Bradman, the greatest sportsperson ever?

[Daemon]

Nah motor sports can gagf

 

[Jono]

michael shoemaker before his return from retirement worth a shout I reckon

Nah motor sports can gagf

He's not talking about motor sports, he's talking about Michael the most successful shoe maker ever

 

[Daemon]

You should be stripped of your BotM title for that

 

[Jono]

Not the first person who has wanted me to strip

 

[fredfertang]

Max Woosnam

 

[karan316]

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.

 

[Ruckus]

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.

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.

 

[Daemon]

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.

Probably why no one since then has ever come even close to Bradman's figures


teehee

 

[smash84]

great news for australia

edit....wrong thread

 

[The Sean]

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.

Then why weren't the other great batsmen of Bradman's time averaging anywhere close to him?

 

[Coronis]

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.

 

[the big bambino]

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...

 

[Furball]

michael shoemaker before his return from retirement worth a shout I reckon

No.

Schumacher's not even clearly the greatest F1 driver.

 

[Burgey]

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?

 

[Cabinet96]

You should be stripped of your BotM title for that

Tbf, Smali actually misspelt Schumacher, so the pun was excusable.

 

[Ruckus]

Then why weren't the other great batsmen of Bradman's time averaging anywhere close to him?

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.

 

[smash84]

Tbf, Smali actually misspelt Schumacher, so the pun was excusable.

isn't schumacher supposed to mean shoemaker?

 

[Red]

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.

If Bradman is the Rocky Marciono of cricket as you say, who is the Muhammed Ali of cricket? I await your response so eagerly....

 

[karan316]

If Bradman is the Rocky Marciono of cricket as you say, who is the Muhammed Ali of cricket? I await your response so eagerly....

Viv Richards...

 

[Coronis]

Viv Richards...

At least you're slightly amusing.