Bradmanesque

[JBMAC]

We are on to you JBMAC!

 

[Agent TBY]

I almost feel dirty for doing this, but he's clearly John Robert (Bob) Mackay.

 

[GotSpin]

The real question is. Did you see Keith Miller strike that 6 at the SCG?

 

[vcs]

The troll army can continue targeting us,

I will just attempt one last time to explain what I was trying to say.

In any sport which hasn't fully evolved, you will find players who are freaks, players who are way ahead of their time. Bradman is one of them. Once the sport is fully evolved, you will not find such instances.

I will paste Ruckus' post in one of the similar threads since I think he explained it better.

That's like saying it was easier for Euclid to be a great mathematician than Euler or Fermat, and in turn easier for them than it was for Ramanujan etc. Not sure I buy that either.

 

[Kirkut]

That's like saying it was easier for Euclid to be a great mathematician than Euler or Fermat, and in turn easier for them than it was for Ramanujan etc. Not sure I buy that either.

I believe that the point he's trying to make is that one cannot say with conviction that things were easier or difficult in the past as compared to the present.

 

[Bijed]

The troll army can continue targeting us,

I will just attempt one last time to explain what I was trying to say.

In any sport which hasn't fully evolved, you will find players who are freaks, players who are way ahead of their time. Bradman is one of them. Once the sport is fully evolved, you will not find such instances.

I will paste Ruckus' post in one of the similar threads since I think he explained it better.

I somewhat agree with what you're saying here, but I've always had the impression (and I don't think I'm alone here) that Bradman's level of dominance is moreso that seen with people dominating in other sports, so it could well be a bit of what you're saying and also because he was really, really good.

 

[honestbharani]

How the hell can anyone confidently say the game has "fully" evolved as of today? That is where that argument gets stupid.

 

[Bijed]

In all probability it hasn't (I suppose technically it never can have, but it might stay exactly the same from this point onwards), but I still agree with the gist of karan's post - actually, I should have multi-quoted the post karan himself quoted as it was indeed a better explanation.

 

[OverratedSanity]

And frankly there haven't been any "freaks" in other sports who've statistically dominated their peers to anywhere near the extent that Bradman did. Surely of that argument had any real weight, you'd have many examples from other sports where one guy was statistically twice as good as anyone else at the highest level.

 

[Bijed]

And frankly there haven't been any "freaks" in other sports who've statistically dominated their peers to anywhere near the extent that Bradman did. Surely of that argument had any real weight, you'd have many examples from other sports where one guy was statistically twice as good as anyone else at the highest level.

I have a feeling there was a thread about this a little while back. I'll try and dig it up and see what equivalents (though I agree that no-one has matched Bradman in this regard) from other sports people suggested, assuming that the thread isn't in fact a figment of my imagination.

 

[Gob]

LOL, the number of "X vs Y" threads you guys create clearly show your level of intelligence.

Secondly, you guys are not open to people who have a different view or disagree with you. The troll army is ready to take down anyone who doesn't disagree with a few members here.

There is nothing wrong with having a different view as long as there are actual facts to back them. Unfortunately most people here who hold such views have none.

 

[Victor Ian]

I believe that the point he's trying to make is that one cannot say with conviction that things were easier or difficult in the past as compared to the present.

Likewise, you can not say, with conviction, that Smith will score 60 today because the past is different from the present. It might be likely, it might even be a good bet, but you can be a dick and say that you can infer nothing from different days and technically, in a very very strict manner, you'd be right, but also a dick.

We all get what you are saying, but you fail to appreciate why many are calling it bull****.

 

[Meridio]

I have a feeling there was a thread about this a little while back. I'll try and dig it up and see what equivalents (though I agree that no-one has matched Bradman in this regard) from other sports people suggested, assuming that the thread isn't in fact a figment of my imagination.

Jahangir Khan in squash maybe. Went something like 550 matches unbeaten over about 10 years.

 

[Bijed]

Jahangir Khan in squash maybe. Went something like 550 matches unbeaten over about 10 years.

Ooh, that's impressive.

Actually, I wonder if there have been more Bradman-types than we expect, only they've been in relatively obscure sports so not many people are aware (not meaning to imply squash is an obscure sport btw)

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Phil Taylor if darts counts.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Jahangir Khan in squash maybe. Went something like 550 matches unbeaten over about 10 years.

Ooh, that's impressive.

Actually, I wonder if there have been more Bradman-types than we expect, only they've been in relatively obscure sports so not many people are aware (not meaning to imply squash is an obscure sport btw)

Jahangir Khan and Heather Mackay both went undefeated for like 15 years. It only reinforces my point though. Squash was not in its infancy when they dominated the sport. So implying that it's only possible for someone to dominate when the sport hasn't "evolved fully" clearly isn't true.

Besides, cricket wasn't in it's nascent stage when Bradman dominated it either.

 

[indiaholic]

Is Jahangir the undisputed ATG in squash? A friend told me that Jansher was better. Don't know enough about the sport to comment.

 

[Bijed]

Jahangir Khan and Heather Mackay both went undefeated for like 15 years. It only reinforces my point though. Squash was not in its infancy when they dominated the sport. So implying that it's only possible for someone to dominate when the sport hasn't "evolved fully" clearly isn't true.

Besides, cricket wasn't in it's nascent stage when Bradman dominated it either.

Maybe the nascent stage isn't the one, but it'd be interesting to look at when various sports' undisputed GOATs (suppose they don't have to be undisputed, really, just generally accepted as such) appeared and see how long into that sport being widely played (nebulous definition, I know) it took for them to appear and see if there's a trend.

 

[karan316]

I believe that the point he's trying to make is that one cannot say with conviction that things were easier or difficult in the past as compared to the present.

They know it, but they will take it in some other direction. Because they are insecure about Bradman not being rated as the best.

 

[karan316]

And frankly there haven't been any "freaks" in other sports who've statistically dominated their peers to anywhere near the extent that Bradman did. Surely of that argument had any real weight, you'd have many examples from other sports where one guy was statistically twice as good as anyone else at the highest level.

I gave an example of Rocky Marciano, there are many others, but I wouldn't waste my time in listing them, coz u r nt gng to agree anyways. You will come up with some or the other anecdotes rather than pure facts to back up ur claim.