RonFez.net Messageboard

RonFez.net Messageboard (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/index.php)
-   Games And Sports (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   More Impressive? Favre's Streak or Ripken's (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=77542)

BoarsHeadRob 02-13-2009 07:21 AM

More Impressive? Favre's Streak or Ripken's
 
Now that Favre looks like he will not continue on with his streak.. Nevermind which athlete hurt their team more by continuing their streak when they should have just taken a day or two off, but which do you think is more impressive?

Brett Favre - 291 Consecutive Starts over 18 years of service in NFL

Cal Ripken - 2632 Consecutive Starts over 16 years of service in MLB

Remember, football is a much more grueling sport as far as injuries are concerned, but the shear amount of games that a baseball player must participate needs to be considered..

King Hippos Bandaid 02-13-2009 07:25 AM

Ripken, more chances to get hurt


I know you take more hits in Football, but Ripken had liners hit str8 at his head, no steroids to help boost his potential


Ripken is the Iron Man

Favre is going out like a punk, should have retired before the Jet Debacle

Fezticle98 02-13-2009 07:32 AM

Favre.

Incidentally, I was able to pull off about a 20-game streak in Little League, while I could only manage about a 16 gamer in HS football.

KingModem 02-13-2009 07:55 AM

Doug Jarvis with 964 consecutive NHL games?
A. C. Green with 1,192 consective NBA games?

They are all super impressive.

Tallman388 02-13-2009 08:04 AM

I go with Ripken, playing 162 games, plus whenever they made the playoffs seems like it would take more endurance. Keep in mind that Favre got himself hooked on the pills trying to cure the pain, so it's close, but Ripken gets it.

mikeyboy 02-13-2009 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallman388 (Post 2122272)
I go with Ripken, playing 162 games, plus whenever they made the playoffs seems like it would take more endurance. Keep in mind that Favre got himself hooked on the pills trying to cure the pain, so it's close, but Ripken gets it.

FYI - That didn't happen that often -- only 1983, 1996 and 1997, I think.

razorboy 02-13-2009 08:53 AM

Sugar Ray Robinson's 91 fight winning streak.

TripleSkeet 02-13-2009 09:09 AM

Ripkin.

Kevin 02-13-2009 09:09 AM

Both suck. Favre threw the ball everytime he even thought anyone was close. Ripken, i am not sure who did and did not do roids anymore. All things being equal, prob Ripken.

weeniewawa 02-13-2009 09:10 AM

Ripkin is more impressive since the NFL and their ridicules QB protection rules that treat them like queens

Knowledged_one 02-13-2009 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2122458)
Both suck.

you are dead to me

ripken far more impressive

Kevin 02-13-2009 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knowledged_one (Post 2122492)
you are dead to me

ripken far more impressive



I didn't mean the players, i ment the streaks. For the reasons i gave. Gretzky never got hurt because he was a pussy. So was Favre. And Ripken, i can't trust any baseball player anymore. But if he was clean, def Ripken.

Knowledged_one 02-13-2009 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2122596)
I didn't mean the players, i ment the streaks. For the reasons i gave. Gretzky never got hurt because he was a pussy. So was Favre. And Ripken, i can't trust any baseball player anymore. But if he was clean, def Ripken.

ok still friends?

Kevin 02-13-2009 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knowledged_one (Post 2122610)
ok still friends?



Always

MacVittie 02-13-2009 10:01 AM

Nobody remembers who had the streak before Favre, so I'll have to go with Ripken.

ChrisTheCop 02-13-2009 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallman388 (Post 2122272)
I go with Ripken, playing 162 games, plus whenever they made the playoffs seems like it would take more endurance. Keep in mind that Favre got himself hooked on the pills trying to cure the pain, so it's close, but Ripken gets it.

Absolutely Ripken.

TonyStark 02-13-2009 10:22 AM

Ripkin as well because it's just so many games.

razorboy 02-13-2009 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripleSkeet (Post 2122454)
Ripkin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weeniewawa (Post 2122459)
Ripkin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyStark (Post 2122678)
Ripkin

Who is this Ripkin lad I've been hearing so much about?

instrument 02-13-2009 10:41 AM

Yeah, the pressure of being a infielder is far greater then being a wuartervack in the nfl, how the whole offense rallies around you....yeah...and the collisions and you run play to play.......so grueling......

Are you people serious?

jauble 02-13-2009 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by instrument (Post 2122727)
Yeah, the pressure of being a infielder is far greater then being a wuartervack in the nfl, how the whole offense rallies around you....yeah...and the collisions and you run play to play.......so grueling......

Are you people serious?

The sheer amount of games played day after day in baseball allows the possibility for more injuries. Both are impressive but I gotta go with Ripken.

SP1! 02-13-2009 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacVittie (Post 2122625)
Nobody remembers who had the streak before Favre, so I'll have to go with Ripken.

Thats mainly because its unheard of to play that many games in a row in the NFL, I have to go with farve simply because even on plays they dont get sacked they are really likely to take a hit. Anyone who has played both sports realize that your body is sore after a football game for days after every game.

TheMojoPin 02-13-2009 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Hippos Bandaid (Post 2122226)
no steroids to help boost his potential

Yeah, right.

razorboy 02-13-2009 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMojoPin (Post 2122770)
Yeah, right.

Possibly not steroids, but almost certainly HGH.

TheMojoPin 02-13-2009 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razorboy (Post 2122777)
Possibly not steroids, but almost certainly HGH.

I would not be surprised at all if he used some kind of PED. The vast majority of players that have did it to avoid injury and DL time.

Even so, I'd still be amazed by his record.

King Hippos Bandaid 02-13-2009 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMojoPin (Post 2122770)
Yeah, right.


if hair loss at age 24 is a symptom, then you may be right


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, RFN Media, Inc.