last 2 years since he joined Miami. Do you even wtach ESPN? And Durant is not underrated in the least; again, the media narrative is that he and the Thunder will be contending for a spot in the Finals for years to come (which they will). Plus, he went to a Catholic school. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) LeBron wasn't my addition but the hype for him seems a bit much. Perhaps his unusual name helps.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT)\ How does his name impact anything at all? AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Steve Nash and his 2 MVPs...does the phrase "Most Valuable Player" mean anything? It is awarded to the player judged to be most valuable to his team. Not the best player on the best team...the player most important to his team's success. And Nash was certainly the most valuable to the Suns those years considering his supporting cast. Nash is an extremely inventive, creative point guard and the ultimate team player. Plus, he produced a documentary about famed conservative runner Terry Fox. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) MVP is by popular vote by ... the lamestream media. It's like the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize -- being liberal is worth more than being talented.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) NBA MVPs will always more likely be liberal because the league is so heavily black. For comparison, let's look at the last 20 NFL MVPs (awarded by an AP poll of "liberal media", as you would call them). Republican Favre thrice, Steve Young (a relative of Brigham Young, for crying out loud) twice, Manning 4 times, Christian Aaron Rodgers once, outspoken Christian Kurt Warner twice...that's 60% of the MVPs from 1992-2011. Clearly your argument fails. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Peyton Manning...the MVP stuff from above holds true in the NFL. Yes, he won 1 Super Bowl, but he made another and had to deal with the Steelers and Patriots in the AFC (hardly weak competition). He is one of the smartest football minds to ever play the game, and no serious football analyst would claim he was a downgrade from Tebow. Not one. And he's a Republican. The maneuver to replace Tebow with Peyton in a swing state in an election year is transparent, wouldn't you say?--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) ...so John Elway, a Republican, apparently isn't concerned with his team primarily and traded his Republican starting QB once he acquired an even better Republican quarterback? Your argument makes no sense. Elway is a Republican but not a national political figure. None of this has anything to do with politics. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) So anything that occurs in a swing state during an election year is a political maneuver? Well, it rained today in Florida. Clearly a plot by Obama to gather more votes. --MatthewQ 14:12, 25 June 2012 (EDT) I wasn't being entirely serious with my "wouldn't you say?" comment above, but even some jokes can carry a germ of truth. Colorado is very polarized politically and ideologically, as a swing state, and there was pressure to find a substitute who could serve as a plausible reason to trade Tebow away. Florida is not as much of a swing state as Colorado, and rain is not the result of political pressure!--Andy Schlafly 15:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT) If you weren't being entirely serious then why did you write the thing about Tebow being traded from a swing state during an election year in the article?! Or is Conservapedia openly a satire site now? (Many people seem to think it is one.) Anyway, the evidence that political pressure having anything to do with Tebow being trade is just as strong as political pressure being responsible for the rain. --MatthewQ 16:40, 25 June 2012 (EDT) The entry is obviously about the hype, the overrated aspect. Peyton Manning was overrated earlier this year in connection with replacing Tebow.--Andy Schlafly 16:44, 25 June 2012 (EDT) How exactly was Manning overrated in this case? Please tell me using your knowledge of football, not your political views. AndrewTompkins 22:05, 25 June 2012 (EDT) Mark Sanchez...say what you will, but he's been to 2 AFC Championship games, Tebow none. I will acknowledge his below average play last season (I'm not the biggest fan of him) but it would be suicidal for Rex Ryan to bench him in favor of a new acquisition who completed 46% of his passes last season. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Not my addition, but I bet Tebow is replacing him by mid-season, but the replacement should occur before the first regular season game, if it weren't for liberal politics.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 24 June 2012 (EDT) Please tell me specifically how "liberal politics" is keeping Sanchez as the starter, and use your knowlege of football to tell me why Tebow would be a better starter than Sanchez. AndrewTompkins 22:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
I follow US soccer closely and have never seen David Beckham promoted as he is Pele. He is one of the best, probably top 3, free kick takers to have played the sport. This is shown by his stats. I don't see how he is overrated when he actually is a fantastic athlete. He has six Premier League titles, 2 FA Cup titles, 4 FA community shields, 2 MLS supporters shields , an MLS Cup.. the list goes on and on (that doesn't include lengthy list of personal honors he has received.) I am seriously curious as to how he is overrated. --DanJG 13:25, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
With respect, I think you are missing the point. This list has nothing to do with sporting achievements. Rather it has to do with whether the athletes involved are deserving of the praise they receive. Beckham, due to his promotion of Hollywood Values does not deserve the accolades he has acquired. --DamianJohn 09:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT) Athletes should be praised, or criticized, for the job they do on whatever sporting field they participate in - that's their job, and that's how they should be rated. Period. Everything else is just petty gossipmongering. --SharonW 09:18, 26 June 2012 (EDT) With regards to DamianJohn's comments... I believe this list should have everything to do with their sporting achievements. It is called "Overrated Sports Stars". Unless the point is just to list every sports player that votes on the Democrat ticket. If that is the case, the title of the page should be changed. --DanJG 11:29, 26 June 2012 (EDT) Beckham is a famous celebrity because he has a hot wife. However, his promotion as a football player is different. He is genuinely considered a great player, his teammates always speak very highly of his ability to be a team player (more important than if your team wins) AlexanderSz 09:49, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
Are these athletes overrated based on their entire career, or just based on the last years of it, as they age and their skills fade due to injuries and/or age? Truly, the only fair way to judge someone is based on the entirety of their career, as objectively as possible. --SharonW 14:47, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
I know that Tiger Woods is not well liked and that people here enjoy seeing him fail, but his achievements still place him in the upper echelons of golfers for all time
Yes, he merits a place on the all-time list, but he is no longer one of the very top golfers currently playing. Yet the media still claim that he is one of the favorites, or "can't be written off", going into each big tournament, at the expense of giving coverage to other players who actually have a much better chance.--CPalmer 09:23, 26 June 2012 (EDT) So, is it a terrible thing to root for someone who was once on top of their game, but now is struggling? Isn't that what all of us do in our daily lives - struggle? Should we sneer at others when they go through something difficult, or should we show support? --SharonW 09:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT) Ok I understand. Based on that outline I've added Michael Schumacher No, we shouldn't sneer. I'm not advocating sneering. But we ought to be realistic about his chances, which are small, and the media often aren't. That's the definition of being overrated.--CPalmer 10:01, 26 June 2012 (EDT) Sorry - this is sneering as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or gloating as a once-great player stumbles. Dissing someone because someone else (the media) likes them is petty and is certainly not Christ-like. --SharonW 10:13, 26 June 2012 (EDT) If Tiger's chances are slim, wouldn't he then be the underdog? Didn't this site not too long ago claim that rooting for the underdog was a Christian characteristic? So in that sense, the media is hyping the underdog.. if Tiger's chances of winning are small. --DanJG 11:35, 26 June 2012 (EDT) The lamestream media do not overhype Woods because he's an underdog. There are lots of underdogs who then win without the media giving them the time of day.--Andy Schlafly 14:27, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
I think that the media is so fascinated by Tiger Woods because of his sudden fall from incredible player to mediocre one because of an emotional upheaval. It seems likely that he will return to his former power. But even if he dosen't then he is still an interesting story. Also, the media does not call him a favorite, he is just watched closely, as he is probably the biggest name in golf. (this reputation earned before his fall) --SMagnet 11:59, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
I removed Wayne Gretzky and Sol Campbell, because neither is particularly overrated. Also Bradman, which was obviously a frivolous addition - it criticised him for "not achieving anything for decades", when he retired decades ago and died in 2001.--CPalmer 10:07, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
I've re-added Sol Campbell as Conservative himself at one point reverted the page to the edit where I added him, so it must be fine. To make the case more robust, I've added a statement about how he has played for the top Soccer clubs. He's only played for one top club, which is Arsenal. Spurs weren't so successful back when he played for them, which was essentially why he left.--CPalmer 09:40, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
Ok, let's start from the top
1) Oh, so Agassi isn't as good as the second greatest player to ever step foot on a court, therefore he is over rated? Agassi is compared to Sampras because their rivalry was a classic. No one acts as though Agassi is far superior to Sampra, and you cannot deny his results considering he won 8 slams and was a world number 1 (a title given based on a completely unbiased scoring system of points).
2) Beckham is famous for being clutch with free kicks and penalty shots, as well as being in the right place at the right time. He is perhaps the only justified member of this list.
3) Not sure how you can compare Jeremy Lin to Kobe Bryant. One has had one good season, the other has proven to be a deadly scoring threat with multiple clutch shots under his belt. Winning titles in the NBA relies on more than one player (Jordan didn't win it without Pippen and a good supporting cast), so saying he can't win w/o help is a crap argument. And again saying he is not as good as the best player who ever played hardly makes him over-rated, his FG percentage is only 3 points lower than Jordan's career average.
4) His status as the best player in the league is a topic of debate yes, but his showcase of skills (averaging a triple double in the finals) proves he's hardly over-rated. His ability to lock-down Durant and not suffer the same fate to Durant would also seem to indicate a more balanced game from Mr. James. Also, you followed sports at ALL, you would know that a common complaint about ESPN is that they show both James AND Durant far too much love.
5) AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are so silly. This doesn't even bear arguing, just look at his stats and performances. Again, no one wins it alone, and they were battling the legendary Big Three of Boston.
6)...Wow, just, wow. Ok, let's start with a (then) record of 49 TDs. Then lets look at the fact that he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in every season but two...one of which was his rookie. Then let's also look at the fact that he lost a lot of playoff games to the Patriots, a modern dynasty. Do you think Dan Marino sucks because he could never get that championship? He is acknowledged as one of the few (perhaps only) QBs essentially calling their own plays in the NFL today and, oh yeah, he can actually read coverage. Tim Tebow on the other hand, while an exciting athlete, has demonstrated that he doesn't make the best football decisions, trusting his feet more than his arm. That doesn't win. Peyton Manning has HoF numbers and skills, you would have to be an idiot (or have Tom Brady) not to CONSIDER having him as your QB.
7) Sooo, if you're not a champion, than you cannot be the most valuable cog in a team? Steve Nash's picks were based on his ability to facilitate play and move offenses and his stats speak for themselves. Again, if championships are the only barometer with which you measure, then Trent Dilfer is on par with Joe Namath.
8) Sanchez is the starter, Tebow is the back-up. Coaches decisions, end of discussion. The media can have its say, but ultimately the coaches decide who starts. However, as pointed out before, Tebow's football decisions are questionable, that is why he is the back-up.
9) He's two majors from the Golden Bear, and was THE dominant player for a decade. Kind of hard to ignore.
10) At one point he was the number one driver in the world, again, hard to ignore.
All-in-all, your list is entirely based on sports starts being liberal or (in the case of Manning and Sanchez) for taking the job away from Tebow. Your transparetly flawed list doesn't seem to take into account that the ranking of sports stars rarely reflects their political leanings, but rather their performance on the field and, in cases, their rapport with sports media. FernandoTorez 19:06, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
You mistyped Torres, "Fernando".--CPalmer 09:37, 27 June 2012 (EDT) Way to skip the content slick. I know how Fernando Torres is spelled, but I am not him, nor do I claim to be him. Now, could you please at least try to address why these people are in this article? FernandoTorez 18:08, 27 June 2012 (EDT) I know you aren't him, duh, and I realise that you aren't claiming to be him. What you are doing is laughing behind your handkerchief at your own cleverness in choosing a silly pseudonym that most Americans wouldn't pick up on. Well, you have been busted!--CPalmer 06:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
Is this a joke?--Krayner 09:06, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
This entry is about overratedin the distant past, so a consideration of the media hype must be done before adding or deleting.--Andy Schlafly 19:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
So why was Tommy Morrison removed from the list? He is overrated. Wschact 11:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
Can someone offer a non-ideological, sports-relevant reason that Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin are not overrated based on press coverage received. If not, I propose the addition of these entries.
Tim Tebow — Has a career record of 9-7 with a completion percentage under 50% and more turnovers than TD passes, yet is promoted by the media as a top quarterback in the NFL, even ranked in the NFL's top 100 players countdown despite achieving nothing of significance in the NFL. Media pressure will likely be responsible for Tebow overtaking Mark Sanchez during this NFL season. Some conservatives have even postulated that Tebow's mere presence in a state could impact the 2012 presidential election, drastically overrating his contributions as a sports star.
Jeremy Lin — Having only played in 64 NBA games (25 as a starter) averaging under 10 points a game for his career, and never playing in a single playoff game, the media has hyped Jeremy Lin as one of the games best point guards, despite not having a single significant achievement to his name. Jeremy Lin only shoots 44% from the field. Is the hype around Jeremy Lin due primarily to his ethnicity? --Krayner 16:02, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
Removed David Beckham form the list. This gets worse.Sol Campbell??, are you a gooner?? Out of order. People like SOl have helped soften the English fans attitude. If it were not for people like SOl, English fans would still be destroying every foreign city they visited. During 2012 not one English supporter was arrested in Poland and Ukraine, NOT A SINGLE SUPPORTER, the stance of people like Campbell have helped to almost eradicate the "English Disease" , I will remove his reference. And when I am at it i will remove Michael Schumacher, 7 times World Champion, what planet do you live on?
Where is Dennis Rodman? --Alex00 14:52, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Why is Tebow being held up against these two and claimed to be better? Both of them have passer ratings that are 20 points better than his. Perhaps you could claim that the team has something to do with it, but manning had the same Broncos after he took over, and did much better with them. Tebow doesn't have to be better or worse than anyone else, I don't know why you would disparage these guys like this. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both publically profess Christian Faith, and credit their highly religious backgropunds with their success and dedication. Peyton Manning is known to pray before football games. Brady is active in the (pro life) Catholic community, and had a Catholic wedding, and a Catholic baptism. Manning donated $14,500 to the GOP at the federal campaign level since 2004, including $2000 to GWB over Kerry. Brady doesn't endorse any candidate or political party and keeps his political opinions to himself (which is his right) though there is speculation that suggests that he would join the GOP if forced to make a choice. Really you are besmirching an openly Conservative Christian and a Active Christian who keeps his political positions to himself in order to puff up a slightly more openly Christan player. It makes no sense. --HHB 20:54, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
Manning did not do better with Tebow's team. Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, while Tebow led the same Broncos to a stunning upset in his playoff game. The exaggerated praise of Manning and Brady is undeserved from a purely sports perspective. Moreover, Manning and Brady chase money, while Tebow stands up for real values.--Andy Schlafly 21:09, 13 June 2013 (EDT) Manning was defeated in his first playoff game, that is true. Sports has an element of randomness to it, even great players lose some games, and lousy players win sometimes too. If you hold Tebows best game to Manning's worst then Tebow is a little better. If you hold Manning's best game to Tebow's worst then Manning is way better. If you look at their average performances, with the same teams, then Manning throws more passes, has them completed more, has them intercepted less often, and scored more points per time spent on the field. I'm also uncertain where you get the idea that Manning and Brady chase money more than Tebow? Tebow started off with a big fat contract as I recall. Peyton and Tom both stuck with the teams that drafted them, Peyton having done so until he was let go and replaced. When Tebow was offered a different position, one that made fuller use of his God given athleticism but did not rely so heavily on the decision making capacity that his QBing record shows that he does not have, he turned it down, holding out for a better paying QB position. Tebow also makes plenty of money through other venues in sponsorships and speaking engagements, which he courts as actively as any other player. The others may not have done a superbowl ad with their mothers, but it's not like they are slouching in the encouraging values department. Besides, isn't this about overrated sports stars? Why does their off the field behavior matter? Your whole thesis here is that off the field they are immoral liberals in bed with hollywood and the media (which is false) and not as good on the field, and that they should be given less media attention because of how poorly they compare on the field. When it's pointed out that they are excellent on the field, you point to what you consider failings off the field, you point to the area you just said that we shouldn't be using to justify media attention as your justification for media attention. --HHB 08:28, 14 June 2013 (EDT) You don't understand, HHB. Manning and Brady with their 7 Super Bowl appearances, 4 championships, and dozens of passing records clearly don't have the ability of a QB who won 7 regular season games in a row and has a passing accuracy percentage near the bottom of the League.---eg
Not too sure about either Hamilton, Messi or Bolt. Hamilton somply hasn't had the team behind him recently, Messi is still the greatest player in the world, sespite his (mere) allegations of tax evasion, and Bolt was the best at the 2012 Olympics as well. Bolt was and still is good enough for it to make world news when he lost last month to Gatlin (now THERE is an overrated sports star).
I would add Australian cricketer David Warner, Kiwi rugby player Richie McCaw (He's a cheat, okay!) and Spanish footballer Pedro to the list myself. Jacob Anderson 07:55, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
View the original article here
