blonde poker forum

i know this is impossible, but how would you answer this?

perhaps a top three?

you can decide whether longevity is important

obviously achievements across generations are tricky to compare too


my shortlist

Ali,

Pele,

Jordan,

Federer,

Gretsky,

Woods,

Phil the Power,

Hendry,

Jerry Rice

Usain Bolt

Merckx

Bubka

Jahangir Khan


but no doubt there is some recency in that and i might put in Nicklaus or Palmer, Borg etc etc

over to you

Phil Taylor
Tiger Woods
Usain Bolt

Got to include Bradman IMO.

Bradman
Phil Taylor
Bolt

Monster miss from the list.  

Ed Moses - Totally crushed his event for a decade.

My list would be post 1975

Power
Jordan
Moses
Bubka

Ed Moses.

Edit Arbboy beat me to it.

I think Ali probably just had great PR.

Michael Johnson in the same category?

untouchable through a cycle of two Olympics, at two events

Michael johnson.
ed moses.
carl lewis (long jump) 4 consecutive Olympic long jump golds

Taylor
Bolt
Woods


That's just first instinct, because I've seen them win a bunch.

Will defer to the boys who have been about, and seen a lot more than I ;)

Tomba?

I was hoping you were missing Jahangir Khan so I could look all smart when I brought him up but you were too good Tighty :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahangir_Khan
The record is just silly. As the question is framed, surely he blows all these others away?
There is the ladies wheelchair tennis player;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Vergeer
but as the sport is so niche, I think Jahangir is the winner as squash is a major world sport.

Yes because like the others on my list he used to win hard held literally every time he run in majors.  Bubka used to come in for his first vault sometimes at a height which he was 1.01 to clear at the first attempt having a medal locked up already if he made it.  Truely incredible athlete.  Johnson, Bolt and Lewis similar but Moses and Bubka for me in the athletics field just because we are talking about total dominance for long periods.

Some MMA candidates

Ronda Rousey
Anderson Silva
Georges St. Pierre

Sampras was much more domineering than federer who has been in a time share with nadal and djoavic all 3 better than sampras but sampras had no rivals

Borg more dominate than both imo during his brief spell in the game.  He never played the aussie open either yet still won 11 slams and retired far too early.  From Wimbledon 1976 until he retired he played 16 slams, won 9 and runner up in another 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_streak_%28sports%29

Some incredible records amongst these

I had Tomba too.  Was as dominant in his sport as would be realistically achievable.  You simply couldn't win every week with all the variables.  I think Mark Cavendish must be close on the same reasoning.

Schumacher?

...and dare I say it of we include Carl Lewis, we should include Lance Armstrong! 

On this basis Simon Deadman and Sam Trickett are locks!

Nirvana crushing it at the G?

I'd say it was difficult to beat Bradman, as cricket is a very stats-based game and his numbers are just so much higher than anyone else in a game that has been played internationally for well over 100 years.

Mind you, I'm pretty sure that in 50 years time people are going to look at footage of Christiano Ronaldo at Real Madrid and think 'was he even real or is this just someone hacking Pro Evo?'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Brazile

Been Rodeo champion 11/12 years...some going for an insane sport!

On Feb 3rd 2008 Tiger Woods shot 65 and came from 5 or 6 shots behind during the 4th round to win the Dubai Desert classic.

After that weekend the gap between his world ranking points and Phil Mickelson's world ranking points in second place was bigger than the gap between Phil Mickelson in 2nd place and the guy ranked 1000th in the world.

He was 423 world ranking points in front of Mickelson and Mickelson's total world ranking points on that day were 394.

The top 200 were listed here.

http://www.golftoday.co.uk/tours/rankings/world_wk05_08.html

I can't see footballers as dominating their events and some of the athletes and tennis players might benefit from the level of the opponents faced in their era. Tiger dominated a sport played against 150 runner fields most weeks and was so far ahead of a guy that became a multiple major winner and is already in the golf Hall of fame. Of the first 32 Golf World Championship events he won 16 of them.

Talyor in 2nd for me.

Don't think we're judging them on 2nd places.

most dominant 2nd place finisher in history when he would be like 150/1 each time to come 2nd!

Nadal on Clay
English clubs in Europe 1977-85
Phil the Power


I suppose you should have Bradman, but he played in an era where bowling to his weakness was considered cheating. He would have scored a shed load playing on some right bogs so maybe that is a bit harsh.

Moses is a glaring omission too, but that's already been posted.

Tiger.

Steffi Graf blitzed her regein, like no-one before or since.

No-one has a better record overall than Steffi.

Most weeks at number 1.
Grand slams and golden grand slam
13 consectative finals during late 80's.
8 years as number 1
186 consectative weeks at number 1.
5 years (twice) in having a winning streak of over 90%

Pretty hard to argue with when u provide this information, as well as Mickleson its not like the rest of the top ten would have been a bunch of no hopers which would make this even more compelling.

Martina Navratilova?

Asashoryu in Sumo.

Sooo hard to get just 3.

If I had to pick only 3 would probs be Woods, Taylor and then a choice of Ed Moses or Michael Johnson

Katie Taylor
Won her fifth successive World Championship (so far) just before Christmas, to go with her six European Championships, five European Union and one Olympic titles. 17 Golds, no Silvers, no Bronze. Has also played on the Ireland women's soccer team.

Babe Didrikson
Dominated women's professional golf for years, after winning 17 tournaments in a row as an amateur. She is still the only woman ever to make the cut in men's PGA events.
Named as Associated Press Female Athlete of the year six times, five of them between 1945 and 1954 for golf and once for Track & Field in 1932, when she won two Olympic golds and a silver, breaking the world record in all three events, having previously broken world records in four events in a single afternoon. Before athletics, she was an All-American basketball player three times. Nicknamed Babe after hitting five home runs.

Heather McKay
Lost two matches early in her career and then never lost again, winning every match she played until she retired at the age of 40. She won fourteen consecutive Australian Championships and sixteen consecutive British Opens (the effective World Championship of squash) and was only twice taken to 3-1, winning all her other matches 3-0. After that, she won the first two Women's Squash Opens. Also US Racquetball Champion three times and a member of the Australian hockey team for several years.

In Wimbledon overall trophies yes, alot were doubles though.
But as an overall career Steffi was more dominent imo

Could argue that Graff didn't have as much competition, and that Martina dominated for a much longer period.  The two of them even had a great head-to-head rivalry.  Didn't Martina manage back-to-back slams, something that Steffi didn't manage?

Then, like you say, there's the doubles as well.

I was going to say, MMA has some great candidates.

Anderson Silva entered the UFC in 2006 18-4 and won 16 on the bounce over the next 6 years, usually in devastating fashion, including a dethroning and twice annihilating of Rich Franklin who, himself was a pretty dominany force with a 22-1-1 record when they first fought. He's lost twice to Chris Weidman, but no body thinks that's because Weidman is a better fighter (good as he is). Hopefully he's back with his recent Diaz win, but I think we're all braced for a retirement, if not now, then following one of his next couple of fights.

Georges St Pierre entered the UFC 5-0 and appart from his novice loss to Matt Hughes (in his prime) and a shock defeat by Matt Serra (legend) he's went 20-2 as a UFC Welterweight, including avenging both losses. Not having any of this Jonny Hendriks was robbed rubbish either. GSP clearly won 3 rounds of 5.

Talking of Matt Hughes, he was pretty dominant before GSP came along and spoilt the party. His 45-9 record has an 18 win streak, followed by two quick losses, then a 19 fight winning run broken only by a loss to BJ Penn smack bang in the middle. The game evolved and time is unforgiving, but 1998 - 2006, Matt Hughes was unarguably the greatest welterweight on the planet.

And what about Jose Aldo at Featherweight? 25-1, 15 straight in WEC/UFC, hasn't lost since 2005. Much as I love Conor McGregor, I just don't see a dethroning when they meet. Utterly dominant champion.

Not to forget Fedor Emilianenko too. Until Fabricio Werdum broke the spell in 2010 Fedor was 31-1-1 and the loss was a controversial 1st round 17 second doctors stoppage. Ignoring that and the NC against Big Nog due to an accidental clash of heads, Fedor won 31 straight against a murderers row on heavyweight/open weight killers. If only the UFC deal could have been done.

Ronda Rousey is 10-0, and that includes 9 1st round stoppages, and 8 armbar submissions. Cat Zingano's 9-0 streak is coming to an end saturday 28th Feb.

Jon Jones (sadly, cos he's a dick) has been utterly dominant, at least he was until Alex Gustaffson was robbed at UFC 165. He's gone 5 rounds in his last 3 fights and I think once he loses to Alex at the rematch this summer, much like with Fedor, the spell will break, and he'll look human again.

Finally, you have to mention Demetrious Johnson. 21-2-1, and his only loss in UFC was to Dominic Crus at Bantam Weight. As a Flyweight, he looks unbeatable for the foreseeable future.

Amazing how no one has even mentioned Mayweather in this discussion.  Not suggesting for a minute he is worthy but i thought someone would have mentioned him as a sideline.

How about Michael Phelps? Far more medals than any other swimmer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_Olympic_swimming_medalists

Interesting one that should probably be considered.
Personally would never pick a boxer from the last 20 years as it is all politics and who can take the easiest fight/hang onto a belt most of the time. Cant say that about someone like Tiger

this is obviously a very powerful argument indeed

just out of interest, Nicklaus won 18 majors (19 2nds, 9 3rds) as part of 110 tournament wins over a 44 year career, only focussing on a comparatively light schdeule every year

does that amount of success over such a long time count for anything, or were fields so comparatively shallow in those days that Tger's achivement is that much better?

(i appreciate we are talking about 1 and 2 all time, so its semantics, but anyway)

Regarding the OP, though I always wanted Ali to win, I can't see that he was the most dominant boxer in history. Even just amongst heavyweights, I can think of at least six who were more dominant in their eras (Louis, Marciano, Holmes, Tyson,  Vitali,  Wlad).

Also think Anquetil, Hinault & Big Mig were probably as dominant as Merckx in their time.

Was thinking of Roy Jones Jr, who was massively dominant until everything fell apart towards the end. He fought everyone in his division as well - unlike Mayweather.

The thing about swimming is that once you've won one gold it's easy to pick up more.

"You won a gold for swimming 2 lengths on your front. Now try it on your back. Now do 4 lengths. Now do 2 lengths as part of a team where everyone does the same style. Now have a go where you do the same but everyone else does different styles". Suddenly you've got more gold round your neck than Mr T.

It's a good explanation of how you can get more than in other sports - but doesn't really explain why one swimmer would get so many more than other swimmers

Pretty much how i have always seen swimming.  The biggest factor in winning multiple golds is your ability to recover between races.  If you are the best freestyle swimmer and you are american you will probably win 5 golds with relays for just being good at one stroke.

Do we know if someone been amazingly dominent in lesser known sports; badminton, archery, bowls (the pipe guy springs to mind) and loads of other ones.

I thought of the bowls guy (David Bryant) i think his name was. 

This thread requires the Bradman histogram.

(http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/ah292/marklong70/bradman_zps3e236624.png) (http://s1383.photobucket.com/user/marklong70/media/bradman_zps3e236624.png.html)

Obviously decided to post it twice as it is so amazing!

Incredible graph.  Hard to argue with his dominance when you see it like that and you realise how good some of the batsmen in the 'pack' behind him were.

He did it longer, for one thing. Mark Spitz won nine golds yet retired at 22.

I think the quality of the fields have to be taken into account, as well as the workload. Sooo hard to define between eras though. Woods has the benefit of modern science in terms of training, nutrition, equipment etc that old Jack didn't have.  But then you can only beat the field you are up against.

Bradman must be a contender, different gravy.

Surprised no mention of Babe Ruth though, some of his records still stand to this day, including "on-base plus slugging", whatever that is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth


(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/73392618-1024x847.jpg)

I didn't realise Ricky Gervais and Karl Pilkington had the same father!

Forgot about Jones who deserves to be there after cutting through a historically elite lineup of LHW's, I did consider the rest but didnt list Fedor because he lost to guys that are doing ok but arent champs in UFC (Werdum, Henderson, Bigfoot) and with nog and Cro Cops performances in UFC I was harsh with his non-signing to the UFC to prove he was the best.

Johnson and Aldo are great champions but, imo, in newer divisions that dont have any all-time great fighters.  Didnt go for Hughes because he lost to Penn and his win over Newton was a complete robbery but its probably being harsh as he completely dominated the division for a time with elite wrestling in a time where the majority of MMA fighters couldnt wrestle.

Could have a separate juicers thread for Olympic athletes, cyclists, and mixed martial artists :D

Vasyl Lomachenko (amateur boxing) had a 396-1 record.

Lost one.

While Phil Taylor has obviously been amazing in his chosen career, to put him a list with people like Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps ect etc seems completely incongruous.

Darts isn't any more of a sport as poker or chess.

All 3 take alot of skill to be a champion, but that doesn't make them sports.

Why is golf any more of a sport than darts? 

Here we go again :D

I'm not saaying it is or isn't.

But Taylor dominating darts was more akin to that fella who lost 4 games of draughts in 30 years than Usain Bolt smashing every sprint record imagineable.

Valentino Rossi.

Tiger dominating golf could easily have the same thing aimed at him.  Doing a casual 4 mile walk every day hitting a small ball around a field more efficiently than your fellow out of shape players with your heart rate never moving.

The statement made is purely a snob factor of golf being a 'sport' that the best in the world earn 25 times more than Taylor.  If Taylor made £50m a year from sponsors because he played a sport which super rich people paid fortunes to play we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Absolutely not a snobbish remark. I love darts with a passion. It's great televsion and I'd rather watch a game of darts I didn't have a bet on than a Premier League football match.

I admire Taylor's work ethic and longevity as a darts player.

When you've won everything there is to win, it must be easy to lessen your desire to be the best. Taylor has never done that.

But one simple action of your arm, repeated many hundreds of thousands of times until you perfect it does not make a darts player a sportsman.

But one simple action of your arm, repeated many hundreds of thousands of times until you perfect it does not make a golfer a sportsman.

Sorry to sound argumentative!  I find it really annoying as a non golf fan why golf is considered a sport in these type of discussions but snooker and darts are not. 

To me, the biggest argument for Woods over most of the names discussed here is that he dominated in a sport that millions of people play, where money is pummelled into it all over the place and where a lot of people get the chance to reach their potential. And Tiger crushed them all. 

Taylor, for example, plays a game/sport where the majority of the top 32 have been British for the entire time he's dominated. Astonishing longevity, sure, and you can only beat what's in front of you, but it's hard to argue that he's one of the all-time greats for what is a minority pursuit. 

Same problem for Squash, wrestling, Table Tennis and so on. How can you equate that success to be above a multi-billion dollar sport that is played around the world, where the talent pool is enormous and one bloke swept all before him for a decade. 

To take Camel's lead, I'd put Kasparov above Taylor. He was unpopular in the USSR and, in the 90s era where the world was starting to compete better with the demise of the Soviet Union, he soared to the highest rating ever and consistently proved too good for his opponents.  

Beating the competition is what all these people have in common, but the competition is vastly different in breadth, ability and depth.

If any of these dead-ball games are sports, then they all have to be, surely?

Chess is a game though. For me a sport has to have some physical element to it that requires some dexterity, physical technique and/or strength.

Some will argue that the dead-ball games aren't sport, but for me and my understanding of the definition, they are.

Power to drive the ball 320 yards at one end of the hole, followed by the delicate touch of a surgeon when putting and chipping on greens as fast as ice.

That's before you put the ability to move the ball 60 yards from left to right (or vice versa) in the air in order to curl the ball round a dogleg or to avoid a water hazard.

I'll take any golfer in the top 1000 in the world in a arm wrestling match v any top 32 darts player.

Golfers are strong, flexible and graceful. Darts players are flabby.

Zero comparison IMO.

Bill Goldberg started out 173-0 in his professional wrestling career in WCW which included winning a US title and vacating it as he won the world title with multiple defenses of the title within that streak.  He defeated legends of the sport on that streak including Hulk Hogan, Sting, Lex Luger, Diamond Dallas Page and Brett Hart.  Arguably his reign of dominance wouldve been much longer as he lost the title due to these shenanigans at 15m 39s

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-z_XWEYx8U

Not sport.

Ok, I'll take Painter vs Na in the battle of the Kevins...

(http://images.dailystar-uk.co.uk/dynamic/63/photos/987000/620x/61987.jpg) (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/17/article-0-1C59C8FF00000578-967_306x423.jpg)

+1 and Senna for genius and Schumacher for ruthless efficiency

Try to think of a golfer who wouldn't be 10/1 or bigger in an arm wrestle with Andy Hamilton!  Could easily add Painter/Merv King/Winstanley and Dolan to this list without much thought or worry.

Hamilton v furyk would be 1/100 25/1 surely!

Golfers have to walk 4-6m round a course every day, then stick a few hours on the practice range, a couple in the gym( a few exceptions natch!), they adhere to nutrional programmes etc etc. I don't see too many darts and snooker players doing that...

I consider both sports, but no comparison in the "which is more of a sport" debate.

not in an overly passionately way, but putting it out there,

Sport or game / pastime - always considered If i can play it and in essence all it took was practice to become a "champion", it is a game/pastime.....if it need nature talent it is a sport.

flame away.

I challenge anyone in this thread to a game of Subbeteo.
I WILL dominate.

Loved that game.

You mean you loved that SPORT.

You can get better at everything with practice - but what is your maximum potential?  That's where natural talent is a factor imo.

I doubt that you could become a "champion", in anything that has professionals making a living, simply by practice.  Most sports organise their championships to eliminate luck as much as possible.  That isn't to say that luck isn't a factor in who wins, but that it won't be possible for someone without a certain level of skill to win by being lucky.

 

Poor refereeing IMO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil_Mutlu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_S%C3%BCleymano%C4%9Flu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrros_Dimas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Alekseyev

Naively most likely, but with Darts and Snooker i think enough practice is enough to get you higher in most other "sports"

I can practice darts and snooker and technically become a champion, as it is limited in its challenge. By what i mean, if you hit the ball correctly at the right angle it'll go in.  You can practice cue and ball control, pace etc and you'll nail it eventually. Same with darts, angle vision practice practice i would could become champion - in theory.

Cricket, rugby, football and the like i can practice as much as above, but will never play at the top level as i havent got nature talent

Poker forum the wrong place to issue a Subbuteo challenge - too many people have too much experience at flicking it in.

Disagree. Most players cannot even get to being a champion in darts or snooker. In snooker for instance, plenty of players can hit century breaks and wont ever get close to being a pro standard, let alone ever getting close to being a champion.

Not so in team sports, sooo many mediocre players in rugby/football in particular who have very little skill.

Never forget Alekseyev at the Olympic opening ceremony, carrying the Soviet flag in one hand with his arm fully extended, while the other flag-bearers all sat theirs in a leather pouch that was strapped around them.

True about team sports, so lets say badminton/ tennis in comparsion, nee more than pratice to become a champion at those as natural talent is needed vs darts/snooker

1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 he was on drugs.

Of course he was but so are the majority of sportsmen than make it to the top of their game. 

Takeru Kobayashi - hot dog eater

Those losses of Fedor's mark the end of his period of domination. Up til that point, he was utterly dominant, as an undersized fighter in open weight/heavy weight competition against elite competition. Still think Randy Couture would have beat him in the cage though :)

The Hughes win against Newton where they were both out and he woke up first was a farce, but other than those peppered losses, there's no doubt he was a mile in front of the other fighters in the class at the time. As you say, the wrestling in the rest of the division was a long way short of Hughes at the time and of the game as a whole now. GSP was a whole new generation of athlete.

I think with the others you're being harsh. We're talking about people that dominate their sport. You can only beat what's in front of you and Johnson abd Aldo have battered everyone they've had rolled in front of them, and look set to continue the same way.

Best sport in the world. The best fight the best card after card.

I thought Joey Chesnut was the man?!

Joe Davis - Billards.

Lance Armstrong - Tour de France

^^^ just highlighting how sports 'legends' have changed over time.

Has anyone mentioned Tikays boyhood chum WG Grace?

Babe Ruth and Ed Moses for sure. Mike Tyson for ko's.

Frankel :)

Just watching Federer bash heads with Djokovic for the umpteenth time.

The only reason Fed hasn't dominated like some of others in this thread is the standard of competition while he has been at the top of his game has been incredibly intense.

I'm pretty sure if they had come from any other era all of Federer, Nadal, Novak and Murray would be undisputed and clear number 1 in the world.

For Federer to remain competitive with these guys who are at their physical peak while he is at an age where most tennis players have retired is virtually unbelieveable.

The guy is one of a kind, and I'll miss him more than other ex-sportsman when he finally packs it in.

His cross-court backhand is one of the most beautiful sights in sport.

'Hear,Hear'. He is the GOAT.   What is remarkable is Federer is playing arguably his best tennis right now,I wouldn't even say he has lost half a step,it doesn't show against the best athlete in the game. (Djokovic). The longevity he has shown is ridiculous.  

Indeed.

And in his early days when he serve and volleyed, his serve out wide, followed by a glide into the net and a backhand volley put away was perfection too.

Someone on Twitter just suggested he might be on drugs. I had never even considered this before.

I don't usually care, but in his case I really hope he isn't.

You won't go under the radar of the drugs people these days,you just have to listen to Andy Murray and his comments on the testers.

I thought Federer had slowed down a few years ago,far from it. Perhaps all the training with FC Basle has kept him sharp.  He makes up for any loss of speed with his timing.

Can't have Murray especially and nadal even Spoke about as the greatest ever or even close, nadal is a huge roids cheat I think everyone in the game knows that deep down at different times of his career and the speed of his comebacks and his random abscenes from the tour at certain periods prove that without much doubt,  his physique changed at the same time as he suddenly shifted a stone of muscle off his frame plus all he has ever done is predominately best up people on dirt in an era when they was no other serious Challengers on dirt to compete with him.

As for Murray do me a favour he isn't in the same league as Big Mac Connors Lendl Edberg Becker Borg courier even safin and I have probably missed a few more out and that is just in the modern era.  I find it amazing how people wax lyrical about muz. He has pretty much maxed out his physical talent as much as safin didn't.  Muz is nothing but a grinder in the all time discussion list on tennis for me.  He would never have been a clear number one in the world in tennis in any year other than the year Hewitt had it off in my lifetime.  Even then it would be debatable whether even in murrays prime he was better than Hewitt that year

I totally agree with assessment of Fed and Djokovic though. They really are two of the greatest players to ever play the game IMO even though Djokovic has had to play virtually all his tennis in the most brutal era ever.  Fed did pick up a lot of soft slams at the start of his career which Djokovic has never had the chance to do and hence his all time slam list will be a lot lower than his talent would deserve.

People have spoken about Federer for at least the last five years as if he is some elderly player having his last shot, yet I have never seen anything similar about Serena, although they are exactly the same age (okay, one month difference).

While I'm here - Serena Williams. Greatest ever, obviously.

I looked through a list of world number tennis players since the mid 70s (ie those I've seen)

The list includes players who wouldn't be fit to lace Murray's plimsols.

Rafter, Courier, Hewitt, Rios, Wilander and Muster.

I'd make Murray fav over Agassi, Edberg and Becker too. Probably even Sampras on any surface except grass.

McEnroe is the only player outside the current elite I'd make a clear fav in a match with Murray at their respective peaks.

Just like Tim Henman was, Andy Murray is massively underrated in his own country IMO. He's a fantastic tennis player at his best (although he doesn't produce his best often enough to be considered an all time great)

A week too early for this years version of dubais marble gag. I assume you are winding. Me and everyone else up with that post?  Becker or edberg v muz at evens at Wimbledon both in their prime you would get absolutely filled in.

Wow, bold statements from both parties.

Absolutely not winding at all.

The tennis Murray played in the Olympics was breathtaking.

He destroyed Federer and Djoko who were both absolutely desperate to win it (Novak is a masive patriot and wanted to win it for his country while for Fed the Olympics singles was the only tournament missing from his resume).

And to win Wimbledon under the severest pressure of all, was a monumental achievement.

Becker did that at an age I hadn't even sat my a levels

The only single performance which I've seen which compares to Murray's demolition of Federer in the Olympics final was Mac's brutal win over Connors in the Wimbledon final of 1984.

I can't believe we are talking about a home town non major tennis event which only Murray actually seriously was training that year to peak for as one of the greatest tennis performances of all time.

1984 lawns final was one of the finest demolition jobs of all time I agree. My first ever memory of tennis

Murray is a much better player than Becker ever was but Becker didn't have to beat 2 out of 3 of best players in world ever to win an event, take out nadal Federer and Djokovic and Murray would have double figures in grand slam events.
The level of game the top 8-10 players are playing at no surpasses anything before it by along way

Fall asleep listening to Nadal on drugs comments,A-Plus for uncle Tony hiding this from the authorities.  He was a physical beast from the age of 16. You can't be serious with Safin? One of my favourite players but a complete nut job which stopped him from winning more major tournaments so he can't even enter the equation. Murray and Safin 2 majors each but Murrays consistency to keep reaching semis and finals can't be ignored.  He has done great winning two in this era of tennis.

It is also pointless comparing the likes of nadal/djokovic/federer/murray to the likes of becker/bjorg/edberg/lendle,the game has changed completely,serve and volley is virtually dead and defence and physical strength rule the game.

Have you seen who is currently in the top 10 in the world? Cilic?  Berd? Ferrer? Nish? Wawrinka? Raonic? Outside the top four these are cart horses of the highest order in any discussion about the greatest ever in any era. Do me a favour.

I bet you if you asked Federer if he had any regrets from his career he'd answer "Not winning the Olympics singles".

He even played the doubles at the Olympics ffs, that's how much he wanted a gold medal.

It was a superb showing but if you rewind a few
Months to Wimbledon the same could be said about Federers win v Murray.  I suppose that made Andy Murray's Olympic gold win even better.

Beckers serve was different gravy to most players especially Murrays.  If you are talking about talent,Murray is in a different league to Boris.  Mentally and serving BB ticks the boxes.

It worked.

What other regret would he possibly have? Other than the roid cheat Rafa being alive at the same time as him and stopping him winning 5 frenchs on top of everything else.  Comical to think fed took the London games as seriously as the lawns earlier in the summer. It was a warm up event for him before the Us open nothing more nothing less,

Federer won serving and volleying at the beginning of his career.

Federer won as an all court player from his mid twenties onwards.

I can't imagine Becker, Lendl, Stich, Sampras, Agassi or Connors being able to win majors playing two completely different syles of tennis.

In my lifetime only Borg and McEnroe have been able to do it.

And Federer has done it for longer and against better opponents.

He's the GOAT.

if you put Ferrer or Wawrinka in a time warp back to the 80s or 90s with there current skills and fitness then I would think they would be clse to being a favourite every game they played

It must be April the first. I am off to bed and hope my clock corrects itself to the right date in the morning.  That has to be the most redic post in the history of blonde poker.

Not winning a grand slam?

Not beating Rafa in Paris?

If Roger didn't care about the Olympics he wouldn't have played the doubles. You are doing Murray (and Federer) a massive disservice to suggest he was non trier in that match.

He obviously cares about representing his country. He pulled out of a ATP Grand Final final v Djoko so he'd be sure he'd be fit for the Davis Cup final the week afterwards.

Easy to look at the top 10 and pick fault,check out the top 10 over 10 years ago.  Wawrinka has come to the party late,his very best tennis is a match for any player in the top 4,not many,if any have beaten Djokovic and Nadal back to back to win a grandslam.

Federer had it easy 7-10 years ago compared to the last 3-4 years.  

I think the best of Agassi beats the best I have seen from Murray though.

Andy made Federer luck fairly weak in that olympic final, Rog looked cooked physically.

Serguy Bubka in pole vault 6 world championships in a row (got unlucky and only won 1 olympic gold)

Byron Nelson, golf 1945 won 18 times including 11 in a row with a stroke average of 68.33 which stood as a record for 55 years

UCLA in college basketball from 1963 - 1975 won 10 NCAA championships in 12 years had 4 undefeated seasons in that span for comparison Kentucky have a chance to get the 1st undefeated season this year since Indiana in 1976!



 

I don't entirely agree Keef. I think they are so good because they have to play and compete against one another so regularly.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1177880622234995

Michael Jordan vs Kobe Bryant vs Lebron James?

I think you need to balance this against the fact that today's courts are more similar in speed from the 80s/90s.  The days of clay courters not turning up at Wimbledon are over.

I think Agassi figuring out how to win on grass in that era was notable.  He was hopeless when he first played on grass.

Yes this is bizarre.

Sampras v Wawrinka on grass
Ferrer v Kuerten on clay

Ferrer/Wawa would be huge dogs in these match ups.  And there are tons more we could pull up!

Either v Coria on clay as well.

Agassi on rebound Ace (or whatever it is called in Australia!)

MJ is miles clear of those two.  Lebron a slight 2nd to Kobe.  Kobe too selfish and individual record/financially driven to be considered above these two.  Kobe wasn't even the best player on 3 of his title teams imo.

(https://scontent-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/10905980_10155053482335534_7920937580925134656_n.jpg?oh=c1da6c8bdc5210941b1e7a5cb6d2399f&oe=55BC15CF)

This made me laugh :D

Jordan was from my teenage years, when I used to play basketball and so my judgement of him is clouded.  He was immense, a freak. I'm sure there are others who'll argue the case for Lebron though.

Roddick would have won 5 or 6 majors as well if he hadn't run into Fed at his peak at the same time Arod was at his peak esp at Wimbledon.  He hasn't even been mentioned in the discussions.  He must be the best grass court player to have never won Wimbledon in the modern era.

Maybe - but I always felt Roddick/Hewitt/Ferrero were in that barren period before Fed/Nad and after Agassi/Sampras.  I'm not sure they had the tools to conquer in the periods where we had genuine superstars on the various surfaces even at their peak?

I totally agree it was a shit era but Arod peaked later than the other two for me and run directly into Fedex during his early peak years.  He gave Fed two of his toughest ever matches during years when Fed won the Wimbledon title in the 3 finals they played together.  Obviously he was a one dimensional powerhouse but in any other era he would have won 3 lawns titles.

Imagine backing Arod on any surface other than clay at evens against Wawrinka/Ferrer when they were both at their relative peaks????

I liked Arod but I'm just not sure if I'd fancy him at his peak to beat Wawa on a hard court at his peak.

I remember so many games when the guy at the other end starts to get a read on the Roddick serve and he looks up at the coach as if to say "what now!?"

Andy Roddick best server never to win Wimbledon.  To call him the best grass courter is far fetched.

Andy Roddick would have won 5 or 6 Majors if Federer wasn't so good? If Federer wasn't in his way Hewitt was around to step in and take one down, bold to say Roddick would have just rattled off 5 slams without Fed in the mix.

Roddick better than Stan the Man, heard it all now.

Over and out.

Is this the same Stan who reached 2 quarter finals in his first 9 (yes NINE) full seasons on the atp tour as his biggest achievements in grand slam events?  You have got to be pulling my pisser surely.

Well at his peak Roddick ran Federer extremely close on grass a couple of times.  I don't think it's a given that Wawa would beat Roddick when both at their peak (although I would back Wawa at evens in such an encounter if on a hard court).

Nadal,federer,djokovic,murray.  Four players who have been in the way of every other atp player over the last 5-10 years, you said it yourself Roddick peaked late,Stan has only peaked in the last 2 years.  You really think Roddick was a better player than Stan?

Do you think Roddick makes finals with these four players in his era?

Mark Stan down for this years French Open.

I can't begin to imagine how much i would pile on Arod at evens to beat wawrinka on grass.  I actually said Arod peaked later than Hewitt and Ferrero not that Arod peaked late on his career which he didn't.  He probably peaked relatively early in his career and was past his best at 27.   Most athletes who rely on power and athletic ability like Arod did peak early and burn out quicker.  Roddick is only 32 now.

Grass is a myth, no such thing as a grass court expert,some players are more comfortable on the surface. You either play halle or queens, then a week later turn up at Wimbledon and that is the so called grass court season.

Play 10 times on clay stan would win 9/10 at least, hard court stan wins 8/10(You have to give Roddick an extra win for his serve being on right through the entire match).

Grass, lets give the Roddick fans a little hope, 5/10.  We will never get to know but if we are talking about both players bringing the best they have to give it isn't even close.  You don't see many players taking Djokovic apart in every area and that was what Stan did to him last year in Melbourne.  Granted he has massively underachieved so far given the talent he has but Roddick maxed his game really as he had a limited skill set in comparison to Stan and the big 4.

Grass is a myth now.  It wasn't in the 80s and early 90s.   Claycourters didn't even both to show up in those days.  Carlos Moya was always "injured" until the courts were slowed down.

"You don't see many players taking Djokovic apart in every area and that was what Stan did to him last year in Melbourne. "

Players can have golden matches.  Nalbandian took Federer apart at the US Open once when Federer was approaching his peak.  Just returned everything at Federers feet it seemed.  I think it was the year Roddick won it in fact.

I wouldn't use that single game to argue that Nalbandian would take apart Rafter at his peak though.  (Searching for a Roddick equivilant from a different era)

"Grass is a myth, no such thing as a grass court expert,some players are more comfortable on the surface. "

I think there are still a couple of grass court experts lower down the ranks who bank on a decent run at Queens/Wimbledon for a good chunk of their yearly income.   Nicholas Mahut springs to mind. 

Quite agree but he had also become swiss number1 and carried them to Davis cup victory.  He is a completely different player and could take apart any of the top 4 and I woudn't be surprised. He just has to make sure he doesn't waste his talent.

The spaniards started playing more at Wimbledon when the courts started to have a little more bounce,some say the balls are heavier,the conspiracy theorists have you believe it was all in Nadal's plan to have heavier balls.

Don't get me wrong - I'd be on Wawa in a match up.  Just don't think it is as clear cut as you make out.

Of course not as you will never get two players 100%  on their game at the same time.  As a mythical match-up you have 1player with bags of talent and one who was fairly. One dimensional

Andy Roddick's path to US Open glory

RD 4 F Saretta  RD 5 X Malisse  Q S. Schalken  S/F Nalbandian(Legend) Final JC Ferrero, if you aren't seeded in the top 4 it is almost impossible to win a slam.  You have to beat Federer/Rafa/Djokovic/ In back to back days.  I can only think of Warwinka and Del Potro doing this.

Frank Braithwate - Pan fighting at Cleethorpes.

Haven't thought of Sjeng Schalken for a long ass time.

Back in the days I used to bet tennis a great deal I spotted him as a junior just moving into the main tour and won bundles following him all the way to the top 10.

Happy days!

Robin Soderling,often forget about him,shame really as he could mix it with the best.

@Camel, if you were betting on Schalken you must have followed Rios also, talented guy.

Had a hate/hate relationship with Rios.

If he was a horse, he'd have had a double squiggle in Timeform.

A man with many moods, you never knew what you would get,pre exchange this type of player gave me many headaches