Most Overrated Person Of All Time

[Bill Murphy]

Muhammad Ali.

Note, I did NOT say "most overrated boxer/athlete".

Read the Hauser biography *carefully*, then Ghosts Of Manila by Mark Kram for details, but I'll elaborate further, later.

However, ever notice how Ali's zen-like statements of wisdom started appearing around the beginning of his current marriage, and none have ever been captured on tape or film, nor witnessed by an outside reporter?

BTW, I believe that Ali is clearly the best haevyweight of all time, and, a la Bill James, think that there exists a strong argument that he is in fact the best pound-for-pound boxer ever.

Also, imagine if Tiger Woods had been barred from every golf tournament from the '99 PGA thru the '02 US Open. The overlap with Ali's banishment vis their respective ages is eerily close.

[Chris Alger]

One needs a Christopher Hitchens to ably contrast the worphip of TR with his monstrous legacy, but Chomsky's description captures him well: "racist lunatic."

[Bill Murphy]

...LBJ is generally considered a good/very good president. >*SHUDDER*<

Talk about your monstrous legacies...

JFK is wildly overrated in every dept., save maybe for shagging.

And as for Ali, my point is that while he is quite arguably the most gifted & charismatic athlete the world has ever known, and he also made an extremely courage decision during an extraordinary time, all the rest is a combo of baby boomers feeling their age and white sportswriter racial guilt fantasizing/gullibility/ignorance of what actually went on.

[Chris Alger]

JFK is a good candidate but few people get nostalgiac about Johnson. His defenders argue that his accomplishments were overshadowed by a universal perception of failure, hardly the mark of "overrated."

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
JFK is wildly overrated in every dept.

[/ QUOTE ]

About ten years ago, I came across a book which attempted to rank the 500 most important people in world history. I can't remember the title or author of the book but it seemed well thought out. #1 on the list was Jesus Christ. #2 was Mohammed.

Among the 500, there were three U.S. Presidents- Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy. Presidents Washington and Lincoln made it for some fairly obvious reasons.

President Kennedy was a unique situation. The author dismissed all of Kennedy's accomplishments as nothing special from a long term historical perspective with the exception of one. The author even commented on how Kennedy's popularity after death has inflated his legacy.

The one exception was Kennedy's use of his political power to drive forward the U.S.'s space program and goal of landing a man on the moon. The author thought, quite correctly I think, that when looking back at the 20th century from the year 3000 or so that even the World Wars will not be seen as any more important than we see the Crusades or some other long-over war today. But, landing a man on the moon is forever going to be seen as the first giant leap towards mankind moving into outer space permanently.

The author concluded that President Kennedy was the indespensible man in the moon race. Neil Armstong? He was just the astronaut who got the lucky seat. The scientists were plentiful but nobody was absolutely necessary. The same goes for everybody else involved in the moon race except Kennedy. Kennedy was the man who set the goal and greased the political and economic wheels necessary to get the massive job done. And, he was the only man who could do it.

When trying to look at the 20th century from the perspective of somebody in the year 3000, I think the arguement is interesting.

Washington and Lincoln were ranked fairly high. I think they were both in the top 100. Kennedy was at least in the bottom half.

[rusty JEDI]

Christopher Columbus.

It has been proven the vikings made it to present day Canada in the 1100's.

He made 6 trips and only found the mainland once.

He never found what he was searching for.

His trip was poorly planned because if America didnt get in the way he would have died due to lack of supplies before he ever hit China.

[Cyrus]

JFK made his mark in the Cuban crisis. If there's anything underrated about the JFK presidency is how close we came to annihilation. We were much closer than even the wildest-eyed account of the era describe -- put all the unstable parameters in context (even strictly technically we were not as safe as we thought we were!)and the whole extremely volatile environment where events took place, and it could very, very easily have gone the other way.

JFK provided an extremely competent leadership at a period of continuous and continuously changing crisis, however brief that crisis was, relatively speaking. (One can read the transcripts of the White House taped conversations and meetings, along with the released CIA documents about the crisis, for evidence of excellent, examplary crisis management.)

Forget the philandering, the political trickery, the nepotism, the cronyism and the unsufferable patrician attitude. Man saved our ass, period.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Man saved our ass, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Khruschev? Does he share the credit since he was the one who accepted a perceived public defeat? Khruschev was supposed to have had substantial difficulty controling what was happening in Cuba but he still got a deal done and ordered the ships back and missles removed. It was Kruschev who made the final call. That decision basically cost him his positon of power a few years later. He became the only Soviet leader not to die in power until Gorbachev.

I'm sure most people are used to looking at the Cuban Missle Crisis from the American perspective. But, wasn't the critical decision eventually made by the Soviet leader?

[BruceZ]

It has been proven the vikings made it to present day Canada in the 1100's.

That's for sure, and what about the natives who were already here? Like someone said, saying he "discovered America" is like saying I discovered someone's back yard.

[nicky g]

Winston Churchill

[BruceZ]

The author dismissed all of Kennedy's accomplishments as nothing special from a long term historical perspective with the exception of one.

His handling of the Cuban missle crisis may very easily have thwarted nuclear holocaust.


The author concluded that President Kennedy was the indespensible man in the moon race. Neil Armstong? He was just the astronaut who got the lucky seat. The scientists were plentiful but nobody was absolutely necessary.

The space race was a direct result of the arms race and competition with the Soviets. An indispensible part of the success was the invention of the Kalman filter by Rudolf Kalman (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/kalman/kalmanBiblio.html). This was based on mathematics which was largely ignored in the U.S. but well known in the Soviet Union, and Kalman was forced to publish his first paper on it in a Soviet journal. One of these branches of mathematics for which the Soviets had a big lead was probability theory.

Thomas Edison is highly overrated. Despite his huge number of patents, he was mostly a hard working hack, and his intellect and theoretical knowledge were dwarfed by that of his rival Tesla who never got nearly the credit he deserved. For example, Edison randomly tried hundreds of different filaments for his lightbulb before it finally occurred to him to put a bulb over it and pump out the air so it wouldn't burn up right away. On the other hand, his idea of recording sound was truly original. Someone said it is the only patented idea which has no known predecessor.

[John Cole]

Hands down, Bob Hope.

[adios]

"JFK made his mark in the Cuban crisis. If there's anything underrated about the JFK presidency is how close we came to annihilation."

You too huh? I didn't think you were that old. I'll just point out that a lot of people thought that the Bay of Pigs brought on the Cuban Missle Crises. Many were really pissed, including CIA honchos, that he abandoned the invaders. Their arguement is that if he would have followed through and gave more support to the invasion and removed Castro, the Cuban Missle Crises would have never happened.

[adios]

[HDPM]

it is very possible that Kruschev's decision was based in part on the fact that the Soviets regarded Kennedy as an immature maniac who would risk nuclear war in that spot. Kruschev made an unbelievably tough and rational decision for someone in his spot.

And you mentioned Gorby in passing. There is an overrated world leader. Started with an empire, albeit an evil one, ended with nothing. And it wasn't because he really wanted to end the cold war or the soviet union. He just sucked at being a dictator. Which was fortunate, but doesn't make him great or anything.

[Cyrus]

Kruschev actually got a good deal out of Cuba, since, when the crisis was over, the Soviet Union stood better than before the crisis :

A. Castro's regime was not harmed, and, in fact, enjoyed ever since a hands-off privilege from America that no other Latin American country had.

B. Soviet missiles were removed from Cuba at no strategic loss to the Soviets, since similar damage could still be inflicted on the US mainland through the Soviet submarine navy's missiles.

C. The US removed its respective-range missiles from Eastern Turkey, an advanced strategic position which was not replaced.

So, yes, one could say that the Soviet leader won that phase. But until we can get a closer look at the internal workings of Kruschev's handling of the Cuban crisis (eg in the upcoming and eagerly anticipated Kurschev bio), we cannot, on the basis of only what we currently know, ascribe the same quality of crisis management to the Russian as to the Yank. Until such time, JFK rules. (It could have been that the Politburo brought a beligerent Kruschev to his senses, for example.)

--Cyrus

PS : Don't forget that a few years later, Kruschev was forcibly removed from power, for many reasons, primary amongst which was "adventurism" : code word for cases like Cuba. He was replaced with Brezniev who had a clear mandate for detente, though coupled with "assertiveness". (Brezniev followed through fanatically on the detente part, but in his later years, the Suslovian theory of "accelerating the historical processes" took hold in the Politburo, eg Angola.)

[Chris Alger]

"But, landing a man on the moon is forever going to be seen as the first giant leap towards mankind moving into outer space permanently."

Why? The moon landing wasn't any more of a leap forward than the rocket science, much of it sinister, that preceded it. (Indeed, the technology that made the moon landing possible might someday force a move "into outer space permanently" or do away with people before they get the chance.)

They threw a lot of money and technology to put people where no people had been, about as interesting as sending them to the bottom of the Marinas Trench or the top of Everest. No lives were saved, no great art was created. Almost nothing about the "manned" aspect of the moon landing added to the store of knowledge or changed history. Nothing much else changed after the moon landing. The public soon became justifiably bored with the enterprise, and more than a little embarrassed about the infantile "space race" boosterism behind it. In the future, they may well take the first man on the moon as seriously as they take the current record for eating the most pizzas.

[brad]

but chris thats not how star trek is.

[Ray Zee]

without the space race we would not have digital watches.

[Bill Murphy]

Johnson is actually UNDERRATED, in the sense that his evil has never been truly recognized & appreciated. Makes Hitler look like a kid throwing stink bombs. Only the Catholic Church surpasses him as a purveyor of misery. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Vietnam was only a fingernail clipping of his crimes, barely worth mentioning, except that it provides some useful illustrations. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Ray Zee]

in life- jesus
in poker- stu ungar and johnny moss
in swimming -mark spitz
in golf- tom watson
in architecture- frank loyd wright

[CORed]

As I see it, Gorby had two fundamental problems.

1. He really believed in Communism.
2. He was a decent human being trying to run a system designed to be run by somebody like Josef Stalin.

[HDPM]

Gorby wasn't all that nice. But even assuming he was, you are right that the soviet system can only survive with brutal men at the top. So if you get to the top and you aren't brutal, WTF were you thinking all those years? It makes no sense. I don't think Gorby was all that sweet or innocently misguided, rather he was a softer than average and incompetent commie thug. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Cyrus]

"Gorby wasn't all that nice. But even assuming he was, you are right that the soviet system can only survive with brutal men at the top. So if you get to the top and you aren't brutal, WTF were you thinking all those years?"

IMO, all people who manage to rise to the top of the power pyramid must be ruthless and brutal, at least to a certain extent. And that's (almost) irrespective of the system they operate in. (I'm saying almost because today's democracy encourages, nay thrives on, this kind of approach. But we can do better.)

The key question that power brokers in western democracies ask when talking about a potential leader is "Yes but can he make the tough decisions?", meaning whether the candidate will be able to give without hesitation orders that result in the death of men.

[Cyrus]

"I'll just point out that a lot of people thought that the Bay of Pigs brought on the Cuban Missle Crises. Many were really pissed, including CIA honchos, that he abandoned the invaders. Their arguement is that if he would have followed through and gave more support to the invasion and removed Castro, the Cuban Missile Crises would have never happened."

Yes, it's a little baffling how Castro was not met with an all-out American invasion bent on his removal. It was probably due to many things : the Cuban exiles' initiative pre-empting American action and thus neutralizing such an option; the US being occupied with Vietnam and not wanting another problem; an over-estimation of Cuban military capabilities; a hope that Castro would be turned around; the reality of Castro's immense popularity in Cuba at the time as its liberator from Batista; his popularity in the rest of the world (the barbudos were very photogenic); etc.

As to the CIA role in Cuba, I think it was the usual mixture of incompetence, political interference and blame-the-other-services. (If there's ever a thread here about Most Over-Rated Organisations, I'm putting the CIA very near the top, I'm telling you.) Poison-throwing pens, for christ's sakes.

"I didn't think you were that old."

What are you talking about?

We could be discussing Theodore Roosevelt here. Would that make me 100 years old or something? (Dare we talk about even earlier times?)

[brad]

'Yes but can he make the tough decisions?", meaning whether the candidate will be able to give without hesitation orders that result in the death of men'

... when its not necessary (but merely expedient)

[John Cole]

Not Frank Lloyd Wright--although he did build, according to most, rather uncomfortable furniture.

[andyfox]

Wright fought against the Modernists--for that alone, he can't be the most overrated architect.

If among the architect's/designer's/ goals should be a roof that doesn't leak and furniture that is comfortable, than Wright certainly fails.

The most overrated architect is certainly Mies Van der Rohe. Less, contrary to Mies, is less.

Wright's television interview with Mike Wallace was a classic. When Wallace asked him how, at age 90, he could continue to come up with so many new designs, Wright responded, "I just shake my sleeve and out they fall." [Not exactly verbatim, I don't think, but pretty close.]

[andyfox]

Watson was voted the 9th greatest player of the 20th century. Seems pretty accurate to me. 39 wins, 8 majors.

[andyfox]

There is a real sense in which Columbus discovered the "New" world for the "Old" world of Europe. The Vikings's discovery had long since been forgotten or was unknown.

But I agree both that the word "discovered" is for the most part wrongly used and that Columbus may well be the most overrated person in history. "Lunatic racist" might well be better applied to him than to Theodrore Roosevelt.

[andyfox]

Columbus made four trips to the Americas, not six.

He wasn't interested in the mainland because he was interested in gold, and all his learning told him the direction to go for gold was south. So he was never too interested in going west, even when informed of another "south" sea in that direction.

[andyfox]

Wasn't Edison in fact a better businessman than inventor? On motion pictures, for example, his establishment of the Trust did more to cement his reputation as the inventor of cinema than his actual contribution.

[andyfox]

Some very good nominees so far (Ali, TR, Bob Hope, Churchill).

In American politics, I nominate Thomas Jefferson, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan.

All time, though, Columbus has to be very near the top of the list.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Some very good nominees so far (Ali, TR, Bob Hope, Churchill).

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting topic. I would like to hear the case for (against) Churchill, however. My impression is that his contribution to the British war effort should be equated with Kennedy's involvement in Cuban Missile Crisis. At the dawn of WWII, U.K was in deep trouble. Without much to offer for their defense, the British were able to pull together and deter (withstand?) the Blitz. Churchill led the charge and gave these people hope, when by all rights they probably should have had little.

Churchill also made a crucial directive...Immediately after London's suburbs were accidently bombed, he ordered a bombing run on Berlin (audacious). This so infuriated Hitler, that Hitler lost sight of NAZI objectives to cripple British industry. Instead, he became bent on revenge and concentrated on bombing civilians. This bought the U.K. time and saved resources as U.S. was still "neutral."

I believe that alone, has changed the course of modern history.

Also, Churchill had a number of great quips. One such goes like this: During a debate, his infuriated opponent stated, "If I was your wife, I'd poison your cocktail." His reply, "If I was your husband, I'd drink it."

[angry young man]

I had a political science proffessor who gave this introduction to our discussion of the Kennedy years "I was raised in a Catholic family to whom John Kennedy was a heroic and tragic figure. His picture was on our mantle alongside those of family and friends. So, when my interests turned to history and politics I naturally had a special interest in the Kennedy administration. During the process of writing my master's thesis I discovered, to my dismay, that John Kennedy was, at best, an average president and a very poor human being." - I've learned nothing since to indicate that he was wrong.

Some other quality nominees could be:
Napoleen, Michael Jordan, Stanly Kubrick, Plato, Columbus (someone else's idea but it's a great call).

[CCass]

Ray - Why would you list Stu Unger? What do you as a poker "insider" know that I as a common man do not know that would lead you to this statement? I am not arguing with you, just curious. Do you believe that Unger was just unbelievably lucky (twice)?

CCass

[Ray Zee]

andy, no doubt he is a great player, but i believe overated by far. he came about after the real competition was past their prime and the present field wasnt up to snuff enough yet.

[Cyrus]

Is Columbus over-rated?

Yes. It's like building a statue in honor of your grandfather because he was the cause for you being here.

[Cyrus]

If anything, Churchill's contribution to the Allied cause in the war is under-rated. True, his position in History is exclusively owed to that deal, but what a deal it was! He wisely and courageously guided events towards gaining Soviet confidence, attracting early on American support, co-ordinating the war activities among the Allied jumble and insisting to the end (he, the fanatic anti-communist) for the Nazis' unconditional surrender. The latter cost hundreds of thousands of lives, yes, but robbed for ever the Nazi regime of any hope it had for legitimacy.

Also, note that pragmatists, if not mathematicians, would probably have followed a very diff'rent course, especially right after France's capitulation and Hitler's covert approaches towards a British-German "understanding". But Churchill knew when it was correct to gamble and why. (In kinda-poker terms, he refused a deal when short-stacked and heads-up against an equally strong opponent; no-limit game of course.)

He was man o' war, the old dog.

[andyfox]

An athlete's job is to win against the competition he has to face. Watson did it. He beat Nicklaus while Jack was still in his prime. His two most memorable victories were the British Open and U.S. Open when Nicklaus played great but Watson played better.

Was Watson equal to Nicklaus, Snead, Hogan, Palmer, Nelson or Jones? No. But I don't know anyone who claims he was. There is no doubt that the three greatest players of the last forty years are Nicklaus, Woods and Watson.

[Cyrus]

..On the other hand, I don't know, any sailing enthusiasts around? I don't think we can exactly call "under-rated" or under-anything those sailors of days gone by, such as Columbus, when they went to the oceans without GPUs, VHSs, fridges, or any of today's gadgets, not to mention fucking maps! Try doing that on your spare time, see how long you last.

Hats off to one and all of them, murdering profiteers and racist scumbags, so what.

[rusty JEDI]

Columbus made four trips to the Americas, not six

I was taking the 6 trips thing right out of my old history notebook. So i just went and ran a search on Columbus and it appears you were right. I suppose my history teacher was on crack or something.

If i see him i will be sure to let him know.

[nicky g]

Churchill: racist, colonialist adventurer and murderer, eugenecist, pre-war Hitler fan etc. He may have been a fine war-time primeminister (though I think the mass firebombing of civilian populations and the complete lack of effort to hinder the workings of the death camps refutes this), but as a politician and human being he was an exceedingly disgusting piece of British aristocracy. There were some quotes in another thread recently demonstrating Churchill's prewar praise for Hitler. He also spent most of the war drunk. That is a great quote though.

[trillig]

I'd rather go with THE POPE, but hey that's just me... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-t

[rtucker5]

I agree with Andy here. IMO, the most overrated golfer is/was Greg Norman.

[lefty rosen]

There are many Columbus is one for sure, as he brought misery and death upon indigenous people of the Americas. By ancesteral homeland (Trinidad) the natives were wiped out until they didn't have a sustainable population, now only people that have some ancestry exist. I could also say Jesus was overrated as I don't view him as the son of god, but just a prophet for peace, but that debate could rage forever.......

[PuppetMaster]

Are you kidding me? His presidency may be over-rated, but in no way is he over rated. The man was literally THE founder of democracy in America.

[Cyrus]

"Columbus is [over-rated] for sure, as he brought misery and death upon indigenous people of the Americas."

Whenever Europeans (choke-full of micro-organisms that were bred and strengthened in the closed and unhealthy environs of cities) migrated/invaded relatively sparsely inhabited lands (where humans had not yet encountered such mirco-organisms and thus had not developed antibodies), the Europeans brought with them, unsurprisingly, murderous diseases that devastated the locals.

You think Cortez wiped out the Aztecs? Wrong. The Spanish infections did.

The story of world conquest (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521456908/qid=1064681249/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0399102-1304726?v=glance&s=books) is essentially the story of micro-organisms carried around the globe by the great explorers.

[David]

Phil Hellmuth /images/graemlins/grin.gif