Most dominant athlete of all time - Page 7

On November 24 2013 23:46 Daut wrote: usain bolt. if you pick some unpopular sport then you dont face any tough competition. and the major sports dont have anyone that dominant that really stands out. i mean MJ = Lebron and are either as "dominant" as wilt? best football player of all time? peyton? calvin johnson? who knows. best tennis player of all time has a lopsided losing record to a guy with 13 majors. hockey there is a consensus #1 but is he really head and shoulders ahead of lemeiux, orr, and todays players? babe ruth isnt that far ahead of ty cobb, ted williams, barry bonds. whereas usain bolt shatters records and is the fastest human being of all time. and its not even close. nobody in any other sport besides sprinting can break 10.0 in the 100m. from 1968 to 2007 the world record in the 100m dash dropped .21 seconds. from 2007 to bolt it dropped .16 and the guy is slowing up in races to showboat. if you want to define dominance as never losing, then bolt doesnt really qualify. but to me hes just so clearly the best of any human being that has ever existed at what he does and by such a wide margin. and in other sports you cant really say that for certain due to smaller samples or discrepancy

Bolt was my first thought as well.
Im sure if Bolt tried we would break worldrecords in 400m and 800m, triple jump and long jump as well.
The fact that he dominates something so "simple" like running makes it even more impressive.
The only downside with Bolt is that you can't really compare him to athletes he didnt face in competition, since with the progress of equipment and especially the quality of the running track, the times will get faster. The host of the competition will always want to choose a fast track, since he will want the new records be run at his event. But the fact that and how he crushes his current competition seemingly easily makes him the best choice in such a discussion (although the cricket guy seems pretty impressive)

Although I'd definitely prefer the GOAT be chosen from a sport, where progress in technology has no or not so much effect, since you can really distinguish someone much more if only his talent/skill gave rise to his dominance.
I think chess qualiyfies, but ofc the progress in computer technology sure does help there. In 20-30 years i definitely think Magnus Carlsen will be in the GOAT of all time race for sure. The things he does with his mind are insane and one can only imagine how far he can take chess. Plus with all the does besides chess he doesnt run the risk of going insane like many have done before him, so he will be around for decades to come.

Also I think we would have had at least the greatest/most dominating female athlete of all time if Magdalena Neuner hadn't quit Biathlon at age 24. She was on the way of crushing virtually every record available.

You are kind of forgetting that with the development of technology, all the chemicals athletes take also progress Problem is the doping champions take might not always be available to everyone at the high ranked positions while technology always is

Im guessing we dont need to argue that every one of the mentioned names is 100% taking doping, cause thats a bit of a no brainer

And she is pretty nice as well. ^^

cant believe we forgot womens athletes. #Sexism

Florence Griffith Joyner and Annika Sorenstam really stand out to me as by far the best ever in their respective fields.

no tennis players stand out to me. im a big steffi graf fan but she really struggled with Monica Seles when she was in her prime. Serena is a bit too inconsistent. but serena on her A game is by far the GOAT. just unbeatable

In 10 - 15 years it might be Magnus Carlsen.

Gretzky, Jordan, Bolt, Armstrong, Phelps

On November 26 2013 12:58 Daut wrote: cant believe we forgot womens athletes. #Sexism Florence Griffith Joyner and Annika Sorenstam really stand out to me as by far the best ever in their respective fields. no tennis players stand out to me. im a big steffi graf fan but she really struggled with Monica Seles when she was in her prime. Serena is a bit too inconsistent. but serena on her A game is by far the GOAT. just unbeatable

Are you really comparing Serena to Roger? ;((( sad

Tennis as a sport has a long way to go and the players from the next generation will be better. Sampras‎/Nadal/Fed/Joker are all great, but they won't be seen as the best after 20-30 years from now.

That's why the record at 100m sprint is so crazy. Its almost what a human being is capable to reach, really close to our limit as a species. If chemistry doesn't evolve to give us wings, its very possible we won't see a faster man than Bolt in our lifetimes.

ridiculous thread. we all know black people will crush every sport given the chance to train for it.

look at serena's accomplishments. 17 slams, 2x each one, won all 4 consecutively at one point, olympic gold, 13 doubles slams (2x each one), 3x doubles olympic gold, all while being a flake that can lose in the 1st round or skip majors.

the skill gap between her and other women is huge. super dominant

interesting interactives showing progression of olympic medalists in 100m dash, long jump and 100m freestyle:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20...ash-one-race-every-medalist-ever.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20.../bob-beamons-long-olympic-shadow.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20.../olympics/racing-against-history.html


long jump isnt progressing for some reason, yet the other 2 are progressing very fast

On November 26 2013 16:28 Expiate wrote: Tennis as a sport has a long way to go and the players from the next generation will be better. Sampras‎/Nadal/Fed/Joker are all great, but they won't be seen as the best after 20-30 years from now. That's why the record at 100m sprint is so crazy. Its almost what a human being is capable to reach, really close to our limit as a species. If chemistry doesn't evolve to give us wings, its very possible we won't see a faster man than Bolt in our lifetimes.

What are you basing that on? I think it's much more likely that his record will be broken in our lifetime than it won't be broken in our lifetime. Much much much more likely.

On November 26 2013 16:36 Daut wrote: look at serena's accomplishments. 17 slams, 2x each one, won all 4 consecutively at one point, olympic gold, 13 doubles slams (2x each one), 3x doubles olympic gold, all while being a flake that can lose in the 1st round or skip majors. the skill gap between her and other women is huge. super dominant

you are missing the point.

todays tennis is totally different from what it used to be. it takes more than just pulling guesstimates out of your ass to accurately assess who is the greatest. surely Serena on her A-game today beats anyone but this is beside the point. there are people who crush their competition so hard that it doesn't matter when they are born, they just have a talent and they would adapt to todays (or any other era) conditions and still be the tip of the spear.

Federer took the sport to another level, like Sampras did. Much like how Jordan took it to a new level and how others are trying to do the same. There is no doubt that some players influence the sport by paving the way for the next generation before bowing out. The raquets, strings, courts and balls and even hawkeye and other technicalities didn't allow the Sampras, Borg or Connors or whoever to play like tennis is being played today. Such topspin, control and precision could not have been achieved twenty or more years ago by any mortal. Deal with it. You have never played with a wooden raquet and white tennis ball is presume. Go try and emulate the shots you see in todays tennis with that equipment and please report back with your findings. Tennis has evolved to a spectatorfriendly sport, which isn't bad by any means, just different. Don't be so quick to undermine past goats because you are biased.

Also Serena is not the most decorated female player of all time.

On November 26 2013 17:19 blackjacki2 wrote: What are you basing that on? I think it's much more likely that his record will be broken in our lifetime than it won't be broken in our lifetime. Much much much more likely.

It depends where the human limit is. People who trained athletics say its around 9.5, scientists say different things on the topic. Theory is one, practice is other. A lot of men have broken the 10s barrier, and only one of them made it under 9.6, funny his name is Bolt.

On November 26 2013 17:27 cariadon wrote: Show nested quote + On November 26 2013 16:36 Daut wrote: look at serena's accomplishments. 17 slams, 2x each one, won all 4 consecutively at one point, olympic gold, 13 doubles slams (2x each one), 3x doubles olympic gold, all while being a flake that can lose in the 1st round or skip majors. the skill gap between her and other women is huge. super dominant you are missing the point. todays tennis is totally different from what it used to be. it takes more than just pulling guesstimates out of your ass to accurately assess who is the greatest. surely Serena on her A-game today beats anyone but this is beside the point. there are people who crush their competition so hard that it doesn't matter when they are born, they just have a talent and they would adapt to todays (or any other era) conditions and still be the tip of the spear. Federer took the sport to another level, like Sampras did. Much like how Jordan took it to a new level and how others are trying to do the same. There is no doubt that some players influence the sport by paving the way for the next generation before bowing out. The raquets, strings, courts and balls and even hawkeye and other technicalities didn't allow the Sampras, Borg or Connors or whoever to play like tennis is being played today. Such topspin, control and precision could not have been achieved twenty or more years ago by any mortal. Deal with it. You have never played with a wooden raquet and white tennis ball is presume. Go try and emulate the shots you see in todays tennis with that equipment and please report back with your findings. Tennis has evolved to a spectatorfriendly sport, which isn't bad by any means, just different. Don't be so quick to undermine past goats because you are biased. Also Serena is not the most decorated female player of all time.

This Federer talk is so tilting

He got completely owned by a guy during his entire career

If there were as many clay majors as there are hard courts, Nadal would have twice as much titles than him

Pretty even record at hard/grass, and ass-rape at clay

Nadal has won 13 of their 15 encounters on clay courts, 8 of their 14 encounters on hard court, whereas Federer has won 2 out of their 3 meetings on grass courts.

On November 26 2013 17:27 cariadon wrote: Show nested quote + On November 26 2013 16:36 Daut wrote: look at serena's accomplishments. 17 slams, 2x each one, won all 4 consecutively at one point, olympic gold, 13 doubles slams (2x each one), 3x doubles olympic gold, all while being a flake that can lose in the 1st round or skip majors. the skill gap between her and other women is huge. super dominant you are missing the point. todays tennis is totally different from what it used to be. it takes more than just pulling guesstimates out of your ass to accurately assess who is the greatest. surely Serena on her A-game today beats anyone but this is beside the point. there are people who crush their competition so hard that it doesn't matter when they are born, they just have a talent and they would adapt to todays (or any other era) conditions and still be the tip of the spear. Federer took the sport to another level, like Sampras did. Much like how Jordan took it to a new level and how others are trying to do the same. There is no doubt that some players influence the sport by paving the way for the next generation before bowing out. The raquets, strings, courts and balls and even hawkeye and other technicalities didn't allow the Sampras, Borg or Connors or whoever to play like tennis is being played today. Such topspin, control and precision could not have been achieved twenty or more years ago by any mortal. Deal with it. You have never played with a wooden raquet and white tennis ball is presume. Go try and emulate the shots you see in todays tennis with that equipment and please report back with your findings. Tennis has evolved to a spectatorfriendly sport, which isn't bad by any means, just different. Don't be so quick to undermine past goats because you are biased. Also Serena is not the most decorated female player of all time.

im not biased against all older players. i personally think borg is the most impressive player of all time and probably would be the best or among the best in any era. federer's run from 04-09 was incredible, but really it was sort of between eras. sampras/agassi were out or on their way out, the top players were guys like safin, hewitt, roddick who are simply a step below djokovic/nadal/murray and even del potro. i dont think roger's ability has gotten that much worse, i think hes just playing much stronger competition now than he was facing the years he crushed. i just dont see roger as that far ahead of his contemporaries. i think 20 years from now roger will still be considered the GOAT because of that 5-6 year run, but nadal may have 15+ majors, djokovic will likely have 10+ and both will have winning records on federer.

with regards to the best female players of all time, there are basically 5 candidates in my mind: margaret court, BJK, navritilova, graf, serena. the difference between the others and serena is her athletic ability. shes physically a man playing a woman's sport. thats why i listed her as the greatest player, but clearly she isnt the greatest champion. if i had to bet my life on one female player in one match i would pick steffi. to be fair to BJK/MC, it was a different game and i didnt go back and watch much super old tennis, but i look at serena as the one most capable of beating anyone, but also inconsistent and capable of losing. if these women were somehow all born today with the same opportunities and played 20 round robins against each other on varying surfaces, i would guess that serena would be the most likely to end up with a winning record against everyone else but have no more than 65% winning percentage. i only listed serena's accomplishments to show that between her A game ability and her accomplishments she at the very least deserves to be in the discussion and is not head and shoulders behind roger

The number of ATP 1000 titles is much much more fair to compare to see who is the best, because there are 2 hard court Slams, that's the only reason Federer still leads in Slams, and in ATP 1000's Nadal leads 26 to 21

He also leads in % of wins 658–129 (83.61%) against Federer's 923–215 (81.11%), leads as I said before head-to-head even in hard courts

Also Nadal has plenty of time to pass in Slams, even with the unfairness of less clay court ones

And then we have Laver, who won 11 Grand Slams owning everyone in every court, and the only reason he doesn't have more than Federer is being unable to compete for 5 years during his prime, that's 20 he would have played. Try removing 5 years of Federer's prime and see how many Grand Slams he has left

Nadal is arguably better/more dominant than Federer, and Laver was clearly A LOT more dominant during his time

On November 26 2013 19:06 player999 wrote: Try removing 5 years of Federer's prime and see how many Grand Slams he has left

the answer is 5 btw