blackjacki2 United States. Nov 24 2013 22:01. Posts 2581
We have had a topic similar to this before and I found it pretty interesting and entertaining. The question is what one person in history had the largest skill gap between themselves and #2? So not just a GOAT, but such a GOAT that even the 2nd best ever looks like a chump to them.
Not just dominant, but literally in a league of their own and doing stuff that no other competitor came close to matching.
Some names that came up last time... Schumacher, Karelin, Tiger Woods, Usain Bolt, Phelps, Jordan, Gretzky, Pele, etc.
P.S. "athlete" doesn't have to be taken so literally. Feel free to throw in any freakish mind-blowing feat. Chess, video games, horse racing, poker, whatever... this is just for fun. Although I would give more credit to someone that is an outlier in a sport played by a billion people than in a sport played by thousands.
I would put Secretariat right up there with the rest of them. Not only did he win the triple crown but he set track records in all 3 races that still stand 40 years later. Kind of remarkable when you think of how far sports medicine has advanced. I would imagine that PEDs use is just as prevalent in horse racing as in other sports so how has nobody beaten those marks in 40 years? Although Man O' War was considered an equally dominant thoroughbred so Secretariat wasn't quite so unprecedented...
In 1980, the 14-year-old Mullen entered the Oasis Pro competition, defeating the world champion, Steve Rocco. Mullen competed voraciously throughout the 1980s—often frustrating competitors and judges with his consistency and progressive ability.[10] By 1990, Mullen had won thirty-four out of thirty-five freestyle competitions that he had entered, losing only to fellow Bones Brigade member, Per Welinder, due to falling over in his run. However, Mullen had already established the most successful competitive run in the history of competitive skateboarding.
34 out of 35, lol at comparing Wood's 14 major wins in 70 played to this
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Last edit: 24/11/2013 22:51
1
K40Cheddar United States. Nov 24 2013 22:33. Posts 2202
Federer not even the most dominant in his sport, lol, ppl just missing the point of the thread completely
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On November 24 2013 23:24 PoorUser wrote:
federer and ken jennings
No idea who Ken Jennings is but yeah Federer and Messi
Federer was unstoppable in his sport for a huuuuuuge amount of time where every week matters, he s just getting old now
Also O'Sullivan except he s had so many personal and mental issues, however its clear that he s basically in another world when playing at a 100% - thnk he proved it winning 2 back to back world Cruicibles with no other tournament inbetween played
Rod Laver was a LOT more dominant, possibly Borg too, maybe even Nadal lol
They have played 32 times, and Nadal leads their nine-year-old rivalry 22–10.
Meanwhile some people mentioned have been undefeated for most of their career
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
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
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
Last edit: 25/11/2013 00:48
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 25 2013 01:01. Posts 5296
Pele. football is the most popular sport in the world, what's with people putting golf and tennis players? Even cricket is more popular than that. Also for people who live in opposite land, football is a game where a ball gets kicked around with feet.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Perhaps right about Federer in some aspects, he s obviously most dominant overall in tennis tho.
I dont see how Bolt's "samples" are anything, but small. How many competitions do sprinters have yearly... 15?
If i have to pick just one guy its probably Messi althought its still somewhat soon to decide on that, however its obvious that he can destroy pretty much anyone playing football and winning 4 Ballon D'ors both overall and in a row is unprecedented ( possibly 5 with this year). People like Pele seem completely overrated considering he was only playing in Brazil and he was playing during times where football was another game. You stay in your comfort zone your whole life and not go after bigger challenges when you obviously have the skillset to do so and then claim yourself being the best at what you do ... thats just retarded on so many levels.
hahaha you people are so dumb, Messi and Federer? are you fucking serious?
And yeah obv Pele played in different times, history has to be accounted into it, no fucking athlete from the 50s would beat mediocre competition from today, Sugary Ray Robinson would have been easily knocked out by Tyson in the 1st round and Babe Ruth probably wouldnt even make it todays big leages so fucking what.
not that what im about to write is all that relevant in how the question was worded, but i cant get around it in answering.
in american football, we have a position called tight end, basically a receiver that is heavier and able to block as well as catch passes. one of the top 2 tight ends in the league is a guy named jimmy graham who played 4 years of college basketball at a good school. he was an ok player but nothing special, didnt stand out in college and had no way of making the pros. after his senior year of basketball he stayed at his university, took some grad classes and played one year of football. after that one year he was drafted by the NFL and is now a star in a very short period of time.
basically what im getting at is, if this guy was a failed basketball player yet a star in the NFL, how good would lebron james be doing the exact same thing? hes the same height, stronger, faster, better athlete.
with the exception of maybe basketball due to needing people of a certain physical stature, we dont know if some athlete exists in another sport that would be better suited for something else. in any sport there is danger of losing your best athletes to other sports. but in a 100m dash sprinting competition, we know who the fastest guys in the world are. everybody runs, and the fastest ones are dragged into track and pushed to the top. usain bolt is the best in the world and of anyone who has ever existed.
obviously this is one giant straw man argument, its not answering the question being asked, but i think its an important thing in general when these topics come up.
the real answer to the question is going to be someone who completely dominated a niche sport for a long period of time. i like karelin as an answer because its hard to imagine anyone being better suited for heavyweight wrestling than him. but im sure there are more dominant guys in things like darts, weight lifting, cricket, skateboarding, whatever
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
1
blackjacki2 United States. Nov 25 2013 02:36. Posts 2581
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
Yes, I agree, and this is the type of stuff I am thinking about when I make this thread. It's not just that Bolt is so fast, it's that the people behind him were so even. Tyson Gay, Justin Gatlin, Asafa Powell and later Yohan Blake, they are all running 9.76, 9.75, 9.74, the 3 of them hoping to break the world record by 0.01 seconds. Then somebody runs 9.58 and completely smashes the world record. I'm sure all of them instantly knew they would never be able to match that, unless they chose to lie to themselves.
I find that fascinating. Not just the feat itself, but the fact that everyone else is at the same level except for this one freak. It's like the Nathan Hot Dog eating contest when you have all the "legends" with the goofy nicknames that are able to eat 20 hot dogs, and then Kobayashi comes along one year and eats 50. (Although we later find out that wasn't so impossible after all).
The only problem I have with the Bolt answer is that if you look at the 200m, Michael Johnson smashed the world record in '96, and he smashed it so hard that it wasn't beaten until Bolt came along. That record was so strong that a lot of people were even surprised when Bolt broke it, even though the 200m is Bolt's best race. So to me that feat by Michael Johnson just causes me to believe that maybe what Bolt did wasn't so unique and maybe his records won't stand for as long as we would think.
1
RaiNKhAN United States. Nov 25 2013 02:53. Posts 4080
bo jackson. gg.
The biggest Rockets, Sixers, and Grizzlies fan you will ever meet!
How the holy fuck is Bradman not even mentioned yet?? Statistically he easily leads his discipline way more than any other sportsman. Also Phil Taylor, though calling him an athlete is a little generous.
Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated.
Since you guys prob don't know cricket... A batsman who averages in the 40s will have a nailed on place in his national team. The very sickest in history average in the mid 50s and no one is higher over a reasonable sample size. Except don Bradman who averaged 99.94.
And Phil Taylor has 17 world championships in darts.
Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated.
On November 25 2013 00:11 Spitfiree wrote:
Perhaps right about Federer in some aspects, he s obviously most dominant overall in tennis tho.
yeah routinely getting his ass whooped by Nadal even during his prime and never having won a true Grand Slam is more impressive than the complete domination Rod Laver had, riiiiiight ¬¬
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On November 24 2013 22:21 Endo wrote:
Jahangir Khan. Undefeated for 10 years straight.
lol 555 squash straight wins... god damn
lol ok this guy wins
In 1982, Jahangir astonished everyone by winning the International Squash Players Association Championship without losing a single point.
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
1
gryzzlybearr Bulgaria. Nov 25 2013 03:35. Posts 129
Dan Kolov!!
3
PuertoRican United States. Nov 25 2013 03:38. Posts 13044
First off, I wouldn't include any athlete that competed in team games, such as basketball, soccer, American football, hockey, etc.
Also, when you compare athletes in different eras, it gets difficult. For example, I consider Floyd Mayweather Jr. as the most dominant boxer of my era, while Joe Calzaghe might have been the most dominant boxer of his era. However, with sports like boxing, it gets even trickier with all of those weight classes. The Klitschko brothers are the most dominant heavyweights of their era, but their era is full of crappy heavyweight fighters.
Anyway, I like sports that are timed and/or have a point system, so people can really say who the best is/was over time. For example, we know who the best Donkey Kong arcade player of all-time is, and who the fastest runner of all-time is.
Rekrul is a newb
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 25 2013 03:58. Posts 5296
On November 25 2013 02:06 Oly wrote:
Since you guys prob don't know cricket... A batsman who averages in the 40s will have a nailed on place in his national team. The very sickest in history average in the mid 50s and no one is higher over a reasonable sample size. Except don Bradman who averaged 99.94.
And Phil Taylor has 17 world championships in darts.
ok, i change my answer to don Bradman.
from wiki 'Bradman's career Test batting average of 99.94 is often cited as statistically the greatest achievement by any sportsman in any major sport'
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
We could never know for sure who the greatest is, because the doping gets better every year. What we can do is split the field in 2 - competitions/sports where doping plays a major role and the other.
In the first category I don't see anyone who is even close to Bolt. 9.58 in 100m sprint is huge, I mean HUGE. This record will last for a very long time. And it will be a real challenge for the chemistry too. Bubka's record is a beast too, but man, this 9.58 will last.
In the category where doping doesn't play a major role I'd say my favorites are Loeb and Kolov.
1
RaiNKhAN United States. Nov 25 2013 04:27. Posts 4080
bo jackson niggas. guy breaks baseball bats
The biggest Rockets, Sixers, and Grizzlies fan you will ever meet!
1
LemOn[5thF] Czech Republic. Nov 25 2013 04:57. Posts 15163
On November 24 2013 22:21 Endo wrote:
Jahangir Khan. Undefeated for 10 years straight.
lol 555 squash straight wins... god damn
lol ok this guy wins
In 1982, Jahangir astonished everyone by winning the International Squash Players Association Championship without losing a single point.
he must have come up with that super gay serve to the back corner next to wall and others didn't know how to do it a the time. I played with my friend and it was a total autoloss, because apparently in squash you keep your serve when you win the point
93% Sure!
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 25 2013 05:01. Posts 3093
i was gonna go with bubka, but looks like jahangir khan wins so far.
lol POKER
1
handbanana21 United States. Nov 25 2013 05:08. Posts 3037
On November 24 2013 22:21 Endo wrote:
Jahangir Khan. Undefeated for 10 years straight.
lol 555 squash straight wins... god damn
lol ok this guy wins
In 1982, Jahangir astonished everyone by winning the International Squash Players Association Championship without losing a single point.
he must have come up with that super gay serve to the back corner next to wall and others didn't know how to do it a the time. I played with my friend and it was a total autoloss, because apparently in squash you keep your serve when you win the point
not really, that's just silly, he's playing vs pros not noobs like you
The hallmark of his play was his incredible fitness and stamina, which Rehmat Khan helped him build up through a punishing training and conditioning regime. Jahangir was quite simply the fittest player in the game, and would wear his opponents down through long rallies played at a furious pace.
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Most decorated Olympian of all the time, 22 medals and 18 gold ones (double the second place, according to Wikipedia).
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 25 2013 05:39. Posts 3093
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
It's a hard topic to be honest. There are so many people that could fit here, that dominated the scene in a specific sport for a long, long time... You could write Michael Schumacher (F1 racing) here as well, or Gary Kasparov (if you consider chess a sport).
I think there is no definite answer here, rather a list of people that would fit
1
blackjacki2 United States. Nov 25 2013 07:15. Posts 2581
On November 25 2013 04:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
It's still insanely difficult to do and incredibly dominant, otherwise a bunch of other swimmers would have a dozen gold medals as well. There's only 30 male Olympians with with more than 5 gold medals, and only 3 of them are swimmers.
Setting 35 world records isn't so amazing in a sport where you can break the record by 1 cm at a time. There's also weight lifters with just as many world records because they break the record by 1kg at a time.
Ronnie O'Sullivan. Back 2 back Crucible wins with a 1 year break inbetween them. Amazing with both hands. He is maybe even 2 levels higher, than anyone ever was. Too bad this affected his motivation (no wonder, though).
I'm throwing another hat in the ring for Don Bradman. If the guy came back for 1 more game post-retirement he would have had a 3 digit batting average where most pro batsmen are lucky to make 40. This is all assuming our first place player is being considered vs the 2nd place in their time period of course. Bradman would get rolled by modern cricketers.
Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport.[238] The top performers in his selected sports are:[239]
Athlete Sport Statistic Standard deviations
Bradman Cricket Batting average 4.4
Pelé Association football Goals per game 3.7
Ty Cobb Baseball Batting average 3.6
Jack Nicklaus Golf Major titles 3.5
Michael Jordan Basketball Points per game 3.4
The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket".[2] In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game.[239] The respective records are .366 and 30.1.[239]
Every sport has its own greats, but the thing is which one is the most dominant taking the competition into consideration,
which is the key to inhuman dominance.
Jahangir Khan was riduculously dominant but the fact that its a quite a small sport makes it a little less spectacular.
Aleksander Karelin, winning 12 years in a row and 6 years without giving the opponents a single point. Small sport.
Phil Taylor winning nearly every competition he entered for a long time span is amazing, but a small sport.
Tiger Woods did something ridiculous at his peak. Take in consideration that golf is a game where there is a high variance in your performance and scores,
but it did not seem to affect him over a long time span. Keep in mind that golf is a game where the 500. ranked player can win, unlike tennis, wrestling, squash, darts.
I go with Woods because the fact that he was up against a talented and wide field and still was so dominant in a game which is nearly impossible to dominate hard.
Please no more federer and messi (= fc barcelona = 15 greatest players around him) here, you are mocking this thread.
If federer is the only one you can think of, please dont say it, and open your eyes.
To me it's Michael Jordan. I've never seen a guy with a greater drive to win.
Also worth mentitioning is Secretariat. From what I've seen he was the most dominant racehorse ever, just absolutely destroying the competion.
1
the cleaner Germany. Nov 25 2013 09:26. Posts 3014
On November 25 2013 07:04 napoleono wrote:
Ronnie O'Sullivan. Back 2 back Crucible wins with a 1 year break inbetween them. Amazing with both hands. He is maybe even 2 levels higher, than anyone ever was. Too bad this affected his motivation (no wonder, though).
blackjacki2 United States. Nov 25 2013 09:42. Posts 2581
what is the crucible?
1
blackjacki2 United States. Nov 25 2013 09:45. Posts 2581
Btw can someone tell me how that cricket average is even possible? Wouldn't that be like a baseball player batting .600+ for their career? That would never and could never happen, so how did it happen in cricket?
On November 25 2013 06:39 VanDerMeyde wrote:
Diego Maradona
Soon Magnus Carlsen
Maradona wasn't even the best in his sport...
1
EvilSky Czech Republic. Nov 25 2013 10:19. Posts 8915
Jordan imo
4
TianYuan Korea (South). Nov 25 2013 10:41. Posts 6817
On November 25 2013 07:42 Rande wrote:
Every sport has its own greats, but the thing is which one is the most dominant taking the competition into consideration,
which is the key to inhuman dominance.
Jahangir Khan was riduculously dominant but the fact that its a quite a small sport makes it a little less spectacular.
Aleksander Karelin, winning 12 years in a row and 6 years without giving the opponents a single point. Small sport.
Phil Taylor winning nearly every competition he entered for a long time span is amazing, but a small sport.
Tiger Woods did something ridiculous at his peak. Take in consideration that golf is a game where there is a high variance in your performance and scores,
but it did not seem to affect him over a long time span. Keep in mind that golf is a game where the 500. ranked player can win, unlike tennis, wrestling, squash, darts.
I go with Woods because the fact that he was up against a talented and wide field and still was so dominant in a game which is nearly impossible to dominate hard.
Please no more federer and messi (= fc barcelona = 15 greatest players around him) here, you are mocking this thread.
If federer is the only one you can think of, please dont say it, and open your eyes.
I don't know if I would call wrestling small, it's world wide and especially in eastern europe it has a pretty good base I think...... Then again I'm not sure if that goes for Greco-Roman in particular.
thewh00sel United States. Nov 25 2013 11:23. Posts 2734
I like people putting horses in here. Best athlete of all time; doesn't know he's competing.
A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. - Ayn Rand
I feel like OP s doing a social experiment on who ll go into nerd rage in here( or in other words reasearch on social behaviour when discussing famous athletes ) , well played
Jahangir Khan was a beast and then Jansher Khan followed.
Nadal has a winning record against everyone in the top 20 or whatever the number and a sick claycourt record. Having said that, Federer is legendary, he made it to every grand slam semi for ten years. You can argue all you want but there is no denying Federer is the GOAT in tennis. Ask any pro, go ask Laver.
Womens wheelchair tennis player Esther Vergeer won 470 matches in a row, unbeaten for 10 years. Honorary mention.
Boxing has a lot of sick records... i won't even begin. Guys with over 100 KO-s etc.
There a bunch of track&field records that will probably not be broken in the forseeable future. German women on roids doing crazy shit.
Zelezny 98.48m javelin throw.
Jonathan Edwards 18.29m triple jump.
The 100m and 200m sprint records are insane. Hopefully Bolt claims another WR in 100-400m event.
High jump 2.45m Sotomayor. Holm and Jacobs cleared 0.59m (1ft 11inches) over their own head.
On November 25 2013 04:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
You can always pick a single event anyway:
Michael Phelps 200m butterfly:
2001 World Championship Gold
2003 World Championship Gold
2004 Olympic Games Gold 2005 - Didn't swim it in the WC
2007 - World Championship Gold
2008 - Olympic Games Gold
2009 - World Championship Gold
2011 - World Championship Gold 2012 - Olympic Games Silver
Records at pole vaulting are bullshit. A good jumper can basically pick how many times he wants to break a record by adding 1cm to the previous record each time he jumps. Isinbayeva broke 5897123 records too.
I'd say that Phelps was just as dominant as Bolt or Karelin or whoever else has gone undefeated in their whole career, because he was basically unbeatable at 200m butterfly. Since he set a world record for the first time (at the event) in 2001, no one has ever broken any of his records. Chad Le Clos won the 200m butterfly world championship in 2013 with a 1'54'30ish time. You can compare that to Phelps 1'53'98 from 2003.
On November 25 2013 11:44 cariadon wrote:
go ask Laver.
that only means he is humble
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On November 25 2013 14:16 hiems wrote:
Surprised no one mentioned Barry Bonds.
Well, if you're going to pick a baseball player in this thread I think it has to be Babe Ruth. While Bonds was unbelievable (of course on steroids), Ruth just crushed the league offensively at that time. He hit more HRs in 1920 then any other single team combined that year. Yeah you can have all these arguments about whether he could hit like that in today's age and so on, but if you're comparing a player to what he did when he played, he is the most dominant.
1
Chewits United Kingdom. Nov 25 2013 16:29. Posts 2539
On November 25 2013 04:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
It's still insanely difficult to do and incredibly dominant, otherwise a bunch of other swimmers would have a dozen gold medals as well. There's only 30 male Olympians with with more than 5 gold medals, and only 3 of them are swimmers.
Setting 35 world records isn't so amazing in a sport where you can break the record by 1 cm at a time. There's also weight lifters with just as many world records because they break the record by 1kg at a time.
you can break the swimming world record by 1 mili second lol, your argument is dumb.
Also i agree with Drone there are just so many styles and distances in swimming is not fair to other spots, you dont see "100m dash with flailing your arms around" event, "100m running like a duck" event do you?
On November 25 2013 15:29 Chewits wrote:
Michael Schumacher.
LOL except that Sebastian Vettel just smashed every single record Schumacher had, plus he isnt even considered the best F1 driver and also was a cheat.
On November 25 2013 04:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
It's still insanely difficult to do and incredibly dominant, otherwise a bunch of other swimmers would have a dozen gold medals as well. There's only 30 male Olympians with with more than 5 gold medals, and only 3 of them are swimmers.
Setting 35 world records isn't so amazing in a sport where you can break the record by 1 cm at a time. There's also weight lifters with just as many world records because they break the record by 1kg at a time.
you can break the swimming world record by 1 mili second lol, your argument is dumb.
Also i agree with Drone there are just so many styles and distances in swimming is not fair to other spots, you dont see "100m dash with flailing your arms around" event, "100m running like a duck" event do you?
yea but i dont think usain bolt would win the 100m dash with flailing your arms around event. his arms are too long. i take yohan blake there all day
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
On November 25 2013 15:29 Chewits wrote:
Michael Schumacher.
LOL except that Sebastian Vettel just smashed every single record Schumacher had, plus he isnt even considered the best F1 driver and also was a cheat.
Simply not true.
On November 25 2013 16:20 cariadon wrote:
And Ferrari had a clear edge with the car.
On November 25 2013 11:44 cariadon wrote:
go ask Laver.
that only means he is humble
forced into humbleness
by his good manners
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On November 25 2013 15:29 Chewits wrote:
Michael Schumacher.
LOL except that Sebastian Vettel just smashed every single record Schumacher had, plus he isnt even considered the best F1 driver and also was a cheat.
Simply not true.
On November 25 2013 16:20 cariadon wrote:
And Ferrari had a clear edge with the car.
Tell that to his team mates.
At least the records that are not gained by career lenght, Vettel was more dominant this season than Schumacher were in any year of his career.
Schmacher isnt widely considered the best F1 driver, many people will say Senna, Proust Fangio or others.
Schumacher also has the record for black flags in Formula 1 and has always been a dirty driver, plus he cheated multiple times in his career with launch control in Benetto and also his team cheated in pits re-fuling with no filter in the hose.
The team 2nd river does not have the same car than the main driver, obviously Barichellos Ferrari wasnt the same, it was the test car for Schumacher, thats why Schumachers Ferrai has the record as the most reliable F1 champion car while you see Barichello's car blowing up and randomly loosing wheels so often.
Bonus clip: Schumacher cheating blocking the track in the last lap of qualification blocking alonzo
srsly tho, that swiss chump doesnt even have a Grand Slam, cmon
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On November 25 2013 04:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
It's still insanely difficult to do and incredibly dominant, otherwise a bunch of other swimmers would have a dozen gold medals as well. There's only 30 male Olympians with with more than 5 gold medals, and only 3 of them are swimmers.
Setting 35 world records isn't so amazing in a sport where you can break the record by 1 cm at a time. There's also weight lifters with just as many world records because they break the record by 1kg at a time.
you can break the swimming world record by 1 mili second lol, your argument is dumb.
Also i agree with Drone there are just so many styles and distances in swimming is not fair to other spots, you dont see "100m dash with flailing your arms around" event, "100m running like a duck" event do you?
You realize that at pole vaulting a jumper can just set the bar at 5,01m, jump 7m and the new record will be 5,01m right? Then on his next jump he can set it on 5.02m and break the record, then 5.03m and break the record, right? A sprinter or swimmer can't determine that he is going to swim exactly 0.01s better than his previous record. Else every athlete in the world would do it as they get paid for broken records.
im a regular at nl5
Last edit: 25/11/2013 18:41
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 25 2013 19:04. Posts 7690
ok, hmm, i enjoy this question
most dominant athlete of all time? at a specific time? michael phelps
without putting it in terms of who they are competing against? wilt chamberlain
overall? if I was a hockey fan maybe I'd be saying wayne gretzky but I am a basketball fan so I will say michael jordan. and tiger woods/jerry rice get runnerup awards
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
0
hiems United States. Nov 25 2013 19:07. Posts 2979
On November 25 2013 16:58 player999 wrote:
srsly tho, that swiss chump doesnt even have a Grand Slam, cmon
He has career grand slam? But agreed, no way Federer is Goat athlete.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
1
Nitewin United States. Nov 25 2013 19:17. Posts 1539
Lebron James' size and athleticism.
1
YoMeR United States. Nov 25 2013 19:28. Posts 12435
On November 25 2013 16:58 player999 wrote:
srsly tho, that swiss chump doesnt even have a Grand Slam, cmon
He has career grand slam? But agreed, no way Federer is Goat athlete.
The True Grand Slam, as in, 4 slams in the same season
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On November 25 2013 15:29 Chewits wrote:
Michael Schumacher.
LOL except that Sebastian Vettel just smashed every single record Schumacher had, plus he isnt even considered the best F1 driver and also was a cheat.
Simply not true.
On November 25 2013 16:20 cariadon wrote:
And Ferrari had a clear edge with the car.
Tell that to his team mates.
At least the records that are not gained by career lenght, Vettel was more dominant this season than Schumacher were in any year of his career.
Schmacher isnt widely considered the best F1 driver, many people will say Senna, Proust Fangio or others.
Schumacher also has the record for black flags in Formula 1 and has always been a dirty driver, plus he cheated multiple times in his career with launch control in Benetto and also his team cheated in pits re-fuling with no filter in the hose.
The team 2nd river does not have the same car than the main driver, obviously Barichellos Ferrari wasnt the same, it was the test car for Schumacher, thats why Schumachers Ferrai has the record as the most reliable F1 champion car while you see Barichello's car blowing up and randomly loosing wheels so often.
Bonus clip: Schumacher cheating blocking the track in the last lap of qualification blocking alonzo
Bonus clip 2: Ferrari ordering Barrichelo to let Schumacher win
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Last edit: 25/11/2013 19:38
1
YoMeR United States. Nov 25 2013 19:54. Posts 12435
hard to really put a single man dominating a sport like racing...where the engineers/prep team/pit crews have so much to do with the shortterm and longterm success of the team. not to mention more R&D money = win in many racing sports.
eZ Life.
1
TalentedTom Canada. Nov 25 2013 20:57. Posts 20070
Wilt Chamberlin
Roger Federer
Mike Tyson first 46 fights
Michael Schumacher
Bolt is dominating, but his sample sizes are so small + performance in his sport is independent. You technically can just record each runner doing an individual 100m sprint and the best time wins where the guys mentioned above, their results are directly affected by their competition. If Bolt can run the sprint in under 9,8 he wins 90% of the time regardless of how many other competitors there are.
As a team - Not sure if there is anything close to the original NBA "dream team"
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
0
hiems United States. Nov 25 2013 21:00. Posts 2979
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
1
blackjacki2 United States. Nov 25 2013 21:14. Posts 2581
On November 25 2013 04:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
It's still insanely difficult to do and incredibly dominant, otherwise a bunch of other swimmers would have a dozen gold medals as well. There's only 30 male Olympians with with more than 5 gold medals, and only 3 of them are swimmers.
Setting 35 world records isn't so amazing in a sport where you can break the record by 1 cm at a time. There's also weight lifters with just as many world records because they break the record by 1kg at a time.
you can break the swimming world record by 1 mili second lol, your argument is dumb.
Also i agree with Drone there are just so many styles and distances in swimming is not fair to other spots, you dont see "100m dash with flailing your arms around" event, "100m running like a duck" event do you?
100m
200m
400m
110m hurdles
400m hurdles
4x100 relay
4x400 relay
7 golds right there for Bolt to win.
of course you almost never see someone competing and winning in both a 100m sprint and a 110m hurdle. Or a 100m sprint and 400m sprint. But then again you also don't see someone competing in every different stroke of swimming. If you look at the fields for each different stroke they are usually different every time. Swimmers hope to qualify for the Olympics in 1-2 strokes. You don't often see someone qualifying for every stroke and winning gold medals in every stroke and setting world records in every stroke, especially when you are not getting a lot of rest because your schedule is packed with races in 8 different disciplines.
Anyway, I'm not saying that having more gold medals already makes him more dominant. I'm saying it's just dumb to dismiss gold medals as a metric for dominance simply because he has more opportunities to win them. It's no more random of a metric than Bradman's batting average, or Jordan's points per game, or the squash guy's 555 games won in a row.
On November 25 2013 18:54 YoMeR wrote:
hard to really put a single man dominating a sport like racing...where the engineers/prep team/pit crews have so much to do with the shortterm and longterm success of the team. not to mention more R&D money = win in many racing sports.
That happens but mostly on Formula 1, Sebastian Loeb is the most dominating rally driver in history and possibly the best driver that has ever lived.
On November 25 2013 04:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
It's still insanely difficult to do and incredibly dominant, otherwise a bunch of other swimmers would have a dozen gold medals as well. There's only 30 male Olympians with with more than 5 gold medals, and only 3 of them are swimmers.
Setting 35 world records isn't so amazing in a sport where you can break the record by 1 cm at a time. There's also weight lifters with just as many world records because they break the record by 1kg at a time.
you can break the swimming world record by 1 mili second lol, your argument is dumb.
Also i agree with Drone there are just so many styles and distances in swimming is not fair to other spots, you dont see "100m dash with flailing your arms around" event, "100m running like a duck" event do you?
100m
200m
400m
110m hurdles
400m hurdles
4x100 relay
4x400 relay
7 golds right there for Bolt to win.
of course you almost never see someone competing and winning in both a 100m sprint and a 110m hurdle. Or a 100m sprint and 400m sprint. But then again you also don't see someone competing in every different stroke of swimming. If you look at the fields for each different stroke they are usually different every time. Swimmers hope to qualify for the Olympics in 1-2 strokes. You don't often see someone qualifying for every stroke and winning gold medals in every stroke and setting world records in every stroke, especially when you are not getting a lot of rest because your schedule is packed with races in 8 different disciplines.
Anyway, I'm not saying that having more gold medals already makes him more dominant. I'm saying it's just dumb to dismiss gold medals as a metric for dominance simply because he has more opportunities to win them. It's no more random of a metric than Bradman's batting average, or Jordan's points per game, or the squash guy's 555 games won in a row.
Except that those are distances and one with obstacles, not arbitrary rules to do the same thing, the equivalent would be to running backwards and ridiculous shit, also running is something that comes natural to humans so I think its to be expected to have more variants but it doesnt, somehow its the opposite.
And no, Gold medals arent the equivalent as a statistic to measure dominance as to say winning X amount of games in a row, because lets say a Jude guy in the olimpics that hypotetically IS the most dominant atheltete of all time wouldnt match his amount of medals.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 25/11/2013 21:28
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Nov 25 2013 21:31. Posts 5296
top 10 batters in test cricket.
Completed Test career batting averages
Donald Bradman (AUS)
99.94
Graeme Pollock (SAF)
60.97
George Headley (WI)
60.83
Herbert Sutcliffe (ENG)
60.73
Eddie Paynter (ENG)
59.23
Ken Barrington (ENG)
58.67
Everton Weekes (WI)
58.61
Wally Hammond (ENG)
58.45
Garfield Sobers (WI)
57.78
Jack Hobbs (ENG)
56.94
Clyde Walcott (WI)
56.68
Len Hutton (ENG)
56.67
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
TheHuHu3 United States. Nov 25 2013 21:36. Posts 5544
Usain Bolt and Gretzky. Seriously, read up on Gretzky's accomplishment. Guy is the GOAT.
TheHuHu4 coming soon :)
1
TalentedTom Canada. Nov 25 2013 21:54. Posts 20070
^^ yeah Gretzky is by far the most goat hockey player. He is so far ahead of anyone else, that his records may never be beaten (like Chamberlin in his prime)
I would also put Barry Bonds on the list, guy dominated in the modern era. I checked out some old batting averages in the earlier years of baseball, guys were constantly batting 400+ per season. Then pitching caught up and a bunch of pitching records were made, now we are in the middle.
I'd also like to add Rob Ford as GOAT mayor. Guy is my new hero. I will vote for him in the upcoming election.
LE Goat 49s interview
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
Last edit: 25/11/2013 22:02
1
chris United States. Nov 25 2013 22:15. Posts 5503
John Daly
5 minute showers are my 8 minute abs. - Neilly
1
NMcNasty United States. Nov 25 2013 23:40. Posts 2039
I'm gonna say its a close one between Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods.
I would say Gretzky has the best stats / accomplishments of all time, but during the period after Lemieux entered the league you could compare the two and Lemieux was arguably the better player.
The basketball Wilt played was just a different game, and Lebron doesn't seem to inject the energy into his team that Jordan did. There's still time for Lebron though.
The easy answer would be Wayne Gretzky, but the problem is Mario Lemieux... If it weren't for him, Wayne would win this easily. He's like more than 50% better than every other players (except for Mario Lemieux), and at a sport popular and big like hockey!
On November 25 2013 04:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
It's still insanely difficult to do and incredibly dominant, otherwise a bunch of other swimmers would have a dozen gold medals as well. There's only 30 male Olympians with with more than 5 gold medals, and only 3 of them are swimmers.
Setting 35 world records isn't so amazing in a sport where you can break the record by 1 cm at a time. There's also weight lifters with just as many world records because they break the record by 1kg at a time.
you can break the swimming world record by 1 mili second lol, your argument is dumb.
Also i agree with Drone there are just so many styles and distances in swimming is not fair to other spots, you dont see "100m dash with flailing your arms around" event, "100m running like a duck" event do you?
Lol wtf. You can break it by 1 miliseconds, but its not like " hmm lets slow down, so I break the WR by 1 ms and I can break it again by 1 ms in the next 34 events as well. And thats how it works in high jump, pole vault, weightlifting, etc
1
bananarama New Zealand. Nov 26 2013 13:08. Posts 282
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
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
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
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.
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
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
long jump isnt progressing for some reason, yet the other 2 are progressing very fast
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
1
blackjacki2 United States. Nov 26 2013 18:19. Posts 2581
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 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
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
If there were as many clay majors as there are hard courts, Nadal would have twice as much titles than him
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
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.
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
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
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
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
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
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
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Dude ATP tournaments arent even close compared to grand slams, those are possibly 2 extra sets more to play, the game completely changes, not only on a physical level too. And getting 5 slams w/o being in your prime is HUGE
0
hiems United States. Nov 27 2013 05:05. Posts 2979
On November 27 2013 03:28 Spitfiree wrote:
Dude ATP tournaments arent even close compared to grand slams, those are possibly 2 extra sets more to play, the game completely changes, not only on a physical level too. And getting 5 slams w/o being in your prime is HUGE
Not arguing with you Grand Slams are probably more difficult. But your comment segues nicely to an idea I had recently.
Anyway I was watching the ATP Grand Finals a few weeks ago Djokovic vs Nadal. I enjoyed watching it a lot, probably more than any Grand Slam event. The feeling I got was that it was really well run. the players definitely care alot about the event and they wern't exhausted from playing all week best of 5 sets either. I also kinda liked the 3 set format as it made it easy to watch.
I'm curious if I am a minority as I felt pretty strongly about this
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
On November 26 2013 19:06 player999 wrote:
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
Lol, your hate towards Federer is too damn high. Stop bullshitting about what if there were 94 clay GSs and 77 hard court and what if we remove 5 years from his prime. Like wtf is that? Why is that even relevant? What remains in history is WHAT actually happened in the given conditions, not WHAT WOULD HAVE happened IF this or that.
Federer is clearly the more talented player for me, but Nadal's hardwork has earned his place among the best (he was even "forced" by his uncle at a very fragile age to play with his left hand, to gain an advantage). People tell all the time that IF Nadal had not been injured, bla bla -well, guess what? He gets injured exactly cause of the hardwork, of the effort he makes to reach every ball. If he doesnt put himself on risk by making such efforts, he would not be injured BUT he would not be this good either. So deal with it.
Yes, Nadal beat the shit out of Fed many times, but the elegancy, classiness, consistency (23 GS semfinals in a row), sweat-free play that Federer produced during his peak, is unmatched.
Oh, and btw, there are 6 hard-court ATP 1000s to the 3 clay ones. Why would that be more relevant than the 2 to 1 GS? This is like saying a a turbo 100$ HU is more relevant than a regular speed 250$ to determine who the better HU player is.
On November 26 2013 19:06 player999 wrote:
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 Fed
erer, and Laver was clearly A LOT more dominant during his time
Lol, your hate towards Federer is too damn high. Stop bullshitting about what if there were 94 clay GSs and 77 hard court and what if we remove 5 years from his prime. Like wtf is that? Why is that even relevant? What remains in history is WHAT actually happened in the given conditions, not WHAT WOULD HAVE happened IF this or that.
Federer is clearly the more talented player for me, but Nadal's hardwork has earned his place among the best (he was even "forced" by his uncle at a very fragile age to play with his left hand, to gain an advantage). People tell all the time that IF Nadal had not been injured, bla bla -well, guess what? He gets injured exactly cause of the hardwork, of the effort he makes to reach every ball. If he doesnt put himself on risk by making such efforts, he would not be injured BUT he would not be this good either. So deal with it.
Yes, Nadal beat the shit out of Fed many times, but the elegancy, classiness, consistency (23 GS semfinals in a row), sweat-free play that Federer produced during his peak, is unmatched.
Oh, and btw, there are 6 hard-court ATP 1000s to the 3 clay ones. Why would that be more relevant than the 2 to 1 GS? This is like saying a a turbo 100$ HU is more relevant than a regular speed 250$ to determine who the better HU player is.
There were points made beside the "what ifs", the main one being that you can't say a guy with a 10-22 is against someone is that most dominant athlete ever, or even more dominant tennis player ever, specially when you have crushers like Rod Laver or even Borg, who were a lot of levels above the 2nd best of their time
Sure his play is the most elegant, but the thread isn't about the most elegant, and sure he would beat anyone from the past if he could go back in time to play, but that's not the point either
And the point of the 5 years is relevant because if the only thing that matters to determine who is the best is Grand Slam titles, Laver's 11 is still much more impressive because he wasn't allowed to play them during 5 years, right when he was at his best
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
I mean, the guy won all 4 Grand Slams in 1962, and then won all 4 again in 1969. If he had competed from 1963 to 1967, he would have an incredible amount that Federer wouldn't dream to reach. He didn't even manage to win all 4 in a season ever, because even at his prime he was losing 0-6 sets to Nadal in France. How is that domination?
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On November 27 2013 06:38 player999 wrote:
I mean, the guy won all 4 Grand Slams in 1962, and then won all 4 again in 1969. If he had competed from 1963 to 1967, he would have an incredible amount that Federer wouldn't dream to reach. He didn't even manage to win all 4 in a season ever, because even at his prime he was losing 0-6 sets to Nadal in France. How is that domination?
Nonsense. Back then at Laver's time, 3 of the slams were played on grass. Stop considering him the GOAT because of the calendar year grand slam, it was a completely different sport. Make 3 of the slams played on grass between 2002 and 2012 and Federer would have 25 slams (same applies to Nadal if as many were played on clay). At one point in his career he was as dominant on Grass as Nadal was on Clay. Also, can you imagine how many more Master Series Federer would have if there were 3 MS on Grass each year? That's why coming up with "if gs were played on x surface...." is useless. The tour is as it is.
Nadal became a top player earlier than Federer. When he was 17 or 18 he beat Federer for the first time in miami. That's why it's so impressive that he's playing as well as he is at 28yo considering he's been playing over 50 matches a year since he was 18. Federer on the other hand only became a top player around 2002 when he was 20 or 21. Also in tennis you measure dominance against the field, not against a certain player. Nadal's domination over Federer is clearly a match up issue. It doesn't show "how much better Nadal is". Else you can make up some stupid tennis math like "Federer > Davydenko > Nadal", because Davydenko has a winning record over Nadal over a 11 match sample.
Federer had 3 yearly 90%+ winning record (in a row) in his career, Nadal had one. You can have an argument on Nadal being the GOAT tennis player because he dominated every top player from his generation, but Federer was clearly a more dominant tennis player. Making 18 out of 19 possible GS finals in a row basically shows how dominant he was during his prime.
On November 27 2013 07:19 Raidern wrote:
Nonsense. Back then at Laver's time, 3 of the slams were played on grass.
And today 3 are either grass or hard, which are both fast courts and both favour Federer's style, so I don't see your point.
Stop considering him the GOAT because of the calendar year grand slam, it was a completely different sport. Make 3 of the slams played on grass between 2002 and 2012 and Federer would have 25 slams (same applies to Nadal if as many were played on clay).
He wouldn't, his 2-1 grass record against Nadal is pretty even, and the matches were absolutely even aswell. But that point is not important, since I was just pointing out that the less amount of clay Slams is what stops Nadal from being number 1 in Slam titles (if that's the decisive factor in judging greatness). But what stopped Laver is a different reason, his Grand Slam record is clearly more impressive because of the years not allowed to play.
At one point in his career he was as dominant on Grass as Nadal was on Clay.
Never, he was always played even matches against Nadal on grass, and he was at his absolute prime then. On clay, Nadal always played Federer on his prime like he was playing against a 8yo down syndrome child.
Also, can you imagine how many more Master Series Federer would have if there were 3 MS on Grass each year? That's why coming up with "if gs were played on x surface...." is useless. The tour is as it is.
There are still more hard courts than clay, and Nadal still beats him. But yes, that tour is as it is and my point was never that Nadal was the most dominant ever, but that Laver was. Nadal is just a side-point to say that he is someone who absolutely crushed Federer during his entire career on all surfaces, so therefore Federer didn't dominate as bad as Laver did by any means.
Nadal became a top player earlier than Federer. When he was 17 or 18 he beat Federer for the first time in miami. That's why it's so impressive that he's playing as well as he is at 28yo considering he's been playing over 50 matches a year since he was 18. Federer on the other hand only became a top player around 2002 when he was 20 or 21. Also in tennis you measure dominance against the field, not against a certain player. Nadal's domination over Federer is clearly a match up issue. It doesn't show "how much better Nadal is". Else you can make up some stupid tennis math like "Federer > Davydenko > Nadal", because Davydenko has a winning record over Nadal over a 11 match sample.
Again that's just a point to say Federer is better than Nadal, which I disagree but respect the opinion. What I don't respect is saying Federer was more dominant that Laver was, or even worse, to compare Federer's dominance with the likes of Khan, Bradman or Karelin, that's just stupid.
Federer had 3 yearly 90%+ winning record (in a row) in his career, Nadal had one. You can have an argument on Nadal being the GOAT tennis player because he dominated every top player from his generation, but Federer was clearly a more dominant tennis player. Making 18 out of 19 possible GS finals in a row basically shows how dominant he was during his prime.
The only reason Laver doesn't have something better than this 18/19 was the 5 year issue. He still will probably hold forever his 29 matches winstreak in Grand Slams and 22 titles in a single season.
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
During the years Laver wasn't allowed to play GS's, Roy Emerson was god, won almost everything, 13 Slam titles on that period. And Emerson was 18-49 lifetime vs Laver.
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Are you related to Laver by any chance? You are taking this way too seriously and personally. Relax.
Roger is one of the great athletes of our time and deserves a mention. Athletes of today are by and large superior to their compatriots from the past and this is what makes this such a nice conversation topic. Whatever you say won't discount Fed Ex from belonging in the list. Feel free to add Laver, or your dad.
What if athletes could timetravel from the past? Who would still dominate the sport today with the physical capabilities and other means of their day?
"Phil Mickelson had never eagled multiple holes in the same round of The Masters. On Saturday, he became the third man in history to card one on back-to-back holes. And then he came within 12 inches of making it three-in-a-row." That is hard to achieve. It requires a fair bit of luck aswell Any other examples to keep the thread going?
I'm surprised crossfits Froning hasn't resonated with anyone. The idea behind crossfit is basically being the most physically able person you can be.
On November 27 2013 11:28 cariadon wrote:
Roger is one of the great athletes of our time and deserves a mention. Athletes of today are by and large superior to their compatriots from the past and this is what makes this such a nice conversation topic.
this isn't the "great athletes of our time" thread, I think half the people who posted doesn't realize what the thread is about (prob too lazy to read the very detailed original post)
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On November 27 2013 11:28 cariadon wrote:
Are you related to Laver by any chance?
also, my main point there was just to point out that someone who isn't even the most dominant (or, at least, isn't clearly) does not belong in the discussion that this thread is about, as his dominance is quite clearly far far away from Karelin, Khan, Bradman
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
nadal 22-10 federer
federer 16-15 djokovic
murray 11-9 federer
meanwhile...
nadal 22-10 federer
nadal 22-17 djokovic
nadal 13-5 murray
there is no way federer can be considered in any most dominant list. hes still the GOAT in tennis though, for the time being at least.
serena has a winning record against every player ranked #1 with at least 8 games played, and a winning record vs every player ranked #2, #3 or #4 (with the exception of 0-1 to mary joe fernandez who she played once in 1999).
Player999, my reply to your posts was basically against two points: Nadal being more dominant than Federer and taking in consideration Laver's inflated numbers because he played in a weird time where only three countries took tennis seriously: usa, australia and france. Comparing Federer's dominance (during his prime) to Laver's dominance is like comparing Barcelona winning La Liga 4 times in a row to a team in Serie D of a country in Africa winning 208 matches in a row. That was a different sport. I (now) think the same way about Pele or whoever was great during their time back in the 40s, 50s, 60s (except for a few sports/events which oddly enough don't seem to evolve a lot such as long jump)
Also you are delusional if you think that Federer wasn't as dominant on grass as Nadal was on clay. Federer had a 65 winning streak on grass which ran from 03 through 08, when he lost to Nadal. Using their close matches as a "proof" that he wasn't as dominant is a poor point as Nadal had his load of 3rd-set tie break wins (in bo3 matches) and close matches in his winning series as well.
Also my point on the 3 GS on grass thing (about Laver) is that a CYGS in the 60s isn't much of a big deal like it is today because it was not played in 3 different surfaces. That's the way I see it. If a player wins a CYGS in our time I think it's a lot more impressive because of the surface thing, even though in the last 10-5 years the way surfaces are played changed a lot (grass/hc are slower and clay is faster).
Just to make it clear, I didn't say Federer is the tennis GOAT. I used to think so a few years ago, but now I like the idea of several greats better in tennis. The way I see it, Federer has the numbers (not only GS, but #1 weeks, among others), but I can't think of him being the "goat" while he is so easily dominated by an opponent. I also never claimed that Federer should be considered one of the most dominant athletes ever. In closure, amateur era numbers are fucking inflated. There were tournaments with 12-24 players back then. Before Laver's time there champions who only needed to play one match to win a grand slam. Also the "Pro scene" during the amateur era was incredibly small. Check the draws.
On November 27 2013 15:19 Raidern wrote:
Also you are delusional if you think that Federer wasn't as dominant on grass as Nadal was on clay. Federer had a 65 winning streak on grass which ran from 03 through 08, when he lost to Nadal. Using their close matches as a "proof" that he wasn't as dominant is a poor point as Nadal had his load of 3rd-set tie break wins (in bo3 matches) and close matches in his winning series as well.
Simply completely wrong. If the fact that a lot of Federer's finals in Winbledom were really close, specially against Nadal, and Nadal's wins were mostly 3x0 (with TWO of his French opens being won without losing a single set) isn't enough for you, then just let the numbers talk:
Federer on grass 122-18 winrate 87.1% - 7 Grand Slam titles out of 15 played - biggest winstreak 65 in a row
Nadal on clay 293–21 winrate 93.31% - 8 Grand Slam titles out of 9 played - biggest winstreak 81 in a row
Nadal's clay stats beat Federer's grass in any category whatsoever.
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On November 27 2013 15:19 Raidern wrote:
he played in a weird time where only three countries took tennis seriously: usa, australia and france.
This is a stupid statement
Comparing Federer's dominance (during his prime) to Laver's dominance is like comparing Barcelona winning La Liga 4 times in a row to a team in Serie D of a country in Africa winning 208 matches in a row.
This is a whole new level of stupid. He played against the best of the world of his time, not against shitty competition like your Africa team example.
Also you are delusional if you think that Federer wasn't as dominant on grass as Nadal was on clay. Federer had a 65 winning streak on grass which ran from 03 through 08, when he lost to Nadal.
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Last edit: 27/11/2013 17:11
1
blackjacki2 United States. Nov 27 2013 18:19. Posts 2581
^Era has to be considered. Bill Russell has 11 NBA championships to Michael Jordan's 6 but nobody considers Bill Russell to be the GOAT
On November 27 2013 16:10 player999 wrote:
This is a stupid statement
This is a whole new level of stupid. He played against the best of the world of his time, not against shitty competition like your Africa team example.
I'll refrain from commenting on your first two comments because they were idiotic. I'll just leave this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole. Your last point is beyond retarded. Federer played and won every single grass match possible between 2003-2008, he couldn't have a higher number of victories (or a shorter streak) because the grass season lasts 2 weeks. Nadal's streak is higher because guess what there are more clay matches per year to be played. I'm shocked that you came up with "nadal's streak was 81" lmao
On November 27 2013 16:10 player999 wrote:
This is a stupid statement
This is a whole new level of stupid. He played against the best of the world of his time, not against shitty competition like your Africa team example.
I'll refrain from commenting on your first two comments because they were idiotic. I'll just leave this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole. Your last point is beyond retarded. Federer played and won every single grass match possible between 2003-2008, he couldn't have a higher number of victories (or a shorter streak) because the grass season lasts 2 weeks. Nadal's streak is higher because guess what there are more clay matches per year to be played. I'm shocked that you came up with "nadal's streak was 81" lmao
lolwut
he could've won more in 2009, the reason he didnt is because he lost, you sound like he retired in 2008
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
I'm not sure whether you are serious, trolling, or just have an uncanny difficulty in understanding what is written. Try reading again multiple times, maybe it will help. If it doesn't, don't bother making another post because I won't reply.
how is a 65 win streak in any way more impressive than a 81 win streak? just because it was on a longer time span? that makes 0 sense
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
that's like saying that a MMA champion that defends his belt 10 times in 10 years before losing the 11th is more impressive than someone who defended 15 times in 5 years
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Look for my posts and quote the part where I said that Federer's streak is more impressive than Nadal's streak.
I said Federer, during a certain period in his career, was as dominant on grass as Nadal was on Clay. You said he didn't. I showed his streak, during which he won 5 grass slams in a row. I never showed it as a "Federer > Nadal" argument. If you don't think he was as dominant, fine, whatever. Maybe read what the press used to write about Federer on grass or even take some time and watch a couple of his matches, if you like watching tennis.
I feel like best days of tennis are yet to come tho with currents top25 players progressing really fast skillwise, and most of them are in their early 20s too
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 27 2013 20:21. Posts 3093
On November 25 2013 04:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
thats just cuz swimming has so many events. olympic medals is a poor way of establishing how dominant someone is anyway, as it's only every 4 years. bubka set 35 world records, but only won 1 olympic gold medal.
It's still insanely difficult to do and incredibly dominant, otherwise a bunch of other swimmers would have a dozen gold medals as well. There's only 30 male Olympians with with more than 5 gold medals, and only 3 of them are swimmers.
Setting 35 world records isn't so amazing in a sport where you can break the record by 1 cm at a time. There's also weight lifters with just as many world records because they break the record by 1kg at a time.
you can break the swimming world record by 1 mili second lol, your argument is dumb.
Also i agree with Drone there are just so many styles and distances in swimming is not fair to other spots, you dont see "100m dash with flailing your arms around" event, "100m running like a duck" event do you?
You realize that at pole vaulting a jumper can just set the bar at 5,01m, jump 7m and the new record will be 5,01m right? Then on his next jump he can set it on 5.02m and break the record, then 5.03m and break the record, right? A sprinter or swimmer can't determine that he is going to swim exactly 0.01s better than his previous record. Else every athlete in the world would do it as they get paid for broken records.
You know, I actually agree that world records isn't a good metric for dominance for a pole vaulter much for the same reason olympic medals doesn't make a swimmer the greatest ever. But you can't just downplay it like that. (just like phelps' 22 medals is absolutely crazy impressive! it just doesn't make him the best by default because he has the most medals.) I mean, every time he sets a new world record he does beat the previous one, and nobody else even beat the one he started with. granted that when I read up on it the 35 number is inflated cuz it includes outdoors and indoors events, it basically means that he was like 30 cm better than #2.. (how much he increased the world record by)
in percentage, moving it from 5.85 to 6.15 is like improving the 100 meter dash from 9.58 to like, 9.10?
heh you guys just like to argue about stuff that cant be agreed upon lol
too many factors to consider. how about reduce it to most dominant in each sport instead of mashing every single sport conceived
a few interesting tennis anecdotes from a friend who was formerly ranked #350 at his peak.
-my friend used to do speed training drills with a buddy of his who was ranked around #100. said he never ever won. his friend did the same speed drills with roddick occasionally (who is not really known for his speed) and said he never ever won. and you know if roddick did those drills against murray/djok/fed/nadal he would just get smoked. speed is fucking important
-apparently most of the the guys at the top are roiding pretty hard. especially nadal. every time he skips a tournament due to injury its supposedly because he failed a test and instead of making it public, the ATP quietly has him disappear for a few months and recover from "injury". who knows how true that is, but if true and it ever comes out could be a big black eye for tennis, more so because of the coverups
-he played a match somewhere against john mcenroe when mcenroe was about 50. 15-20 years after he retired. lost 6-0 6-1. said mcenroe was pissed he didnt give him a better match. said that it was just impossible to ever get in a groove against him.
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
Last edit: 27/11/2013 22:10
0
hiems United States. Nov 27 2013 22:30. Posts 2979
If that's true about steroids that is one insane let down.
Makes sense though. Professional tennis has gotten to pretty lol levels of intensity...Nadal and Murray seem pretty superhuman physically.
I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]
Havent red all the posts but has someone mentioned
Michael Schumacher in his prime 1994-2004 ?
7x formula 1 world championships within 2 different teams including 91Victories within ~ 180races (in his prime) (In his prime he won ~50% of the races he attended ...)
U see what i did there with A8 ? He 4 bets and there we go insta jam A8 : ---booooom -- . hahahaha ( Krantz)
1
bigredhoss Cook Islands. Dec 04 2013 09:39. Posts 8648
On November 27 2013 17:19 blackjacki2 wrote:
^Era has to be considered. Bill Russell has 11 NBA championships to Michael Jordan's 6 but nobody considers Bill Russell to be the GOAT
plenty of people consider Russell to be the GOAT (in basketball)
Truck-Crash Life
Last edit: 04/12/2013 09:52
1
TimDawg United States. Dec 04 2013 15:47. Posts 10197
not saying he is the GOAT in football but surprised no one has mentioned Jim Brown
my votes for overall GOAT in no particular order would be...
Michael Jordan
Michael Phelps
Mike Tyson
Tiger Woods
if I had to pick one, I'd take Jordan but I'm probably a bit biased with basketball being my favorite sport
online bob is actually a pretty smart person, not at all like the creepy fucker that sits in the sofa telling me he does nasty shit to me when im asleep - pinball
Last edit: 04/12/2013 15:51
1
bigredhoss Cook Islands. Dec 04 2013 16:32. Posts 8648
my football GOAT is Jerry Rice but im a 49ers fan...
i skimmed through a couple pages but i don't think i saw Babe Ruth mentioned either? i think he belongs in the same category as Jordan/Woods/etc. i don't know how to compare people who play fucking darts or squash or hopscotch or whatever.
On December 04 2013 07:03 PplusAD wrote:
Havent red all the posts but has someone mentioned
Michael Schumacher in his prime 1994-2004 ?
7x formula 1 world championships within 2 different teams including 91Victories within ~ 180races (in his prime) (In his prime he won ~50% of the races he attended ...)
I'll copy what I just wrote to a friend of mine, who I was discussing the Olympics with:
I'll tell you a little story, you know that the Winter Olympics is going on now. And in the Scandinavian countries, the Winter Olympics is what we specialize in, and focus on. It's regarded as much more important than the Summer Olympics.
We have organized ski institutes that takes kids at a very young age, and all the schools in our entire country scour to find young prodigy's. We have special schools only for skiing's, and on the curriculum during gym class, it's a ton of skiing.
Anyway, Today it's ski shooting, and once more, a guy, who's already got Legend status awhile ago, and should have retired, still got picked to be one of the skiiers to fight for Norway.
His name is Ole Einar Bjørndalen, and what he's accomplished is insane, since he was a kid, 18,19, or something he's been fighting, over 20 years. Now he's over 40. And just now, he's going to win the 1st place, again. And his biggest strength was his speed, he outclassed all the young guns, it's insane.
He's competed in 103 World cup, or olympic races. It's just insane.
His routine is also legendary, he has 2-3 free days a year, on Christmas, and on birthday's, where he can do what he wants, other than that, he never misses on sleep, he never eats unhealthy, it's all focus on his craft.
He's the oldest winner in the genre as well, he's broken all the records there is to break for a Winter Athlete.
So insane, the commentators on Norwegian TV, just kept screaming and shouting for minutes when they realized he had the win.
edit - before you continue this story, I have to tell you. No one from any Scandinavian country qualifies for greatest of all time.
Shit, I'm from a country that produces a high amount of elite athletes considering our population, and I can only think of one athlete that could possibly even be mentioned in this race.
And I don't think he even holds a candle to the GOAT.
Last edit: 08/02/2014 13:01
1
blackjacki2 United States. Feb 08 2014 13:51. Posts 2581
On February 08 2014 11:58 devon06atX wrote:
So, no, Ole doesn't qualify.
edit - before you continue this story, I have to tell you. No one from any Scandinavian country qualifies for greatest of all time.
Shit, I'm from a country that produces a high amount of elite athletes considering our population, and I can only think of one athlete that could possibly even be mentioned in this race.
And I don't think he even holds a candle to the GOAT.
Thinking that Ole doesn't qualify while some black dude dunking the basketball does and i love NBA but cmon, dude has been best at what he does for 20 years.
redsnuff: bets all in with bad preflop hand and tell me to learn poker redsnuff: senceless
Last edit: 08/02/2014 15:16
1
waga United Kingdom. Feb 08 2014 16:48. Posts 2375
On February 08 2014 14:15 dUUd_ wrote:
Thinking that Ole doesn't qualify while some black dude dunking the basketball does and i love NBA but cmon, dude has been best at what he does for 20 years.
TalentedTom Canada. Feb 08 2014 22:12. Posts 20070
Garry Kasparov
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
1
bigredhoss Cook Islands. Feb 09 2014 05:08. Posts 8648
On February 08 2014 14:15 dUUd_ wrote:
Thinking that Ole doesn't qualify while some black dude dunking the basketball does and i love NBA but cmon, dude has been best at what he does for 20 years.
Looking at the first post carefully, can think of no one that fits this description, perhaps I don't follow that many sports.
There have been people dominating a sport for 10-20 years but there was someone before or after them in another era that had similar domination and it is hard to say who was more impressive... Looking at F1 - Schumacher was THE monster in his prime which lasted so many years (regardless if he was ready to sometimes cross the sportsmanship line) but when we look back we have Clark, Fangio... can't really claim that one of those was clearly the best, above the other ones. Prost and Senna I think similar in greatness to those three, but completely out of question because their careers partly overlapped and it was so obvious that neither dominated over the other
My work is of high quality, cheap and fast. Pick only two of those though.
4
TianYuan Korea (South). Feb 09 2014 10:43. Posts 6817
On December 04 2013 14:47 TimDawg wrote:
not saying he is the GOAT in football but surprised no one has mentioned Jim Brown
my votes for overall GOAT in no particular order would be...
Michael Jordan
Michael Phelps
Mike Tyson
Tiger Woods
if I had to pick one, I'd take Jordan but I'm probably a bit biased with basketball being my favorite sport
I feel its like Starcraft broodwar, if people knew all the technique, work etic and effort put into doing what they do.
And it's insane amount of competition, all of northern, west europe, russia, tcheckia or how you spell it, sweden, tons of countries, canada too.
And we call him "The 24 hours athlete", because he's never of the clock, feel it's much more impressive than most of the people mentioned in the thread.
Only reason I said I didn't think he's a contender is because it's not a popular sport at all imo. Growing up, I've never known one person to practice ski shooting. Not one. Nor have I ever heard of one competition, and I've lived lots of places in this massive country.
It might be popular where you live, but it's difficult to compare someone who absolutely dominates at a sport that doesn't have nearly as many athletes competing in it, as opposed to say... running, boxing or tennis. It's kind of like comparing some kickass free face rock climber (who does that, really?) to a sprinter.
I personally find it ridiculous that people even mention F1 drivers as the GOAT as well. I mean, c'mon.
All that being said, I gotta say - Ole is one amazing guy. I can't imagine the discipline that crazy fella has, but good on him. I'm glad he won.
I think both Ole and probably Bjørn Dæhlie is at least top 100 or something. Norway is dope when it comes to winter sports. They can't play hockey for shit for some reason, but anything you can do on a mountain they do better then anyone else per capita lol.
freestyle wrestling is more popular than greco roman. and saitiev is likely the best ever. his brother also had a very successful career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Saitiev
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
Last edit: 09/02/2014 13:17
1
Venrae United States. Feb 09 2014 19:59. Posts 1545
holy shit that guy is a monster
Learn to appreciate the value of the dollar. The rest is easy. (Hurricane @ TL)
Oh, there's a woman too, she got the first Gold Medal in this Winter Olympics, Marit Bjørgen.
I remember some years ago, they claimed she trained x2 as much as the person who trained the 2nd much, proper beast.
Top psychiatrists for mental game, top weight lifters to get strong, top of the line in everything, and training absurd amount, almost every waking hour for months on end.
And she turned into some beast, just crushing, look at some of the pictures in here:
"Back in the old days" the skiiers didn't lift weight, and build on muscles, but they started doing it last few years, maybe more than the last few years, and it doesn't seem to have any drawbacks, u just become more of a beast, so people wanting to keep up need to do that as well now
United States. Nov 25 2013 00:24. Posts 7471
Any other examples to keep the thread going?
