The Most Dominant Athlete of the 20th Century IS...

Had a debate with my buddy JB the other day (okay, okay…his name is “Jon,” thank you very much) about who was the most dominant pro athlete of his particular sport. Now honestly, this is about the silliest conversation to have for several reasons:

a) Comparing one athlete to another in two different sports is the original “apples to oranges” hypothesis. There’s no translation of baseline stats between sports (RBI versus TD Passes?!).
b) “Favorite sports” lend too much bias (I like football, Jon’s a hoopster).
c) “Favorite teams” lend too much bias (I’m from Seattle, Jon’s originally from the Midwest).
d) Similar to Reason A, you can’t compare two players of the same sport if they play different positions…say a goalie versus a mid-fielder versus a forward in soccer. This is the unstoppable force versus the immovable object.
e) Even considering players of similar or the same position in the same sport is ridiculous, because we’re talking TEAM SPORTS here. Who can say that a particular star player would have done as well with a different supporting cast? Would Emmitt Smith have had the same success without Aikman and Irvin on offense? How about without Daryl “Moose” Johnston blocking for him?

However, we were feeling feisty and testosterous (I don’t remember if beer was involved, but quite possibly) and things got ugly…basically arguing between Joe Montana and Michael Jordan.

Like I said…a seriously silly conversation.

Anyhoo, while I have decided that it is crazy to do so, I still think it’s an interesting conversation comparing “great ones” to each other and discussing the how and why and reason for calling a player The Best or the most dominant of their particular profession. Intellectually stimulating, so to speak.

And after reviewing Jordan’s stats on wikipedia, I can totally see the domination of Mr. Jordan in his basketball profession. Interesting, though, that he is named only the #2 Greatest Athlete of the 20th Century by the Associated Press…#1 went to Babe Ruth, and really, whose going to argue that?

Well…perhaps a certain hockey player by the name of Wayne Gretzky.

See…a crazy, silly thing to argue over. Definitely not worth getting too riled up. But stimulating discussion all the same. Especially interesting to compare the astrological signs of these folks:

Michael Jordan – Aquarius (February 17)
Babe Ruth – Aquarius (February 2)
Wayne Gretzky – Aquarius (January 26)

Joe Montana is a Gemini…though George Seifert was an Aquarius (all right, all right…that is really immaterial!).

Why is Aquarian such a hot sign for stand-out players (just looking at the Big 3 listed above)? I have often referred to Aquarius as the “flakey crust” of the Zodiac…a very, very over-simplification and gross exaggeration of Aquarians’ foibles, I admit.

First off, Aquarius is the genius of the signs…and by genius I’m referring to the crazy mad scientist type genius, like Aquarian Thomas Edison. Actually, much more like Nikola Tesla, but we’ll forgo that comparison since Tesla was a Cancer. GENIUS (as I was saying) in they draw inspiration directly from out of nowhere, like lightning out of a clear sky…the figurative “bolt from the blue” that makes one shout “Eureka!” They are innovators, drawing knowledge from a variety of eclectic sources and organizing it into a new, authentic expression.

“Authentic” is a useful word to describe the Aquarius…they often show up as eccentric or unique individuals because of their basic drive to be authentic that colors everything they do. Sometimes, this desire for authenticity can alienate them from others…they fail to connect with others, being so detached.

But especially in today’s world of pro sports, detachment isn’t too bad a thing. Constant scrutiny by fans and the media can drive some players to the point of distraction. The detached Aquarius has the ability to rise above their own ego, to get out of the way of themselves…a useful trick when threatened with the media circus surrounding championship events.

Of course, out “great ones” have to have other factors in their horoscopes that keep them focused on the goal…otherwise they run the danger of becoming too detached…i.e. the “flaky pastry” I mentioned earlier. Still, I wonder if the Great Bambino was shaken much emotionally by his trade to the Yankees…it certainly didn’t stop him from collecting championships.

Finally, Aquarians are organizing, fixed signs. They may very well have their own method of organizing things (eccentric and authentic, remember?), but part of what allows them to express genius is their ability to organize their ducks in a row…to get those positive and negative ions lined up such that they can experience the lightning bolt. They make it look so easy. Their “weirdness” simply pays dividends. Certainly, some of Gretzky’s school chums may have thought him peculiar for the amount he practiced, but he may have been “detached” enough that it didn’t phase him too much. And the results certainly speak for themselves.

One other thing about the fixed signs (like Aquarius, Leo, and Scorpio) is their ability to step into a leadership role, precisely because of their organizing ability. While Leo is like a sun around which planets rotate, and Scorpio controls everything through sheer force of will, Aquarians bring order out of chaos…an especially useful ability in the professional arena of team sport. So many high-paid, alpha mentalities and conflicting egos…who better to organize these sometimes motley crews into championship teams? The guy who’s out there being his authentic self, displaying genius, and staying detached and above the fray, that’s who.

Jordan, Gretzky, and Ruth…certainly they showed some explosive Aquarius power in their fields of play. They’ve also showed their eccentricities. Too bad I can’t throw Montana in there with ‘em…or can I? You know what? He’s not ALL Gemini.

According to astrolmass.com, Montana was born at 3:25pm in New Eagle, PA. He doesn’t have a single planet in Aquarius…heck, he doesn’t even have Mars in the 1st or 10th houses (it’s in Pisces in the 5th).

But Mr. Montana does have Uranus (ruler of Aquarius) conjunct his Moon (being within one degree). This is the equivalent of saying Joe has an Aquarian Moon, someone who is able to authentically and detachedly express himself emotionally (among other things). Uranus is nearly conjunct with his Midheaven (the highest point in his chart), coloring his aspirations and his role in society with Aquarian values as well (if only the need to break out of the mold and be a unique authentic individual…like a small, wiry QB in the NFL or something).

Mr. Montana also has both Jupiter and Pluto in the 11th house, the traditional house of Aquarius. They are also conjunct within 1 degree, giving volcanic, transformative power to Joe’s “lucky planet,” the place where he feels most confident and expansive. Joe’s lucky Jupiter is in Leo in the 11th…basically, whenever he has a chance to express himself in the limelight, especially in an Aquarian fashion, he’s going to excel. For example, in a World Championship game or something…though only when he can act cool and detached, organizing chaos, etc. He may show some Aquarian genius in these types of situation…or he might turn into a big flake, who knows?

Anyway, that’s enough for now; I better give my “overly expansive planet” (Jupiter in Aquarius) a rest! Ha!