• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Most dominant sports player of all time

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
PhoenixFire said:
I can't really understand why people claim Tiger Woods is more dominant than Bradman. Woods has beeen beaten, and isn't outrightly by a mile the best golfer of all time. Bradman was just so much better than anyone else, and by a huge margin too.
Yeah, but Bradman only played his sport in 2 countries and the majority of his test cricket was against one country. He wasn't really tested in a variety of conditions against a great number of opponents like Tiger Woods and Federer.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
cameeel said:
When a rugby player successfully scores, they call it a 'try'.

It makes no sense when you think about it, and reflects the average intelligence of those who watch the game.
Technically they're called 'Touchdowns' and that's how they are referred to in the rulebooks. The term 'try' is sort of a slang word...
 

Robertinho

Cricketer Of The Year
It would be out of Bradman, MJ, Babe Ruth and... there are a few names that come up. I'm no boxing buff, but what about Muhammad Ali?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Robertinho said:
It would be out of Bradman, MJ, Babe Ruth and... there are a few names that come up. I'm no boxing buff, but what about Muhammad Ali?
I'm not an expert either, but it's very hard to say with Ali/Clay. He missed three years of his peak due to his refusal to be conscripted which meant he was stripped of his world title & banned from boxing. When he came back he was still the best, but no longer unbeatable. He lost to Joe Frazier & Ken Norton (you can ignore the last three defeats to Spinks, Holmes & Berbick as he was shot & suffering from the early stages of Parkinson's by then) who probably wouldn't have got near him before his enforeced lay-off, but one couldn't say for sure.

I guess if you look at Bradman he lost six years of his career & was still the best batter in the world when he came back after WW2 in his late 30s so that would suggest to me he was more dominant.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Eddy Merckx >>>>> everybody else in the sport. He was a freak, took home 5 Tours (would have been six if some madman didn't run up[ and punch him the gut pretty bad), took home the Giro as many times as well, and missed a Tour to win the Tour of Spain (Vuelta a Espana) and Giro (back then the Vuelta was held early in the year while the Giro has always been held in May), throw in being three times the World Champion, took home 7 Milan-San Remo classics (about 294 km) and virtually all of the classics and set a World Hour Record in Mexico City as well (this site is useful).

The next one is Bernard Hinualt (last Frenchman to win the race 21 years ago) who was dominant in his era as well. What he said went, you did not dare get on the wrong side of the Badger. In one Tour he ordered everybody to take it easy so his team-mate could recover, so one rider attacked, and Hinualt enraged went off the front to chase him down and to bring him back to main bunch as if to leach him a lesson.

In a important lead-up race to the Tour - the Dauphine Libere Hinualt turned up in 1981 with the intention of lowering his rivals slef esteem forver. On Stage five he won the stage to Lyon, and then Alps he cracked his knuckles by winning smashing everybody apart in stage 6. On stage 7 he went on the attack with another rider and won that stage. By the next stage he told everybody to take it easy, but Spanish rider Mariano Martinez attacked, and Hinault enraged went off the front went over the climb alone, and was even caught by ten other riders by still won the sprint for the line. He also was World Champ and did the Giro - Tour double and he won his fair share of classics as well.

Armstrong himself was only concerned about the Tour and all of his workers all gave up their own ambitions to help him win. To put it this way in 2005, the year of his seventh victory, was the only time somebody other then him won a stage. Armstrong never won the Giro (Often the course is a lot harder then Tour route), in fact he never took part. Then again the Tour is the only race that registers on the American non cycling rader and it has got him Letterman, Opreah, and even friends with George W. Bush (and for the record he does disagree with some of Bush's policies), so I guess you can see the logic in trying to win that race then try and pick up a Tour of Flanders, or the Giro when they don't mean diddly squat back home in the States instead of a Tour victory.

That said pre-cancer he was pretty good rider in his own right, two Tour stage wins and being World Champion at age 21 (youngest to do so).
 

Craig

World Traveller
BoyBrumby said:
Whereas AFL's terminology reflects its fans obsession with arseholes: one of the scoring modes is a "behind" & catching the ball is rewarded with a "mark".
Scathing!
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
BoyBrumby said:
I'm not an expert either, but it's very hard to say with Ali/Clay. He missed three years of his peak due to his refusal to be conscripted which meant he was stripped of his world title & banned from boxing. When he came back he was still the best, but no longer unbeatable. He lost to Joe Frazier & Ken Norton (you can ignore the last three defeats to Spinks, Holmes & Berbick as he was shot & suffering from the early stages of Parkinson's by then) who probably wouldn't have got near him before his enforeced lay-off, but one couldn't say for sure.

I guess if you look at Bradman he lost six years of his career & was still the best batter in the world when he came back after WW2 in his late 30s so that would suggest to me he was more dominant.
Surely the nature of the sports have somehting to do with that? Clay had his lights punched out for a living whilst bradman just knocked a ball around. It should be only natural that a boxer's career at the top is shorter than a cricketer's.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, but it was a ball propelled by Englishmen. Not too likely to get close enough to head to do damage.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
steds said:
Surely the nature of the sports have somehting to do with that? Clay had his lights punched out for a living whilst bradman just knocked a ball around. It should be only natural that a boxer's career at the top is shorter than a cricketer's.
Time waits for no man tho, Bradman's reflexes as a 38 year old would've diminished in the same way as Ali's would. As Jamee points out, batters can end up wearing a ball if their reactions betray them.

& the whole point of boxing is precisely to avoid having one's lights punched out! I'd say most of the damage that tragically affects the great man was done because he fought on past his sell by date rather than the cumulative effect of his fights. Ali really had comparitively few fights compared to the greats of a few decades earlier. Sugar Ray Robinson fought over 200 bouts.
 

roseboy64

Cricket Web Content Updater
I'd have to go with Babe ruth on this one. Dominated as a batter and better yet, was a darn good pitcher. Not sure about his fielding though but I think he was pretty good at that as well which would mean that he was great in all aspects of his sport. Bradman only made runs.
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
roseboy64 said:
I'd have to go with Babe ruth on this one. Dominated as a batter and better yet, was a darn good pitcher. Not sure about his fielding though but I think he was pretty good at that as well which would mean that he was great in all aspects of his sport. Bradman only made runs.
He mostly played the outfield, so not the most difficult position, but still had a career Fielding Percentage of .968.

Also, he was a decent runner. He had 123 career stolen bases, which is obviously not earth shattering, but he led the Yankees in this category twice. So that's saying something.
 

Stefano

School Boy/Girl Captain
Also, he was a decent runner. He had 123 career stolen bases, which is obviously not earth shattering, but he led the Yankees in this category twice. So that's saying something.
123 SB in 22 season, which means ca. 5 SB per year. That is not a lot. And he was caught stealing 117 times. But he might be considered the greatest baseball player ever.

Merckx can be a pick. He won all kinds of race! There is not a single race in the world which was not won by Merckx.

Boxing? Ali? No... Maybe Joe Louis... Or even better Sugar Ray Robinson, who dominated the weather and the middleweights for so many years.

Jordan didn't dominate basketball like Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain.
Well... Jordan won three titles in 1991-1993. Then, he retired. When he came back, he won three other straight titles 1996-1998. Technically speaking (if we remove the 1995, when he played just for some month), he won 6 straight titles. That is a lot! When it mattered, he was unbeatable.

Bradman? That is a great choice, however outside the British and former british colonies, Bradman is unknown.

Wayne Gretzky is another great choice. He won 8 straight MVP awards in the NHL. He scored 2.857 points in the NHL. He had 1.963 assists. The #2 in the scoring list is Mark Messier, who scored 1.887 points. As you can see, Gretzky would be #1 even if you only considered his assists.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Scaly piscine said:
Dunno if he's a 'sports player' but Michael Johnson deserves a mention, he was so far ahead of other runners it was ridiculous. From late 1993 to 2000 he won everything of importance he ran in and his 200m world record is so far ahead of what anyone else has done it's incredible. He could have probably dominated the 100m at the time if he'd concentrated on that instead.
Agree with this, I was going to name him. If you divide his 200m WR by two, you get 9.66. Obviously it doesn't quite work like that, but I reckon he could have done something spectacular in the 100, even if his technique was more suited to bend running. Great athlete, one of the very, very greatest.

Chris Greenacre deserve a mention, 19 goals in front of our hoddy midfield last season
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
GeraintIsMyHero said:
Agree with this, I was going to name him. If you divide his 200m WR by two, you get 9.66. Obviously it doesn't quite work like that, but I reckon he could have done something spectacular in the 100, even if his technique was more suited to bend running. Great athlete, one of the very, very greatest.

Chris Greenacre deserve a mention, 19 goals in front of our hoddy midfield last season
WRT Johnson I think he was never top drawer at the 100m because he couldn't manage the starts & the distance wasn't long enough for his natural pace to wind down other runners' leads. From memory his best for the 100m was something like 10.09, not shabby, but not enough to win medals at the world level nowadays.

Of course if he'd trained specifically for the 100m his time may've come down.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Yeah, he really did gather momentum. His second hundred at Atlanta 96 (where he ran 19.32) was in less than 9 seconds IIRC, and he was always so strong between 100-300 in the 400 that noone ever had any chance of catching him by the time he got to the home straight (which he generally ran quicker than them anyway). I mean Roger Black got silver at Atlanta (when Johnson was at his peak) and must have finished a second and a half behind him
 

Top