Bradmanesque

[karan316]

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.

There are a lot of facts that I have mentioned, but unfortunately, you choose to ignore them. And secondly, there are no "pure facts" to back your claim either, apart from a few anecdotes.

 

[karan316]

Cricket wasn't in it's nascent stage when Bradman dominated it either.

So you choose to ignore everything that has changed since Bradman's time? Good.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

Marciano's record is nowhere near as statistically dominant as Bradman's over other batsmen. I mean, Mayweather just retired undefeated recently.

Kindly cite all these "many others", thanks

 

[stephen]

All you really need to do is look at the players who had careers that overlapped with Bradman's career and then players who's careers overlapped with those players and so on and so forth until we reach modern times.

I think I can safely compare Brett Lee and Mitchell Starc as players despite them never having played a test together.

I can safely say that Viv Richards was several classes above Voges despite them playing 30-40 years apart.

 

[jonbrooks]

lol yes and by the same token you can't say that he wouldn't be just as good. Obviously there's no evidence either way.

You can't compare between eras, but you can compare between players in the same era. Bradman is the only example of someone being anywhere near that much better than everyone else. Unless you think for some remarkable reason that everyone else in his era just happened to be terrible (which would be absurdly stupid), then you have to assume that he is simply the best that there ever was. With absolutely no doubt.

But that is not what we're discussing here! People say Bradman would have been just as good if not better in the modern era. Well, which Bradman are you talking about? A Bradman plucked from the 1930s and made to face the WIndies attack of the 80s? Or a Bradman born in 1990 coming through the ranks of the Australian cricket system? If it's the former than I tell ya he'd not last long. If it's the latter then I have absolutely no idea how he'd get on. That has been my position all along.

 

[jonbrooks]

Ihave followed these posts with some amusement, some disgust, some dissalusionment but mostly some contempt. I refer back to my post #1, where I calmly mentioned a comparison ; the "esque" is what that means; between Warner and Bradman. I must admit to a "boost' after Warner's effort on the first day of this current Test. I am so surprised at the juvenile diatribe coming from karan316 and jonbrooks in particular. If you read post #1 correctly you would note I have seen Bradman play and the rubbish you have posted is just that. Obviously both of you have NOT ever played serious cricket as you have absolutely NO idea.You obviously have NO knowledge of the history of the game either, hence your inane comment on it's History. I have played the game at First Class,State and represented my country. Among my mentors were Wally Grout, Ken Mackay and Wesley Hall and am good friends with Jeff Thompson who I also played with and against. Should you not know of these gentlemen,learn to read and find out. I'd suggest you both go home to your Mummys and play with your blocks/dolls and leave the serious discussion of this wonderful game to the grownups.

To quote the 12th man "blow it out your a..". Yeah it was a lot tougher back in your day. I am sure it was very difficult to go and have a few pints at lunch time and clap the ball to the boundary.

Everything I've said is a fact. I have not made a single thing up. If you don't like it too bad.

 

[jonbrooks]

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)

I would say cricket was fairly obscure in the 1930s. It was predominantly England and Australia with a smattering of South Africa and India. Yet another fact against Bradman's dominance.

 

[stephen]

I would say cricket was fairly obscure in the 1930s. It was predominantly England and Australia with a smattering of South Africa and India. Yet another fact against Bradman's dominance.

Which other sports had international competitions in the 30s?

 

[jonbrooks]

Marciano's record is nowhere near as statistically dominant as Bradman's over other batsmen. I mean, Mayweather just retired undefeated recently.

Kindly cite all these "many others", thanks

Marciano's record was every bit as dominant. So too is Mayweather's. Interesting question on how Marciano would fare in the modern age of boxing? :-)

Usain Bolt's 9 golds eclipses anything achieved by any athlete ever in the history of sport.

 

[Midwinter]

In regard to JBMAC's original post

I get the feeling that everyone wants to watch when Warner comes out to bat.

When he came out in the second innings at Sydney, I dropped what I was doing and sat down to watch in anticipation.

I used to look forward to watching Gilchrist bat but not with the same sense of excitement I now get when I see Warner come out.

From what JBMAC says, I can only think it would comparable to watch Bradman come out to bat.

Thanks JBMAC



.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But that is not what we're discussing here! People say Bradman would have been just as good if not better in the modern era. Well, which Bradman are you talking about? A Bradman plucked from the 1930s and made to face the WIndies attack of the 80s? Or a Bradman born in 1990 coming through the ranks of the Australian cricket system? If it's the former than I tell ya he'd not last long. If it's the latter then I have absolutely no idea how he'd get on. That has been my position all along.

Literally no one is saying that "Bradman plucked from the 1930s" would be better than everyone else (though he might be, who knows).

But why the **** are you even talking about that? It's not relevant at all as to whether he was the best of all time. He can only play in the era he was in, with what was available.

If your point was that "Bradman plucked from the 1930s" wouldn't average twice as much as everyone else today then you may be right (maybe). But that would be a stupid ****ing point to be making. And not at all relevant as to whether he was the best of all time.

 

[Victor Ian]

...Usain Bolt's 9 golds eclipses anything achieved by any athlete ever in the history of sport.

That's because in modern times people are week and it is easier to produce an outlier. See what I did there? I spoke nonsense!

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's because in modern times people are week and it is easier to produce an outlier. See what I did there? I spoke nonsense!

Check. ****ing. Mate.

 

[Spark]

Surely Michael Phelps is way, way, way more dominant?

Like, Usain Bolt would have to compete in another Olympics and also win the 800m and 1500m golds to compare.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Surely Michael Phelps is way, way, way more dominant?

Like, Usain Bolt would have to compete in another Olympics and also win the 800m and 1500m golds to compare.

Nah, Phelps is just the beneficiary of the way Olympic events are set up.

As in being the best short-to-medium distance swimmer in the world gives you like 6-7 events (maybe more) per Olympics to compete in, and win. Being the best sprinter gives you, what, like 2 or 3?

 

[Spark]

Nah, Phelps is just the beneficiary of the way Olympic events are set up.

As in being the best short-to-medium distance swimmer in the world gives you like 6-7 events (maybe more) per Olympics to compete in, and win. Being the best sprinter gives you, what, like 2 or 3?

That's why I mentioned the 800m and 1500m (though in hindsight I should have just said 400m and 800m). Also the fact that he competed in 2004 and won stuff.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's why I mentioned the 800m and 1500m (though in hindsight I should have just said 400m and 800m). Also the fact that he competed in 2004 and won stuff.

It would be impossible to be the best at 100m and the best at 1500m (even 800m) as well. There's far too much difference in what's needed.

You can't say the same about all the events Phelps wins. Being an outlying swimmer of your time tends to lead to winning a **** load of gold medals. Ian Thorpe did it on a smaller scale as well didn't he, like won 6 golds at a world championship?

I'm not saying Phelps shouldn't be considered up there with Bolt, just that they shouldn't be judged on the pure number of golds they win

 

[Victor Ian]

They just need to run the 100m & 200m backwards and the 100m & 200m hopping and then throw in a medley or two and Usain would be sweet.

 

[vcs]

Bolt > Phelps

Every kid on the planet runs, and everyone who's ever lived has dreamed of doing it faster. Not everyone swims.

 

[Spark]

It would be impossible to be the best at 100m and the best at 1500m (even 800m) as well. There's far too much difference in what's needed.

You can't say the same about all the events Phelps wins. Being an outlying swimmer of your time tends to lead to winning a **** load of gold medals. Ian Thorpe did it on a smaller scale as well didn't he, like won 6 golds at a world championship?

I'm not saying Phelps shouldn't be considered up there with Bolt, just that they shouldn't be judged on the pure number of golds they win

That's why I'm deliberately not doing that though lol. Fair point about 100m and 400m athletics being more separated than 100m and 400m in swimming though.

Bolt > Phelps

Every kid on the planet runs, and everyone who's ever lived has dreamed of doing it faster. Not everyone swims.

Yeah this is a good point.