This is more down my son's alley but it was interesting and he really liked it also. ( )

The book analyzes 50 of the most dynamic duos in the four major sports as well as contemporary duos. It's very we'll researched and it you like statistics this is the book for you. There are some personal details in each of the vignettes but the stories really focus on the athletes on field achievements ( )

Great book for a die hard sports fan, but keep in mind it is very limited to 4 sports, only men, mostly from pre-2000, and favors baseball over other sports.

If you are a die hard fan of those sports, and especially if you have friends who you talk with and don't sit next to each other on your phones, this can be a great conversation piece.

I recommend this book, just know what you are getting into and the intended audience ( )

I feel this book is geared more for more die hard sports fans and I'm not that. It reads more as reference manual than anything else. ( )

Obviously any book listing the best or the greatest etc. is subjective and the author takes pains to define what he means by 'dynamic duo' in the introduction. All athletes are striving toward the same goal: a championship. The key here is that the duo complimented each other in that pursuit.
So, do the names hold up? I don't know enough about each professional sport to make that determination, but there aren't a lot of surprises in who made the list. Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Mantle, Montana, Jordan, Gretzky -- all names you would expect. And even those left off the list aren't surprising when you read that the author would not add 'known steroid users'. Rodriguez was the exception and I am not sure I agree with his reasoning.
Just for comparison I read the Olson/Jones article and compared it to the Lambert/Ham article. In both cases, according to him, the front line of each team was considered the greatest ever. How?? Only one can be the greatest.
I think the work can be the start of many beer drinking discussions but is it something I can't live without? No. I agree with some of the other reviews about the statistics and length of articles. Perhaps I would have reduced the number of duos and made the articles longer. Three pages on Lambert and Ham just doesn't seem enough by half.
One point I have to quibble with. Lately the new books all seem to use internet citations exclusively and that bothers me. This one does the same and I don't like it. Those resources may not be there in a few years and then what? Book sources can't be beat. ( )