Jack Parkman Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Is a "superstar" in sports a) A perennial all star or b) A term for a player who transcends their sport; only reserved for the best of the best of all time? My belief is b. The best way I can put it, is to use the NBA for an example. IMO, in your sport you have to be on the level of a Magic, Bird, or Jordan in order to be a superstar. I believe there can be eras of a sport that lack a superstar. What say you? Edited May 16, 2015 by Elgin Slim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 It's one of those terms that would not be allowed in critical debates or anything scientific. Superstar is purely subjective based on the person using the term. Personally, I would only use it for hall of fame caliber players who have performed at that level for many seasons. I wouldn't necessarily add a criteria that they transcend their sport because of the popularity of certain sports. Don Bradman is certainly a superstar by any definition of the word, yet no one that reads this will know who he is without doing an internet search. And because I recognize that the word is subjective, I would also agree with how anyone uses the term. What I do try to teach my students if you are having a debate that uses that word, stop and define how the word is being used. Historically this is why we had so many MBIAA/MBINAA threads. It really comes down to the definition being used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Is Joe Flacco an "elite" QB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) It's even murkier when you start talking about actors/actresses, models and singers/performers. Justin Bieber, for example. The Kardashians, Jenners and Hiltons. If you believe being a true superstar requires talent/ability and isn't from birthright, then no reality show person would or could ever qualify. It's just like defining the word "charisma." Who has it, and who doesn't? I don't really like Taylor Swift (especially as an actress), but it's next to impossible for me to argue she's not a superstar. Or Garth Brooks, even though I don't care one iota for country music. Others would look at "staying power," the ability of someone like Madonna to retain her place in the spotlight for almost 30 years... Going back to the Flacco comment, I grew up a Dolphins fan....nobody can convince me Dan Marino (and Dan Fouts of that generation) weren't superstars, but they never won the Super Bowl. By that definition, guys like Montana or Bradshaw will always get overpraised while the Mannings, Favres or Marinos don't get their fair due. There have been quite a few "no name" QB's who faded into obscurity after winning Super Bowls, too. Edited May 19, 2015 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 It's also regional. A "superstar" in one city may not be one in another. There may be players that are superstars on the local team, like a Sidney Moncrief for the Bucks. He had a hell of a career, but didn't win anything nor is he in the hall of fame. But I would imagine he'd be on the Mount Rushmore of Bucks players. I think Tex pretty much summed it up, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 BTW, Sir Dan Bradman is the greatest cricketer (cricketier?) of all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.