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_FI...ionship_squads
Printable View
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_FI...ionship_squads
IMO if you are not 100% positive that he has intentionally used performance enhancing drugs then you cant hold that against himQuote:
Originally Posted by finlma
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
Speak of turning up once a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
David Ortiz of Boston Red Sox could be considered.
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!
Michael Jordan, even though hes retired.
Someone currently playing, though, its gotta be Ronaldhino.
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
The term "joke" seems lost on you. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by finlma
I'm 100% positive ( what does that mean ) that Armstrong wasn't on performance enhancing drugs. There are 2 main reasons why I'm of that opinion: ( 1 ) he never tested positive, and ( 2 ) it would have been impossible for him to have taken any of the usual suspect drugs while undergoing treatment or recuperating from his cancers.
Anyone who has suspicions about Armstrong would have to have suspicions about Federer. Tennis has shown up many positive tests also and the tennis governing body has much more lax guidelines than other sports, probably on a par with football and also on a par with the GAA.
Again Sam there is already a thread dealing with that particular topic. Could we keep this one focussed on dominance please.
In athletics, Ed Moses undoubtedly, with Johnson a close second. Bubka dominated pole vaulting (won every world championship until 1999) but only one olympic title rules him out of it. Isinbayeva at the moment in women's Pole Vault, Tanni Grey-Thompson in Wheelchair athletics Several athletes have completely dominated their event at one time or another (Gebreselassie, El Guerrouj, Zelezny [more throws over 90m than all other athletes combined!], Kluft etc..) while Carl Lewis dominated the sport as a whole during the 80s and early 90s. This begs the question as well, does 4 Olympic titles in a row count as domination if the athlete isn't dominating at the lesser events?
This is where Federer scores highly - not only winning Slam events, but mopping up smaller tournaments week in week out. I would tend not to hold Nadal against his dominance - the presence of a quality rival makes it even more impressive IMO, unlike the frequent situation in F1 for example where a car is head and shoulders above its rivals.
Due to his selective racing, Armstrong slips down my list - just as I wouldn't say Carl Lewis was the dominant Long Jumper from 88 to 96, despite the 4 Olympic titles - mark of a great competitor, rather than a dominant athlete.
In terms of media coverage allied to ability, Woods has to top the list for me. In the majors, as well as his 12 wins he has 8 further top five finishes and a further 4 top 10. Although Nadal elevates Federers achievement by making it more challenging, the fact that Federer has yet to overcome that challenge means that my vote has to go to Tiger.
In terms of team sports, it's difficult for one player to dominate, but Michael Jordan is number one in that regard. Jonah Lomu briefly dominated Rugby but had nothing like the longevity of Jordan and in football, Pele and Maradona not only dominated in their day but still dominate to this day.
On an aside about the nature of sport v games, a useful rule of thumb (with plenty exceptions such as field events in athletics) is if it doesn't have a ball or a finish line it's not a sport.
I think that's the difference. Lewis was a great competitor and seemed invincible at Olympic level in the long jump but was beatable outside of that. That never seemed the case with Moses or Johnson or Ishinbayeva in modern athletics.
As fantastic as Senna was, he was never unbeatable as he shared his era with Prost, with the exception of 1991 when Prost was in a dog of a Ferrari.Quote:
Originally Posted by the 12 th man
I think Hogan is a good shout, he is recognised the world over, despite of being a star in a marginal sport. He was the king of wrestling in the 80s and early 90s.
I would also suggest Arnie could be there too, he dominated body building in the 70s - anyone seen Pumping Iron - great film.
Ah here, can we at least limit it to have real sports...Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
My mate , he hasn't lost a game of pool in 3 years , does pool count:D
Compared to ****ing wwf wrestling, Pool is like the ****ing olympics...
I think i'd have to go for Red Rum meself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
Maybe so,but before his name change ( from Da Silva) when he was driving in Formula 2000 etc and before his move to F1 he really was unbeatable (showing my age).
So marginal that it is not a sport at all. Whatever the merits of darts/pool etc, at least they are based on competition and the outcome has not been decided beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
Dont get me wrong, WWF/E wrestlers are great athletes, and some of the stuff they do is very dangerous, but that does not make it a sport.
thats exactly what i wouldn have said:)Quote:
Originally Posted by endabob1
playing a real game, with real people in real places, and gets to have it off with real jumbo size women too
tiger my arse.the steve davis of golf
tennis!
and lance armstrong was a champ at a sport infested with drugs
so yeah phil taylor has to be the man
its mor a sport than tennisQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
or golf.a good walk runied
I'm still going with Hogan on this
Shergar.
Seriously though:
For this you'd be looking at Phil Taylor or Lance Armstrong or Ronnie O'Sullivan or Tiger Woods, As on their day they are unbeatable in the case of Armstrong WAS unbeatable.
Ronnie O'Sullivan would get my vote though as good with his left hand as with his right hand. Which is truly remarakable!
Supremely talented , and on his day on a different level to all other players , however I wouldn't describe his career to date as being dominant , His inconsistency has been his downfall , No doubt that he could be dominant over the next couple of yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by rambler14
It's definitely Don Bradman, there's no question about it. No individual has ever dominated a team sport (infinitely more difficult than doing so in an individual sport) the way he did. Bradman's career average was 99.94. The next highest qualifying average is 60.97. In other words, if you expressed the averages of all the qualifying players who have played Test cricket since its inception well over 100 years ago as a pie chart, Bradman would have more than a third of the pie to himself.
For the 1932/33 Ashes series, England devised a tactic called Fast Leg Theory (later christened Bodyline) specifically to counteract Bradman's brilliance. Bodyline was so violent and unsportsmanlike it caused a major diplomatic incident and was even believed to threaten the integrity of the Empire. The tactic was considered a roaring success because Bradman averaged "only" 56.57 for the series.
sheridan in terms of cricket, what about jack hobbs. in terms of a bowler shane warne
No way does Hobbs compare to Bradman. He scored almost 200 First Class centuries, but the vast majority of those were in county and tour games. Bradman managed twice as many Test centuries in fewer Tests.
Warne may well be the greatest bowler ever (top three anyway), but his dominance was nowhere near as complete as Bradman's in his class. Plus, Warne's bowling average against India is as high as ~50!
Not meaning to take away from a phenomenal record, but how excruciatingly close to the century! (Though I do like the number 9 so I think it's charming in a way.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheridan
Would they have been into averages and statistics and stuff back when he played? As in - would he have precisely known his record in his lifetime? Do you know what he got in his last few matches and whether they dragged him below the three-figure average?
He was aware of it, it was big news at the time. Before the advent of ubiquitous broadcast media, the public naturally put more store by statistics.
Bradman famously required only four runs in his final innings at The Oval in 1948 to finish with an average of 100 but was bowled second ball for 0 by a googly from the mediocre English legspinner Eric Hollies. The story that Bradman missed the delivery because he still had tears in his eyes from the guard of honour which had greeted him as he came out to bat is a contemporary fiction. 99.94 is an iconic number in Australia for this reason.
Not really, if you look at things more closely. He focused on one race a year and did completely dominate it, but didn't really attempt any other race. While the Tour is the great stage race in cycling, there are others. For my money, for dominance in cycling it would be Eddy Mercxx. He won almost everything for about 8 years, regularly winning a couple of the grand tours in a single year. The didn't call him the cannibal for nothing. After him, only Kelly or Hinault were close. Armstrong is a great and signifcant cyclist (and I fear he might tarnish his name by the second come back), but the greatest, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by rambler14
For my money, I'd agree with the view that the most dominant was Don Bradman. I'm not a cricket man, but he really was untouchable during his career. 0.06 off a century average. Stunning.
As the old clerihew goes; "Sir Donald Bradman/Would have been a very glad man/If his Test average had been 0.06 more/Than 99.94."
I'm embarrassed for you :oQuote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
I think you're being a bit harsh on Hollies there. While he wasn't world class I think his level was a touch above mediocre. He was more than a solid and dependable spinner when required, cricketer of the year in the 1950s. He could bowl for virtually half a day if required and regularly bowled over 50 overs in first class cricket matches. He was hopless with the bat though, far too wild.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheridan
I think one of the stands at Edgebaston is named after him, or was named after him and has now been renamed.
Phil Taylor for me, how longs he been at it now?
to old timers from tennis bjorn borg / martina navratolva......sampras in more recent times
soccer pele ..... :eek: