World's most dominant sports star

**DmanDmythDledge** · 13/09/2006, 11:56 AM

So what's your definition of a sport then?

**Metrostars** · 13/09/2006, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

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

Originally Posted by Metrostars

One has to sweat.

"Games" such as Darts, Bowling, Baseball arent really sports.

Have you seen Andy Fordham playing?

**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

Originally Posted by Schumi

Have you seen Andy Fordham playing?

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

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

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

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

yer man from back in the 80s - Moses someone (some biblical name)?

Ed Moses.

**joema** · 14/09/2006, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by finlma

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??

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Didn't Armstrong just show up at the Tour De France and not win much of the other events?

Originally Posted by Aberdonian Stu

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.

Originally Posted by Dodge

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.

**Dodge** · 14/09/2006, 1:03 PM

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

Originally Posted by joema

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.

**Dodge** · 15/09/2006, 2:02 AM

I was joking about Ed Moses...

**londonirish17** · 15/09/2006, 7:39 AM

Originally Posted by finlma

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...