View Full Version : World's most dominant sports star
TheOwl
11/09/2006, 8:55 PM
I stuck this up in work today and have had the old inbox crammed ever since. So I thought I'd put it up here and see what people think. About half the responses so far have said Federer which is pretty fair, although I think Woods nicks it myself.
http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/u-s-open/2006/sport_sto962240.shtml
DmanDmythDledge
11/09/2006, 9:16 PM
I think Federer is more dominant than Woods, but Lance Armstrong is the most dominating athlete ever, no doubt about it.
joema
11/09/2006, 11:53 PM
Lance Armstrong for me
Sheridan
12/09/2006, 12:10 AM
Depends on the criteria. As of now, probably Woods.
Most dominant individual athlete of all time - Sergei Bubka probably.
Most dominant in a team sport - Donald Bradman by a country mile.
Aberdonian Stu
12/09/2006, 8:07 AM
Federer is the first one that springs to mind but on second thought there is one who could beat him and that's Yelena Isinbayeva the Russian Pole Vaulter.
The competition Federer faces is tougher and do occasionally (albeit not often!) beat him but if anything that plays in Isinbayeva's hands as it makes it easier for her to be dominant.
So I'll cheat and say Federer is the most dominant male and Isibayeva is the most dominant female.
finlma
12/09/2006, 3:23 PM
Lance Armstrong for me
I think he means without the help of drugs. I presume I will be shot down for this comment.
Tiger without question.
Aberdonian Stu
12/09/2006, 4:10 PM
Tiger is the King when it comes to golf and kicking ass but I can't put him quite on the same pedestal as Federer at this time.
endabob1
12/09/2006, 4:11 PM
Surely it's Phil Taylor?
osarusan
12/09/2006, 4:31 PM
What are the criteria?
Can we come up with our own criteria?
Being unbeaten is a possible criteria in some sports like boxing, but not really plausible in others like golf.
How do you decide which sports are international enough to ensure that the dominant star really does face a top level of opposition?
Some sports stars are so dominant because the level of competition is weak at that time.
There are a host of other issues.
I'll go for Floyd Mayweather, an unbeaten boxer who has beaten everybody in what is considered a golden period for his weight classes.
But obviously he is only dominant in his own weight class, and would be beaten at a higher weight (I assume).
People like Federer, Woods dominate every player in their sport, but do fall to the occasional defeat.
How about Ryoko Tani (I do live in Japan after all) who has won the last 3 Olympic golds in her Judo weight class.
If we consider total dominance over a long period of time, then it probably is Phil Taylor.
Aberdonian Stu
12/09/2006, 6:27 PM
To me weakness of opponent strengthens an argument to say someone is dominant as they are more likely to remain dominant if a serious challenger isn't out there. Just ask Bernard Hopkins before those dubious bouts with Taylor!
Poor Student
12/09/2006, 6:43 PM
Didn't Armstrong just show up at the Tour De France and not win much of the other events?
Aberdonian Stu
12/09/2006, 7:20 PM
At Grand Tour level that's correct (Vuelta and Giro are the others) but most cyclists do 2 at very most these days.
TV coverage has a lot to do with this. In the old days only the Tour de France received all day TV coverage in any country. As a result there was little action in the early stages of tours as it didn't make much sense tactically.
Sponsor influence means that charges are more common when on screen, sapping more energy from cyclists. As a result competing in all three Grand Tours was possible, if still a little mad.
This era didn't really come to an end until the back of Stephen Roche's career.
I still wouldn't include him anyway in this regard largely because of the controversy but not solely.
Poor Student
13/09/2006, 9:01 AM
I know that AS, but can one compare a cyclist who comes good in one big tournament to a more consistent performer on the big stage like Federer?
Anyway, clearly Triple H is the most dominating sportsman of this era.;)
Aberdonian Stu
13/09/2006, 9:19 AM
He's a sports entertainer!
max power
13/09/2006, 10:08 AM
Surely it's Phil Taylor?
have to agree with this
Dodge
13/09/2006, 10:42 AM
Darts isn't a sport.
Agree that Armstrong didn't dominate cycling in terms of winning races but in terms of presence or media, he certainly did (even in Conitental Europe)
Aberdonian Stu
13/09/2006, 10:51 AM
Yeah but so did TO in the States and there are one or two more dominant wide receivers that come to mind never mind football players in other positions.
max power
13/09/2006, 11:04 AM
[QUOTE=Dodge;534649]Darts isn't a sport.
QUOTE]
What you on about, you try and hit 180 :rolleyes:
Dodge
13/09/2006, 11:49 AM
I have done. I'm quite decent Darts player. My dad was All Ireland doubles champion back in the day and now and agin I enjoy watching it on TV.
Its not a sport though
DmanDmythDledge
13/09/2006, 11:56 AM
So what's your definition of a sport then?
Metrostars
13/09/2006, 12:09 PM
So what's your definition of a sport then?
One has to sweat.
"Games" such as Darts, Bowling, Baseball arent really sports.
Schumi
13/09/2006, 12:12 PM
One has to sweat.
"Games" such as Darts, Bowling, Baseball arent really sports.
Have you seen Andy Fordham playing? :D
max power
13/09/2006, 1:51 PM
is any form of motor racing a sport or horse racing ???
darts is a personal skill and not relying on other outside factors such as car or horse ( or money ) to aid the win.
Dodge, does your da think its not a sport ????
holidaysong
13/09/2006, 9:23 PM
Have you seen Andy Fordham playing? :D
:D:D
When I seen the thread title Michael Schumacher was the first name that sprang to mind. Surprised nobody mentioned him already...
Dodge
13/09/2006, 10:47 PM
My da does but he's a fool. Motor Racing isn''t a sport either. Great engineering competetions though.
Aberdonian Stu
14/09/2006, 8:03 AM
I would have included Schumi two years ago but the sport is more competitive now so at present I wouldn't call him dominant.
Schumi
14/09/2006, 12:38 PM
In 2004, Schumacher would have been the only answer to the question but you can hardly call him dominant at the moment when he's not even leading the championship (yet!). If you're looking at it over a 10 or 15-year period though, he'd be one of the leading contenders though.
pineapple stu
14/09/2006, 12:44 PM
So what's your definition of a sport then?
A sport under European law is a competitive recreational activity requiring mental or physical excercise. So darts would probably qualify under that. Even though it's not really.
There's debate in Ireland (as you know obviously) about things like chess and bridge, which aren't recognised as sports in Ireland but are categorised as sports under European law. Obviously, no-one cares if it's a sport or not; they just want access to Sports Council funding. Under that category, you could count Garry Kasparov - head and shoulders above anyone else for years.
What about Michael Johnson (the runner) and yer man from back in the 80s - Moses someone (some biblical name)? Was I think 4 or 5 years unbeaten over 400m hurdles and tried a comeback for the last Olympics.
Schumi
14/09/2006, 12:56 PM
yer man from back in the 80s - Moses someone (some biblical name)?Ed Moses.
joema
14/09/2006, 12:59 PM
I think he means without the help of drugs. I presume I will be shot down for this comment.
Tiger without question.
I presume you are 100% positive that Armstrong is guilty of using performance enhancing drugs in order to beat his rivals??
Didn't Armstrong just show up at the Tour De France and not win much of the other events?
At Grand Tour level that's correct (Vuelta and Giro are the others) but most cyclists do 2 at very most these days.
TV coverage has a lot to do with this. In the old days only the Tour de France received all day TV coverage in any country. As a result there was little action in the early stages of tours as it didn't make much sense tactically.
Sponsor influence means that charges are more common when on screen, sapping more energy from cyclists. As a result competing in all three Grand Tours was possible, if still a little mad.
I still wouldn't include him anyway in this regard largely because of the controversy but not solely.
Agree that Armstrong didn't dominate cycling in terms of winning races but in terms of presence or media, he certainly did (even in Conitental Europe)
I didnt say Armstrong based on how many titles he has won. I picked him on the basis that as Dodge says in terms of the media, he is extremley dominant, whether he is up therre with the likes of Federer and Woods on sporting ability is questionable IMO but IMO he is arguably the most dominant figure in modern sport.
Ed Moses doesn't count as he lost in the olympics final so his record was useless. In athletics today only Jeremy wariner could claim to be 100% dominant. Even the russian pole vaulters mix it up every now and then.
finlma
14/09/2006, 6:20 PM
I presume you are 100% positive that Armstrong is guilty of using performance enhancing drugs in order to beat his rivals??
Not 100% at all but there is plenty of suspision and I personally believe it to be true so for that reason I wouldn't consider him.
Wouldn't say Schumacher either - its all to do with the car.
Golf and tennis are played on a level playing field more or less so its definitely a contest between Federer and Woods with Woods shading it.
Aberdonian Stu
14/09/2006, 6:36 PM
Moses may have lost an Olympic final but it was 12 years after he first won one!
He won in 76 & 84, missing out on a hatrick in 80 due to the boycott. He could have been going for 4 in a row in the event but ended up with bronze in 88 at the age of 33 which isn't all that young for an athlete.
He also won 122 consecutive races, of which 107 were finals. That streak lasted nearly a decade. Discounting a guy with a record like that based on one Olympic final when he was getting on is crazy.
I discounted him because he isn't competing anymore. I'm looking solely at current competitors and their level of dominance.
Closed Account 2
14/09/2006, 11:51 PM
Hulk Hogan.
I was joking about Ed Moses...
londonirish17
15/09/2006, 7:39 AM
I think he means without the help of drugs. I presume I will be shot down for this comment.
Tiger without question.
He probably did, as do most of all athletes. After all what's wrong with that? We all know bloody well that some performances( cycling for 3 weeks with an average of 29°C+Pyrénnées + Alps...) are virtually impossible without taking "at least" complimentary vitamins*,... Performance enhancers have always been associated with sports. Drugs or not, you must be bloody well trained to perform at that level.
I am totally opposed to these products and I am an athlete for myself but we, the public, have to agree that this war is long lost. After all it's them that put their health at risk.
As for the question... Lance Armstrong (while still active), Tiger Woods and Roger Federer. Schumacher should not be underestimated.
Now the question is, do Golf and F1 qualify as sports?
* knowing that there is probably more in it than selenium or magnesium...
pineapple stu
15/09/2006, 12:42 PM
Haarlem Globetrotters?
finlma
15/09/2006, 1:32 PM
Haarlem Globetrotters?
The term 'sports star' seems to be lost on you.
The Globetrotters were no more than exhibitionists anyway.
Aberdonian Stu
15/09/2006, 1:36 PM
And it's Harlem not Haarlem.
And they're still about. One of the Panama (I think, could be Venezuela) World Championship playes for them professionally :D
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIBA_World_Championship_squads
Not 100% at all but there is plenty of suspision and I personally believe it to be true so for that reason I wouldn't consider him.
IMO if you are not 100% positive that he has intentionally used performance enhancing drugs then you cant hold that against him
Aberdonian Stu
15/09/2006, 2:33 PM
I disagree joema but could we all stop this from going off topic (and I'm not singling you out a few of us are guilty of it).
Could we focus on dominance, not how they dominate please.
Lads we've (or at least I've) been over this loads of times. Forget about Armstrong and get back to a decent enough topic
Poor Student
15/09/2006, 4:47 PM
Hulk Hogan.
Speak of turning up once a year.
DmanDmythDledge
15/09/2006, 4:50 PM
David Ortiz of Boston Red Sox could be considered.
the 12 th man
15/09/2006, 4:56 PM
Many from yester-year the likes of Ed Moses,Senna,Pete Sampras was all considered almost unbeatable (for many years).
I suppose Federer atm is about as dominant as there is imo.
Btw Hulk Hogan :D
Ok, forget about Armstrong. As was said earlier golf and tennis are both pretty much played on a level playng field so to speak (unlike Motor Racing for eg) IMO Federer's avhievements are unbelievable and he's only going to get better!
erinfootball
16/09/2006, 5:11 AM
Michael Jordan, even though hes retired.
Someone currently playing, though, its gotta be Ronaldhino.
beautifulrock
16/09/2006, 9:28 AM
Michael Johnson from Wiki:
is a U.S. former sprinter who holds world records in the 200 m (19.32 s), 400 m (43.18 s) and 4 x 400 m relay (2:54.20, as part of the USA team). He won five Olympic gold medals and was a world champion nine times. He was the first man to win both the 200 m and 400 m races at the same Olympics, accomplishing the feat at the 1996 Summer Olympics
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.