Most dominant sports-people of all time?

[Jono]

John Coleman had an amazing career as a full forward before injury robbed him of many records.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Jono

John Coleman had an amazing career as a full forward before injury robbed him of many records.

Indeed - his goal per game average is second only to Hudson's but a dislocated knee ended his career after only 98 games at the age of just 25. He has at least as many advocates as Hudson for the title of greatest ever Full-Forward.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Matt:

Ah, of course. I was thinking Michael Jordan--->Magic Johnson--->Michael Johnson wtf?

[ohtani's jacket]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Russell was unquestionably one of the all time greats of the NBA, but that Championship record has as much to do with the strength of that Celtics team as him individually. As great as he was at an individual level, there are plenty of good judges who considered him only the second best Centre of his generation, behind Wilt Chamberlain.

Yeah, but it's one of those things where if you take Russell off the team the Celtics don't come close to winning 11 titles. The team was built around Russell's defence. There's no doubt Wilt was more dominant, even when he went against Russell he still put up huge numbers, but basketball is about titles.

Why?

The author said Jordan would've had to average 43 points a game to match Bradman, but that doesn't make sense since basketball only lasts for 48 minutes under normal circumstances. Here's what I wrote about it last time:

"Let's take basketball as an example. Jordan played 1072 regular season games, averaging around 38 minutes a game. How in the hell is he supposed to average 43 points a game under those circumstances? Wilt Chamberlain did it for his first four seasons (averaging 50.4 in '61-62 and 44.8 in '62-63, on different teams I might add) & his name doesn't even get brought up in the discussion. Only one player in the history of the NBA has ever scored a 100 points in a single game and that was Chamberlain. If Bradman scored at 42 an hour, then it's fair to say that he's not that much greater than a Jordan or a Chamberlain when it comes to scoring average."

I dunno where he even began trying to compare facing a delivery in cricket to a possession in basketball, two batsman v. five offensive players, 6 balls per over v. no guaranteed shot attempt on a possession, 38 minutes vs. Bradman's average stay of 2 hours, 14 minutes... boundaries vs. 1-3 points...

[Matt79]

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

[Xuhaib]

If squash is your sport then Jahangir Khan, he went unbeaten for 5 years in the period he won 500 matches straight

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Matt79

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

This.

[Xuhaib]

lack of Rikki Clarke in this thread saddens me.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Xuhaib

If squash is your sport then Jahangir Khan, he went unbeaten for 5 years in the period he won 500 matches straight

Jansher had a pretty amazing record too, didn't he?

Though as pasag said, if squash really is your sport it's hard to go past Heather McKay.

[Xuhaib]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Jansher had a pretty amazing record too, didn't he?

Though as pasag said, if squash really is your sport it's hard to go past Heather McKay.

Jansher was the most boring sportsstar I have ever seen and playing such a visually boring sport like Squash made me hate him even more.

[grecian]

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

[Pothas]

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

[Goughy]

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

[Langeveldt]

Don Bradman

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

What was Gary Kasparov's record like in chess?

[nightprowler10]

Originally Posted by Matt79

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

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