Most dominant sports-people of all time?

[grecian]

Ed Moses always deserves a shout in these things, unbeaten in 10 years, is quite an achievement.

 

[Pothas]

Not much of a Sport really but Phil Taylor's 14 world championship wins in darts is pretty amazing.

 

[Goughy]

Interesting article that has a quick look at this topic from the Freakonomics guy in the NYT blog (not the original author).

 

[Langeveldt]

Don Bradman

Can't find another sportsperson who was consistantly almost twice as good as his nearest competition. I guess Federer and Woods would come close.. Bolt one to watch

What was Gary Kasparov's record like in chess?

 

[nightprowler10]

But it's not a straight comparison of Bradman vs Jordan/Chamberlain. It's a comparison of the comparative difference between Bradman vs. all other cricketers and Jordan vs. all other basketballers. What sets Bradman apart is that there is literally no contest under any kind of measure you can come up with that doesn't end up with Bradman being the best by a big big margin. I admit I know next to nothing re: basketball, but from what you're saying about Chamberlain, it sounds like it's not even cut and dried that Jordan is the best basketballer ever. In virtually every other sport it's possible to have a sensible debate re: who has been it's greatest exponent.

There's definitely much more debate than there should be about Jordan's status as the greatest in basketball. Wilt keeps getting brought up due to his dominance against the other teams in his era and his 50+ PPG season, yet people forget that there were something like 9 teams in the league out of which only the Celtics were really good, against whom his averages dropped to mediocre levels. Not to mention there was no such thing as a three second rule and he was easily the tallest man in the league. MJ, on the other hand, dominated the NBA at the league's absolute peak. He had an incredible amount of competition and he overcame all of it. His leadership skills were Imran-esque. He helped build a winning team that dominated a decade. So yeah, there was none better in my book. Russell and Jabbar come close.

 

[Goughy]

What was Gary Kasparov's record like in chess?

I heard he was decent.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Chess not a sport. Fails the Stephen Hawking test.

Anyway, real tennis is very clearly a niche sport, to put it politely, but Pierre Etchebaster has a record of dominance unlikely to be challenged. He was world champion for a scarcely believable 26 years from 1928-1954 when he retired at the age of 60.

 

[Matt79]

That's just it - even if the general consensus is that Jordan was the best, there are lots of people who advance other candidates, or some stats that raise doubts (even if they don't stand detailed scrutiny). That's similar to every other sport, apart from cricket.

 

[Goughy]

Chess not a sport. Fails the Stephen Hawking test.

Anyway, real tennis is very clearly a niche sport, to put it politely, but Pierre Etchebaster has a record of dominance unlikely to be challenged. He was world champion for a scarcely believable 26 years from 1928-1954 when he retired at the age of 60.

Interesting reading the linked article. He as World Champ for 26 years but only defended the title 7 times.

Hardly seems he was worked off his feet anf that he regularly took on all-comers.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'd also consider the man who was described by a worthy peer thus: “You score goals like runs in cricket”.

 

[Robertinho]

I'd also consider the man who was described by a worthy peer thus: “You score goals like runs in cricket”.

Eddie Betts?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Interesting reading the linked article. He as World Champ for 26 years but only defended the title 7 times.

Hardly seems he was worked off his feet anf that he regularly took on all-comers.

Have to plead ignorance of the workings of the professional real tennis circuit of the first half of the twentieth century, but that's roughly how often a football team would've had to defend the world cup in the same period. Could just be the way things are.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Eddie Betts?

4 runs a season?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Eddie Betts?

Field Hockey player Dhyan Chand. The man making the comment was Donald Bradman.

 

[nightprowler10]

That's just it - even if the general consensus is that Jordan was the best, there are lots of people who advance other candidates, or some stats that raise doubts (even if they don't stand detailed scrutiny). That's similar to every other sport, apart from cricket.

Not disputing that at all, just thought I'd add where I stand on that debate.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

But it's not a straight comparison of Bradman vs Jordan/Chamberlain. It's a comparison of the comparative difference between Bradman vs. all other cricketers and Jordan vs. all other basketballers. What sets Bradman apart is that there is literally no contest under any kind of measure you can come up with that doesn't end up with Bradman being the best by a big big margin. I admit I know next to nothing re: basketball, but from what you're saying about Chamberlain, it sounds like it's not even cut and dried that Jordan is the best basketballer ever. In virtually every other sport it's possible to have a sensible debate re: who has been it's greatest exponent.

Yeah, but the comparative difference between Bradman vs. all other cricketers and Jordan vs. all other basketballers if the margin of difference in basketball is implausible. There's no way that I can think of that a basketball player could finish with an average of 40+ points over a thousand games, let alone average 13 points better than the nearest guy. I'm no stats expert, but as far as I can make out, you're likelier to average 100 in cricket than 40 in basketball.

The way I see it, cricket is a game that allows there to be a 40 run gap between the first and second game, whereas basketball only allows a 3 point gap, but that 3 point gap might as well be 30 if we compare it with cricket.

Even if you take the comparison at face value, Chamberlain vs. Jordan is not the same as batsman vs. batsman, since one guy was a 7'1 center and the other was a 6'6 shooting guard/small forward. It's like comparing a batsman with a bowler.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Wilt keeps getting brought up due to his dominance against the other teams in his era and his 50+ PPG season, yet people forget that there were something like 9 teams in the league out of which only the Celtics were really good, against whom his averages dropped to mediocre levels.

Chamberlain averaged 28.7 points per game against Russell and 28.7 rebounds. That's medicore?

There were other good teams. St. Louis was a good team. The Lakers were a good team. Later on the Knicks and Bucks were excellent teams. In a league with 8-10 teams, only a handful will be any good. Right now the league has 30 teams and only a handful are any good.

Not to mention there was no such thing as a three second rule and he was easily the tallest man in the league.

There was a three second rule on offence.

He played against a ton of Hall of Fame centers, more than Shaq has (for example.)

MJ, on the other hand, dominated the NBA at the league's absolute peak. He had an incredible amount of competition and he overcame all of it. His leadership skills were Imran-esque. He helped build a winning team that dominated a decade. So yeah, there was none better in my book. Russell and Jabbar come close.

What's the difference between the Lakers dominating the 80s and Jordan dominating the 90s? I dunno if you can say the 90s were the absolute peak. Besides, the Bulls only dominated for 6 years. I dunno if he was Imran-ish, either. He never really trusted anyone except himself and rode his teammates so hard that many of them hated him.

Really, Chamberlain is the most dominant player in the history of the game and has individual scoring records that will never be broken. What Jordan did was phenomenal because he did it from the guard/small forward position, though I suppose Bird, Magic and Isiah Thomas might debate that. Isiah Thomas in particular, since the Pistons didn't have a truly great center when they won their titles.

 

[Robertinho]

Yeah, but the comparative difference between Bradman vs. all other cricketers and Jordan vs. all other basketballers if the margin of difference in basketball is implausible. There's no way that I can think of that a basketball player could finish with an average of 40+ points over a thousand games, let alone average 13 points better than the nearest guy. I'm no stats expert, but as far as I can make out, you're likelier to average 100 in cricket than 40 in basketball.

The way I see it, cricket is a game that allows there to be a 40 run gap between the first and second game, whereas basketball only allows a 3 point gap, but that 3 point gap might as well be 30 if we compare it with cricket.

Even if you take the comparison at face value, Chamberlain vs. Jordan is not the same as batsman vs. batsman, since one guy was a 7'1 center and the other was a 6'6 shooting guard/small forward. It's like comparing a batsman with a bowler.

No, I don't think you understand.

"There's no way that I can think of that a basketball player could finish with an average of 40+ points over a thousand games, let alone average 13 points better than the nearest guy"

Precisely the point. It is almost inconceivable that Bradman could do what he did. The only reason you find it more believable, and that I say "almost inconceivable", is that it actually happened. His superiority over all other batsmen equates to averaging over 40 points or whatever in basketball.

 

[Hoggy31]

Miles Mittensmonger. "I got yer lusty blowz"

 

[Xuhaib]

Field Hockey player Dhyan Chand. The man making the comment was Donald Bradman.

Shahbaz Ahmed > Dhyan Chand.