Favre or Ripkin ?

[rdkraus]

They were discussing on the radio today - which is more impressive. Favre playing 14 years without missing a start, or Ripkin 16 years without missing a start.

Obviously, football is far more dangerous, expecially for any one game, but in baseball they play SO MANY games, it is remarkable not to miss one - any reason - injury, freak accident/injury, funeral, sick, arrest (haha), etc.

[ElPietro]

I'd still have to say football. And I would have to say Favre, considering the injuries he's played with to keep his streak going, and performed amazingly well with injuries that would have kept others out for months.

[gator]

good question...allthough i would definatly have to say Farve. Especially due to the rate at which quarterbacks get hurt, looks at the jets this year, 3 of them have allready gone down. The streak farve has right now is amazing

[BilltheButcher]

I think pain is relative. We had a saying if you can run, you can play. I think injuries that keep most people out are hamstring stuff, but most everyone plays with everthing else. If you can't run you can't play.

Ripkin would have it in my book. So many games in one season, granted I think a few times they wheeled him out to short and propped him up to keep the streak alive. However, I think that many games in a row is more impressive then Favre's.

[razorcut]

Great question. Reasonable arguments exist on each side.

Ripkin has my vote. There are so many games & opportunities in MLB over the course of a season to get injured.

[gator]

To anyone who votes for Ripkin have you guys played baseball and football? I played baseball for about 8 years and not one injury. One year in football alone I fractured my ribs and ankle. The major factor in baseball would be sickness, i bet more people in the MLB sit out due to sickness or just needing rest than injury. so in reality those baseball players are wimps, sickness wont keep a football player out of the lineup...no way.

[BigRic]

Although I play football, I'll post a side of baseball to that argument, the reason they can sit out with a cold is because each game isn't as an important as a football game, one game in baseball is what 1/160 of a season one game in football is 1/11th or 1/17th? that means not every game is as important as every game in football.

[TheGame]

To anyone who votes for Ripkin have you guys played baseball and football? I played baseball for about 8 years and not one injury. One year in football alone I fractured my ribs and ankle. The major factor in baseball would be sickness, i bet more people in the MLB sit out due to sickness or just needing rest than injury. so in reality those baseball players are wimps, sickness wont keep a football player out of the lineup...no way.

So your telling me that no football player ever sat out a game because he was sick...........

[MM]

RIPKEN, has my vote.

[gator]

I'm saying most dont, partly because you only play once a week. Some do but those are usually due to bacterial infections.

[RBB]

i'd say favre's streak is far more impressive. his chance of being injured over the course of a season is much higher than ripken's ever was.

[rdkraus]

The thread has gone alot like the ESPN radio show. They couldn't decide themselves which was more impressive.

They are both mind-boggling.

When you think about how Favre plays, it's amazing he doesn't get hurt EVERY game. But with Ripken, so many games. Put aside injuries, it's like never missing a day of school all the way through college. I mean, "stuff happens" to everyone, except, apparently, Cal and Bret.

[MM]

I don't see how people are picking Favre. Certainly his streak is impressive, but do the numbers:

Favre: 224 Games (may be slightly more; all I did was multiply 16x14).

Cal Ripken: 2131 Games

That's ridiculous. And he was playing a demanding position for a lot of that time (short stop). I agree that -- game for game -- Favre had a much better chance of getting hurt. But it's not a game for game scenario, and more importantly, it's not even close to being game for game. Ripken played somethinig like ~1000% more games.

[Y2A]

Both are amazing, but I have to vote for Favre due to football being so damn rough. The length of a baseball career is so much more than that of a football player, to even be in the league for 14 years is an accomplishment, nevermind starting every game for that span.

[Skinny Fat]

In my mind, it's commitment vs. tough guy/determination. If you guys remember, Favre played almost an entire season with a broken thumb. We're talking about a guy who has to have his hands on the ball every play from scrimmage, and his chances of being tackled are very, very good. He probably gets blindsided twice a game on average. On the other hand, Ripken's sheer volume is staggering.

Ripken = going 50 rounds with a rotation of Tyson, Ali, Frazier, and Robinson.
Favre = getting hit in the head once with a sledge hammer.

Either way, the odds of surviving are very slim - both guys are amazing.

[MixmasterNash]

I've been to Lambeau in mid-December. One game there in winter is tougher than a few hundred games of baseball combined.

[Meat_Head]

Farve by FAR. Baseball is a picnic for the body compared to football.

[gator]

You can compare baseball to someone going to work everyday for 18 years or however long Ripken did it for. I've had many teachers who have never missed a day of work in that kind of time span. While it's pretty amazing not nearly as amazing as Farve. I'm so impressed by Farve that I would say he's the best QB ever. I'm saying that as a Dolphins fan, who should think Marino would be the best ever.

[-TIM-]

Ripkin.

Cal played 2,632 games. That's a much bigger feat than playing maybe 250 games. Yes, football is much more physical, but it's not like Farve is getting hit every play. He's on the field maybe 20-30 minutes a game, and is only touched maybe 10-15 times a game on average. If he were a running back or linebacker, then I might be inclined to lean towards Farve. In that position, he's getting hit every play he's on the field. But not as a QB. Don't get me wrong, Farve is a tough, but his record is not as impressive as Cal's.

[Meat_Head]

Even without hits football requires WAY more athleticism than baseball, I mean how often does a pitcher move from the mound? Even a pocket passer in football has to hop around, position his feet, avoid defenders, find a reciever(who's on the move, not a sitting catcher like baseball), and throw the ball with the right direction and force.

[Paul Stagg]

Favre, no doubt.

Ripken took part of a year off to go on strike.

[-TIM-]

Even without hits football requires WAY more athleticism than baseball, I mean how often does a pitcher move from the mound? Even a pocket passer in football has to hop around, position his feet, avoid defenders, find a reciever(who's on the move, not a sitting catcher like baseball), and throw the ball with the right direction and force.

So you're saying that playing shortstop or second base requires no athleticism? Have you ever watched baseball? Chasing down a sharply hit ground ball requires explosiveness, body control, quick feet, and then they have to throw the ball with as much direction and force as a QB does a football. And what does pitching or playing catcher have to do with anything? Neither person in question plays either position.

I'm not denying that football is a more physical sport as a whole than baseball, but you have to look at the positions these two played when making your selection. I think 2,632 games in an infield position is much more of an accomplishment.

[WBBIRL]

Has ripkin ever taken a hit from a 300+lb Defensive Linemen? Has ripken ever thrown that ball with a fractured right thumb??? Has he ever got a concussion, came back into the game anyhow and thrown a touchdown pass?

Its not even a question, I've seen Favre play through things most players couldnt have. He can get hit, and HARD, on any play. Did anyone watch the steeler game when Favre got jackhammered by Troy Polamalue (SP?). Baseball is no where near the contact sport that football is, by any stretch of immagination.

Both are superb athletes and both will be remeberd for a long time to come, but Favre gets my vote here. Nothing more to say.

[-TIM-]

I'm a Bears fan, and generally we hate the Packers. But I can't because I have a lot of respect for Brett Farve. He's probably the toughest QB ever to play the game. I will give him that.

But a QB only gets hit a handful of times a game. I know they can be huge hits by 300 lb guys at full speed, but it's usually something they shake off and get up from.

What about the number of games and hours played by Cal over Brett?

- Baseball -
162 games per year (preseason and post excluded).
4 hours of playing time per game.
Infielders have about 2 hours of playing time.

- Football -
20-24 games per year (preseason and post included).
3 hours of playing time per game.
QB's are only on the field 20-30 minutes a game.

The playing time alone and number of games over an entire season for an infielder dwarfs a QB's time. There are very few baseball players who even play every game of a single season because of injuries. And you're looking at a player who played every regular season game for something like 11 years in a row. That's a tremendous feat.

[MixmasterNash]

- Baseball -
162 games per year (preseason and post excluded).
4 hours of playing time per game.
Infielders have about 2 hours of playing time.

Most of that 2 hours is spent standing. I bet an average in fielder moves at full speed for a total of 2 minutes a game. The only strenuous positions in baseball are pitcher and catcher.