I realise it's conceivable because Bradman actually did it, but I still think the length of time you can stay at the crease, and the length of time the game is played for, gives you a greater chance of having a Bradman-esque difference provided you don't get out. Granted a basketball player can attempt to score so long as he's on the court and doesn't foul out, but there's just not the same opportunity.No, I don't think you understand.
"There's no way that I can think of that a basketball player could finish with an average of 40+ points over a thousand games, let alone average 13 points better than the nearest guy"
Precisely the point. It is almost inconceivable that Bradman could do what he did. The only reason you find it more believable, and that I say "almost inconceivable", is that it actually happened. His superiority over all other batsmen equates to averaging over 40 points or whatever in basketball.
Should probably note that basketball doesn't have unlimited time. For all intents and purposes, Bradman did (because not-outs wouldn't affect his average). So scoring that extra point per game in basketball is doubly hard because you don't have to just score more, you also have to score faster.No, I don't think you understand.
"There's no way that I can think of that a basketball player could finish with an average of 40+ points over a thousand games, let alone average 13 points better than the nearest guy"
Precisely the point. It is almost inconceivable that Bradman could do what he did. The only reason you find it more believable, and that I say "almost inconceivable", is that it actually happened. His superiority over all other batsmen equates to averaging over 40 points or whatever in basketball.
Debatable. He needed brass knucks to knock ut Big Show.Should probably note that basketball doesn't have unlimited time. For all intents and purposes, Bradman did (because not-outs wouldn't affect his average). So scoring that extra point per game in basketball is doubly hard because you don't have to just score more, you also have to score faster.
All i can say is that i don't think comparing two sports is especially viable. But I find it hard to look past any of the boxers who finished their careers as undefeated world champion, most recently Floyd Mayweather, have done everything they possibly could to dominate the opposition. How can you, in any sport, possibly do any better than that?
Debatable. He needed brass knucks to knock ut Big Show.
A book called The Best of the Best by Charles Davis a few years back.Where was this Bradman vs. Jordan comparison?
'Twas Ty Cobb, cause Davis used batting average, which was commonly considered the measure of a player back in the day instead of homers or RBIs or OBP or whatever.A book called The Best of the Best by Charles Davis a few years back.
Bradman was compared with Jordan, Nicklaus, Ali, Pele, Ruth (or was it Ty Cobb?) among others as I recall, the conclusion basically being that his Test average of 99.94 is the greatest statistical achievement in any major sport.
I've never read it fully, but as I understand it the bulk of the book was a comparison of Bradman compared to other cricketers. Once his cricketing dominance was confirmed, the book moved on to comparing him with the greats from other sports.I figured it was the case, but I thought The Best of the Best was only a comparson of cricketers from other generations. It seemed that way from the Cricket Web review anyway.
Out of curiosity, does Nicklaus have a greater record than Tiger Woods.
Ah yes that's right. Actually this is what made the Pele comparison less-than-apt. He was assuming that Pele - as the usually-recognised greatest footballer of all time - had the best international goals/game ratio. In football of course it's not that simple and while Pele's record was outstanding, there are other greats (such as Puskas, Koscis and Muller) who while not quite on Pele's level actually had better strike rates.'Twas Ty Cobb, cause Davis used batting average, which was commonly considered the measure of a player back in the day instead of homers or RBIs or OBP or whatever.
A bit harsh on Puskas. Ill agree that most may rank Pele over Puskas but Id never use the term 'inferior' in the same sentance as his name.Ah yes that's right. Actually this is what made the Pele comparison less-than-apt. He was assuming that Pele - as the usually-recognised greatest footballer of all time - had the greatest international goals/game ratio. In football of course it's not that simple and while Pele's record was great, there are others (such as Puskas, Koscis and Muller) who while being inferior players had better strike rates.
Fair call mate - fair enough for me to edit the post, in fact.A bit harsh on Puskas. Ill agree that most may rank Pele over Puskas but Id never use the term 'inferior' in the same sentance as his name.
Some controversial wins along the way though, I think.Anyway: Julio Cesar Chavez. He went on too long so his record looks merely great (108 wins, 2 draws, 6 defeats), but he actually won his first 88 fights and was undefeated in his first 91.
Does a fan of combat sport exist that has not heard of Fedor?As is Fedor Emelianenko. This guy should be one of the most famous sportsmen in the world. He is far and away the most successful Mixed Martial Artist of all-time. He has a 32-1 professional MMA record, but that 1 loss shouldn't have been recorded as a loss. He was fighting in a RINGS tournament, and was caught by an elbow (which were illegal in that organisation, unless elbow pads were worn, which they weren't in this instance). The elbow opened a cut which he had sustained in a previous fight, which meant he couldn't continue in the tournament, and because of the tournament format this meant it was put down as a loss on his record. Outside a tournament format the bout would have been declared a No Contest or a DQ victory for Fedor.
Throughout Fedor's career, he was won a whole heap of trophies and tournaments. He's won 2 RINGS tournaments, the PRIDE FC Heavyweight title, the PRIDE FC Heavyweight GP and is the current WAMMA HW champion, with 2 successful defences to his name. No-one else has managed to dominate the sport of MMA like Fedor Emelianenko. He's beaten top level competition in the form of Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira (twice), Ricardo Arona, Renato Sobral, Heath Herring, Kevin Randleman, Mark Coleman, Mirko 'Cro Cop' Filipovic, Mark Hunt, Gary Goodridge, Matt Lindland, Tim Sylvia, Andrei Arlovski and Brett Rogers.
The guy is just an incredible Martial Artist. Not only does he have the MMA trophies and belts, but he is a multiple time World and Russian Sambo Champion and Russian Judo Champion. He's been in some incredible fights, his war with Cro Cop, the 3 battles with Nogueira, the oh-so-impressive comeback against Kevin Randleman after being slammed on his head, the picture perfect knockouts of Andrei Arlovski and Brett Rogers. What a fighter, one of the truely under-appreciated sportspeople in the world. If you're a fan of combat sports and you've not seen anything of Fedor Emelianenko, then I urge you to watch the fights linked above, especially the Randleman fight if you're new to MMA. Pretty sure any fan of sports can appreciate that fight.