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-...to962240.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.

**Dodge** · 12/09/2006, 1:34 AM

Federer by a 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

Originally Posted by joema

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

Originally Posted by endabob1

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

**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