Ripken kept his streak alive by DH'ing several games. It would be the equivalent to Favre just coming in and doing running plays only instead of staying in the pocket and passing.

 

From the stats that I could find, Ripken played a total of 24 games as DH...coming in 2000 and 2001. Guess what, the streak ended in 1998!

 

Say what you want to say, but both men did something in their respective sports that is not likely to be broken. Each streak has it's own strengths and weaknesses. No, there is not the phsyical "impact" in baseball. But, by the same token, Favre was not getting pounded in practice on a daily basis either. He had time to rest between games.

 

Either way, I think both should be respected for efforts.

It is a very hard choice, but I have to say Ripken because of the length of the season.

Tough call. I went with Favre. I just wondered how many times Ripken either PH or came into games in the late innings. Favre did not have that luxury.

I have to take Cal and baseball on this one.

Tough call. I went with Favre. I just wondered how many times Ripken either PH or came into games in the late innings. Favre did not have that luxury.

The late innings argument doesn't hold, because he has to play at least 5 innings. So the latest he could have entered is the 5th.

Tough call. I went with Favre. I just wondered how many times Ripken either PH or came into games in the late innings. Favre did not have that luxury.

I do not think that would have counted. Ripken's streak deals with starts, as does Brett's. But, there were a few times Ripken would just start a game and then be yanked, just to simply continue his streak... something you could not get away with in the NFL.

Ripken was ejected in the first inning twice during his streak. The games counted toward the streak.

Ripken's is more impressive to me. Yes, football is more physically demanding. But, they also have 6 days to get ready for the next game...a guy like Favre could take the whole week off and play on Sunday. So, to me that offsets the "less demanding" argument...

 

Also, I realize that QB's get hit a lot and take a beating, but it's also a position in the NFL where guys can play with injuries if they can tough it out...Rivers played with a bum knee vs. New England, Eli played with a separated shoulder, etc...not all positions in the NFL are like that. RB's, WR's, DB's, LB's...they aren't going to play on bum knees...

 

It's a matter of opinion, and I don't agree with anyone who says it's clear cut either way...but, I go with Ripken just because of the much larger number of games he had to play and the fact that his consecutive game streak was for the most part on consecutive days.

I agree with STRIKE3, I'm also a baseball guy and I wanted to say Cal record was the most impressive,but after reading Strike3's post,he's right, Favre record is the most impressive.But Cal"s a close 2nd.

I was torn between the two until STRIKE3 said it was Favre. He is a baseball genius in my eyes. He had an opportunity to pick a baseball player but he didn't.

You typed that, just the way I emailed it to you....:lol: Not deserving but certainly much appreciated....:thumb:

 

Tough, tough call.

I agree and great question.

 

I agree with STRIKE3, I'm also a baseball guy and I wanted to say Cal record was the most impressive,but after reading Strike3's post,he's right, Favre record is the most impressive.But Cal"s a close 2nd.

My first thought was Ripken and the daily grind of Baseball, is extremely tough but the punishment you take in Football, is relentless.

 

My main point was the SS position, which made Ripke "1A" in my book. Very active and demanding also but not the same, as a Catcher for example. Some of the stiffness and soreness a SS has, can be stretched out.

 

Two tremendous streaks and equally tremendous professional athletes.

Ripken's is more impressive to me. Yes, football is more physically demanding. But, they also have 6 days to get ready for the next game...a guy like Favre could take the whole week off and play on Sunday. So, to me that offsets the "less demanding" argument...

 

Also, I realize that QB's get hit a lot and take a beating, but it's also a position in the NFL where guys can play with injuries if they can tough it out...Rivers played with a bum knee vs. New England, Eli played with a separated shoulder, etc...not all positions in the NFL are like that. RB's, WR's, DB's, LB's...they aren't going to play on bum knees...

 

It's a matter of opinion, and I don't agree with anyone who says it's clear cut either way...but, I go with Ripken just because of the much larger number of games he had to play and the fact that his consecutive game streak was for the most part on consecutive days.

Very well said.

For the last few years you're not even allowed to touch the quarterback, the NFL rules on the QB's are a complete joke!

 

CAL!

Favre. The NFL is a tough sport.

Favre. They get 6 days to recover because they get pounded on every game. Good point about the physical demands in both sports--you'd never see a catcher get the streak and you would never see a RB get it either.

The late innings argument doesn't hold, because he has to play at least 5 innings. So the latest he could have entered is the 5th.

 

I do not think that would have counted. Ripken's streak deals with starts, as does Brett's. But, there were a few times Ripken would just start a game and then be yanked, just to simply continue his streak... something you could not get away with in the NFL.

 

Ripken was ejected in the first inning twice during his streak. The games counted toward the streak.

 

Does anyone know any info on how many games Cal didn't finish? I didn't think the baseball streak was "starts". I thought I remember someone's streak continuing because they pinch-hit one time. They celebrated Cal breaking the record that night in Baltimore in the 5th because it became an official game at that point but he didn't have to play all 5 innings for the streak to continue, right?