michael shoemaker before his return from retirement worth a shout I reckon
He's not talking about motor sports, he's talking about Michael the most successful shoe maker everNah motor sports can gagf
Yeah totally agree with this. It doesn't strike me as a coincidence that you more often get these freakish 'outlier' athletes in either fringe sports, like squash/darts etc., or sports in their relative nascency, like cricket in Bradman's era or Baseball in Ruth's. That's not to say those players weren't exceptional, but it does make it very difficult to compare with more popular sports or more modern equivalents. That's why I don't think you can say with any certainty something like " this player from a fringe sport statistically dominated their peers way more than MJ, so they must be better". Given MJ likely competed in a much more competitive sport (both by number and quality of participants), the smaller statistical margins he achieved should surely be weighted much higher.I'm trying to work out how much we should look at the sports popularity and more so participation rates when trying to answer this question.
I mean Khan's squash record is terrific and there is this Dutch wheelchair tennis player who has an unbelievable record too but sorry to the squash and wheelchair tennis fans out there, but who did they actually beat? It also reduces Bradman a bit too as on a global scale Crickets participation was smaller compared to say Pele, Jordan or even a Bolt.
Probably why no one since then has ever come even close to Bradman's figuresYeah totally agree with this. It doesn't strike me as a coincidence that you more often get these freakish 'outlier' athletes in either fringe sports, like squash/darts etc., or sports in their relative nascency, like cricket in Bradman's era or Baseball in Ruth's. That's not to say those players weren't exceptional, but it does make it very difficult to compare with more popular sports or more modern equivalents. That's why I don't think you can say with any certainty something like " this player from a fringe sport statistically dominated their peers way more than MJ, so they must be better". Given MJ likely competed in a much more competitive sport (both by number and quality of participants), the smaller statistical margins he achieved should surely be weighted much higher.
Then why weren't the other great batsmen of Bradman's time averaging anywhere close to him?Actually its extremely tough to compare guys who play different sports,
But I think Bradman's career is similar to Rocky Marciano, he had a great record as a boxer, did not loose a single fight, but the problem is that he played at a time when he didn't face much competition nor did he have the skills comparable to the future generation of boxers. Rocky Marciano is the best example of why number alone don't prove a players supremacy, there are a lot more factors that should be considered while rating someone. Marciano isn't rated as the greatest boxer ever in the boxing world, but yes, he is widely respected because of what he achieved in his career. And despite of his extraordinary record, he isn't rated higher than someone like Muhammad Ali who didn't have equally good numbers but faced a really tough competition.
Actually its extremely tough to compare guys who play different sports,
But I think Bradman's career is similar to Rocky Marciano, he had a great record as a boxer, did not loose a single fight, but the problem is that he played at a time when he didn't face much competition nor did he have the skills comparable to the future generation of boxers. Rocky Marciano is the best example of why number alone don't prove a players supremacy, there are a lot more factors that should be considered while rating someone. Marciano isn't rated as the greatest boxer ever in the boxing world, but yes, he is widely respected because of what he achieved in his career. And despite of his extraordinary record, he isn't rated higher than someone like Muhammad Ali who didn't have equally good numbers but faced a really tough competition.
I'll ask again as a general question. Why do people join forums just to be a troll? But yeah, ok buddy. They couldn't play cricket then. You're right again. As always...Actually its extremely tough to compare guys who play different sports,
But I think Bradman's career is similar to Rocky Marciano, he had a great record as a boxer, did not loose a single fight, but the problem is that he played at a time when he didn't face much competition nor did he have the skills comparable to the future generation of boxers. Rocky Marciano is the best example of why number alone don't prove a players supremacy, there are a lot more factors that should be considered while rating someone. Marciano isn't rated as the greatest boxer ever in the boxing world, but yes, he is widely respected because of what he achieved in his career. And despite of his extraordinary record, he isn't rated higher than someone like Muhammad Ali who didn't have equally good numbers but faced a really tough competition.
No.michael shoemaker before his return from retirement worth a shout I reckon
That was the comet which hit Jupiter 10-15 years back wasn't it?michael shoemaker before his return from retirement worth a shout I reckon
Tbf, Smali actually misspelt Schumacher, so the pun was excusable.You should be stripped of your BotM title for that
That is the strongest argument (other than people who actually saw him) for Bradman's preeminence amongst batsmen imo, but I don't think it's impervious to debate. I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, but I think it is conceivable that for a game in it's nascency, where fundamental aspects of it like technique, training protocols, tactics, mental approaches to the game etc. are still very much changing and improving, it would be possible for a single player to rise from the 'pack' easier than in the more professional, modern game. I'm not saying any of these apply to Bradman, but e.g. a player might possess a 'radical' technique that simply works better than what the norm of the day is (and no-one else has caught up), they might have a mental/tactical approach to the game different to other players, they might simply have come up with more effective training methods than anyone else to improve their skills etc etc.. In the modern game, most things are pretty standardized and what works and what doesn't it a lot more set in stone, so I think the odds of an outlier emerging are a lot more slim because it would probably mean they genuinely possess freakish natural attributes (which are extremely rare). IMO, given the immense magnitude of his dominance, Bradman could well have been such a 'freak', but I don't think other explanations should be entirely out of question.Then why weren't the other great batsmen of Bradman's time averaging anywhere close to him?
isn't schumacher supposed to mean shoemaker?Tbf, Smali actually misspelt Schumacher, so the pun was excusable.
If Bradman is the Rocky Marciono of cricket as you say, who is the Muhammed Ali of cricket? I await your response so eagerly....Actually its extremely tough to compare guys who play different sports,
But I think Bradman's career is similar to Rocky Marciano, he had a great record as a boxer, did not loose a single fight, but the problem is that he played at a time when he didn't face much competition nor did he have the skills comparable to the future generation of boxers. Rocky Marciano is the best example of why number alone don't prove a players supremacy, there are a lot more factors that should be considered while rating someone. Marciano isn't rated as the greatest boxer ever in the boxing world, but yes, he is widely respected because of what he achieved in his career. And despite of his extraordinary record, he isn't rated higher than someone like Muhammad Ali who didn't have equally good numbers but faced a really tough competition.
Viv Richards...If Bradman is the Rocky Marciono of cricket as you say, who is the Muhammed Ali of cricket? I await your response so eagerly....
At least you're slightly amusing.Viv Richards...