Is Gretzky the most dominant athlete ever in any major sport?

[RandV]

Archaic? Right, remind me when the sport of Ice Hockey gains a Worldwide audience of over 2 billion viewers Worldwide for any event.

You should learn about the game of Cricket before typing such arrogance. Gretzky doesn't even belong in the same conversation as a legend of the caliber of Sir. Donald Bradman. The Greatest sportsman in history.

Some of you in here need to learn and gain knowledge about other sports before putting so much value on Gretzky, there is so many dominating athletes not only in team sports but individual sports, Gretzky probably isn't even top 5 if a true list is construed by a respectable sports brain. And that in no way is any kind of knock.

It's not arrogance and it's not a knock on cricket. Hockey is the only sport I really watch so I wouldn't know what have the stats meant if I looked up a page for the MLB, NBA, or NFL, but it's easy to read 'Babe Ruth hit more homeruns himself than entire teams had' and understand what it means. Same thing with achievements from other sports like rugby, tennis, golf, squash, handball, heck even water polo.

Typically while one may not understand the intricacies of a particular sport it's easy to grasp the general premise at a glance. A goal/homerun/touchdown/match win/etc is easy to understand. For an outsider to the sport though (which on this forum will be the majority of posters) cricket has got to be one of the hardest sports out there to understand what's going on. Any other athlete mentioned here I can read his wiki and have a decent to good understanding of they're accomplishments, but reading Bradman's I had no idea what any of it means. This wasn't a criticism, just a simple fact.

As I didn't mention anything about Gretzky really the only thing arrogant is saying I should learn more about cricket. I'm a guy from Vancouver who's sports involvement includes watching hockey and playing casual rec/beer league soccer & hockey. That's enough for me, why would I need to know anything about cricket?

 

[Jumptheshark]

I could be a homer--but I will say no--each sport is so different that it will depend who you talk to

 

[JMT21]

I'd put this at 3-way tie. Gretzky/Rice/Chamberlain

Pretty sure Wilt still holds more NBA records than Gretzky has NHL records. Both hold many records than will simply never be broken....... ever.

Rice was nothing short of dominant as well and surely the best receiver of all time. I do wonder how his stats would have looked if not for the likes of Montana & Young throwing to him for most of his career.

 

[Hockey Monkey]

If we equate points with batting average, comparing Gretz to Bradman, in order to achieve the same level of separation from the 2nd best player Gretz would have had to score around 4,600 career points, just over 3 per game on average. Not quite 10,000, but still.

In the NBA it'd be a career average of around 43 points, in the NFL (for a running back or receiver) it'd be averaging about 171 yards per game. For an NHL goalie, it'd be a save % of around .970.

Point being it is absolutely insane.

Typically while one may not understand the intricacies of a particular sport it's easy to grasp the general premise at a glance. A goal/homerun/touchdown/match win/etc is easy to understand. For an outsider to the sport though (which on this forum will be the majority of posters) cricket has got to be one of the hardest sports out there to understand what's going on. Any other athlete mentioned here I can read his wiki and have a decent to good understanding of they're accomplishments, but reading Bradman's I had no idea what any of it means. This wasn't a criticism, just a simple fact.

I mean, I agree in part, but if you've ever had to try and explain American football to a foreigner who has not seen it you'll understand exactly what the hardest sport to understand truly is.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I'd put this at 3-way tie. Gretzky/Rice/Chamberlain

Pretty sure Wilt still holds more NBA records than Gretzky has NHL records. Both hold many records than will simply never be broken....... ever.

Rice was nothing short of dominant as well and surely the best receiver of all time. I do wonder how his stats would have looked if not for the likes of Montana & Young throwing to him for most of his career.

and that hurts rice-- you put gretzky with a pile of cow dung and that cow dung would get 20 goals and 20 assists

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Typically while one may not understand the intricacies of a particular sport it's easy to grasp the general premise at a glance. A goal/homerun/touchdown/match win/etc is easy to understand. For an outsider to the sport though (which on this forum will be the majority of posters) cricket has got to be one of the hardest sports out there to understand what's going on. Any other athlete mentioned here I can read his wiki and have a decent to good understanding of they're accomplishments, but reading Bradman's I had no idea what any of it means. This wasn't a criticism, just a simple fact.

Sounds like you might have meant to say arcane rather than archaic?

 

[RandV]

If we equate points with batting average, comparing Gretz to Bradman, in order to achieve the same level of separation from the 2nd best player Gretz would have had to score around 4,600 career points, just over 3 per game on average. Not quite 10,000, but still.

In the NBA it'd be a career average of around 43 points, in the NFL (for a running back or receiver) it'd be averaging about 171 yards per game. For an NHL goalie, it'd be a save % of around .970.

Point being it is absolutely insane.



I mean, I agree in part, but if you've ever had to try and explain American football to a foreigner who has not seen it you'll understand exactly what the hardest sport to understand truly is.

Fair enough, some sports we're just accustomed to by proximity

All things being equal it seems like NA Football is a more complicated form of Rugby while Cricket is a more complicated form of Baseball.

 

[Czech Your Math]

In terms of major sports, Babe and Wilt were not just completely dominating, but were responsible for transforming how their game was played. They dominated their competition so much that it was just plain silly. Almost as silly as trying to dismiss their dominance because they no longer hold all their records. Babe was dominant as both a pitcher and hitter, as has been pointed out. Wilt could have set about any individual record he wanted to... points, FG%, rebounds, blocked shots, perhaps even assists (if that's what he concentrated on). He played for the Globetrotters and his NBA opponents must have often felt like the Washington Generals.

 

[crobro]

Hockey- wayne Gretzky

Baseball- Babe Ruth hitter and Leroy Satchel Paige pitcher

Football- Jim Brown

Basketball- wilt chamberlain

Boxing- Willie pep

Lacrosse-Gary Gait

My list of most dominant in individual sports.

 

[frontsfan2005]

Not sure how fair this is - Ruth did not become a truly dominant hitter until he stopped pitching.

While he wasn't hitting 60+ home runs a year, Ruth was a very good hitter while pitching.

In 1915, Ruth hit four home runs in 92 at-bats as a pitcher, which led the entire Red Sox team. He did it in 92 at-bats. He also hit .315 and drove in 20 guys in his limited action.

In 1916, he hit .272 with 3 HR and 16 RBI in 136 at-bats. His home run total, while not what it was in the 1920's and 30's, was good enough to be tied for the team lead that season.

Then the next year he hit .325 with 2 HR and 14 RBI in 123 at-bats, his last full season as a pitcher.

He split 1918 as a pitcher and hitter. As a pitcher, he was 13-7 with a 2.22 ERA. As a hitter, he hit .300 with a league high 11 home runs and 61 RBI in 317 at-bats.

Then in his first full season as a hitter in 1919, Ruth hit .322 with 29 HR and 113 RBI. Ruth hit 29 of the Red Sox 33 home runs that season.

Imagine how high his career home run total could have been if he had seen regular at bats as an outfielder from 1915-1918? Instead he was posting Cy Young Award winning calibre seasons.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

While he wasn't hitting 60+ home runs a year, Ruth was a very good hitter while pitching.

Indeed he was, but he also had much less playing time, since he was a pitcher and thus not playing every day. Would we really be discussing him as the most dominant hitter of all time if he had never had more than 150 plate appearances in a season?

 

[Barnum]

While he wasn't hitting 60+ home runs a year, Ruth was a very good hitter while pitching.

In 1915, Ruth hit four home runs in 92 at-bats as a pitcher, which led the entire Red Sox team. He did it in 92 at-bats. He also hit .315 and drove in 20 guys in his limited action.

In 1916, he hit .272 with 3 HR and 16 RBI in 136 at-bats. His home run total, while not what it was in the 1920's and 30's, was good enough to be tied for the team lead that season.

Then the next year he hit .325 with 2 HR and 14 RBI in 123 at-bats, his last full season as a pitcher.

He split 1918 as a pitcher and hitter. As a pitcher, he was 13-7 with a 2.22 ERA. As a hitter, he hit .300 with a league high 11 home runs and 61 RBI in 317 at-bats.

Then in his first full season as a hitter in 1919, Ruth hit .322 with 29 HR and 113 RBI. Ruth hit 29 of the Red Sox 33 home runs that season.

Imagine how high his career home run total could have been if he had seen regular at bats as an outfielder from 1915-1918? Instead he was posting Cy Young Award winning calibre seasons.

I really need to find that article on Ruth that some mathematician put out a bunch of years back. It shows how amazing his records were and they will never be broken. I believe was Ruth did is better than what Gretzky did.

Now to find that article.

 

[RandV]

Sounds like you might have meant to say arcane rather than archaic?

Yes that's what I meant, thanks for the correction.

 

[tazzy19]

I remember a statistician once saying that Gretzky winning the scoring title with his assists alone (with 163 assists in 1985-86) was like winning the major league baseball batting title, hitting .700.

 

[frontsfan2005]

Indeed he was, but he also had much less playing time, since he was a pitcher and thus not playing every day. Would we really be discussing him as the most dominant hitter of all time if he had never had more than 150 plate appearances in a season?

Obviously not, if he stuck with pitching, who knows, maybe he would have continued to be a top end pitcher for the next 15+ years. He nearly won 100 games by the age of 24, and easily finishes his career with 300-350 wins if he remains healthy, maybe more if he still joins the star studded 1920's Yankees as the staff ace.

The only comparable in hockey is a top notch goaltender switching to become a forward and put up Gretzky like numbers. That's how good Babe Ruth was at baseball, he was a star pitcher who put up elite numbers by the age of 24, and was arguably the best hitter ever.

 

[Hammer Time]

In terms of major sports, Babe and Wilt were not just completely dominating, but were responsible for transforming how their game was played. They dominated their competition so much that it was just plain silly. Almost as silly as trying to dismiss their dominance because they no longer hold all their records. Babe was dominant as both a pitcher and hitter, as has been pointed out. Wilt could have set about any individual record he wanted to... points, FG%, rebounds, blocked shots, perhaps even assists (if that's what he concentrated on). He played for the Globetrotters and his NBA opponents must have often felt like the Washington Generals.

Well, except for free throw accuracy ...

 

[VMBM]

Ole Binar Bjorndalen, skiing.

Biathlon actually, to use the exact term.

The most dominating (cross-country) skier of all-time would probably be Bjørn Dæhlie (or is that too 'modern' a choice?).

Ingemar Stenmark really dominated slalom/giant slalom in the 1970s/early 1980s. But should he be 'penalized' because he wasn't so called all-rounder?

Ski-jumping: Matti Nykänen

 

[Pegi90*]

Biathlon actually, to use the exact term.

The most dominating (cross-country) skier of all-time would probably be Bjørn Dæhlie (or is that too 'modern' a choice?).

Ingemar Stenmark really dominated slalom/giant slalom in the 1970s/early 1980s. But should he be 'penalized' because he wasn't so called all-rounder?

Ski-jumping: Matti Nykänen

bjoerndalen has lik e 94 world cup wins and daehlie was full of doping, just never got caught due the fact that whole anti-doping commitee is full of norwegians.

suprised someone even knew such a sport called "biathlon", what a fun sport it is to watch!

 

[Hawksfan2828]

true. the discussion of greatest individual in team sport starts and ends with Bradman, but i think there is good case for Gretzky being second. Soccer, baseball, a.football, volleyball or basketball don't even have clear cut best player of all time.

Michael Jordan was as clutch and as good as Gretzky, Sammy Sosa to boot along with McGwire and I'll just throw Walter Payton and Payton Manning into the mix..

Walter Payton was one of the most skilled RB's I have ever seen - not to mention the guy would run up hills with 150 pounds of weight on his back - which is absolutely insane.

I'm not the biggest basketball fan but Michael Jordan was what Wayne Gretzky is to hockey...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Wilt were not just completely dominating, but were responsible for transforming how their game was played.

actually, it was bill russell and elgin baylor who were responsible for changing the way basketball was played. wilt was unbelievably strong and bigger than everyone else, but for all intents and purposes he was just an evolutionary version of mikan.

whereas russell and elgin, with their athleticism, changed the game from being a predominantly jump-shooting/pound-it-in-to-your-big-man league to a league where the game was played "above the rim." for example:

Elgin came into a league where guys shot running jump hooks and one-handed set shots. Teams routinely took 115 shots a game and made less than 40 percent of them. Nobody played above the rim except Russell; nobody dunked, and everyone played the same way: Rebound, run the floor, get a quick shot. Quantity over quality. That's what worked. Or so they thought. Because Elgin changed everything. He did things that nobody had ever seen before. He defied gravity. Elgin would drive from the left side, take off with the basketball, elevate, hang in the air, hang in the air, then release the ball after everyone else was already back on the ground. You could call him the godfather of hang time. You could call him the godfather of the "WOW!" play. You could point to his entrance into the league as the precise moment when basketball changed for the better. Along with Russell, Elgin turned a horizontal game into a vertical one.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/081008

his NBA opponents must have often felt like the Washington Generals.

seems like some are just completely ignoring the fact that there was another center who beat chamberlain i head-to-head matchups five straight times until wilt finally got one, then proceeded to beat him two more times in the next two years before retiring.

"dominant," if dominant is statistically feasting on all the guys you can push around with one arm until you lose every year to russell, and after russell retired to willis reed.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Well, except for free throw accuracy ...

Very true... after they changed the rules:

"When Wilt Chamberlain was in high school, he had a unique way of shooting free-throws. He would stand at the top of the key, throw the ball up toward the basket, take two steps, jump toward the rim and jam the ball through the net. Doing this resulted in basketball rules to state that a player cannot cross the plane of the free-throw line when shooting a free-throw."

 

[Czech Your Math]

actually, it was bill russell and elgin baylor who were responsible for changing the way basketball was played. wilt was unbelievably strong and bigger than everyone else, but for all intents and purposes he was just an evolutionary version of mikan.

whereas russell and elgin, with their athleticism, changed the game from being a predominantly jump-shooting/pound-it-in-to-your-big-man league to a league where the game was played "above the rim."

Wait, are you saying that Wilt didn't play the game above the rim?

I'm talking literally, as well as figuratively, about him transforming how the game was played:

http://www.nba.com/history/wilt_appreciation.html

"Chamberlain is the reason the NBA's foul lane is 16 feet wide."

"Chamberlain is responsible for changes in rules as well as court dimensions. When he was playing college ball at Kansas, his teammates' favorite play was to lob the ball toward the basket, hoping simply to get it in the vicinity of the rim. Chamberlain would roll to the hoop, catch whatever came within his enormous wingspan and slam it home. His rivals couldn't stop him, so the rules-makers outlawed offensive basket interference, preventing Chamberlain from touching the ball in the cylinder above the rim."

His defense above the rim was rather spectacular as well:

'Of all his memories of Wilt Chamberlain, the one that stood out for Larry Brown happened long after Chamberlain's professional career was over.

On a summer day in the early 1980s at the Men's Gym on the UCLA campus, Chamberlain showed up to take part in one of the high-octane pickup games that the arena constantly attracted. Brown was the coach of the Bruins back then, and Chamberlain often drove to UCLA from his home in Bel Air, Calif.

"Magic Johnson used to run the games," Brown recalled Tuesday after hearing that Chamberlain, his friend, had died at the age of 63, "and he called a couple of chintzy fouls and a goaltending on Wilt.

"So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one (of Johnson's) shots get to the rim."'

seems like some are just completely ignoring the fact that there was another center who beat chamberlain i head-to-head matchups five straight times until wilt finally got one, then proceeded to beat him two more times in the next two years before retiring.

"dominant," if dominant is statistically feasting on all the guys you can push around with one arm until you lose every year to russell, and after russell retired to willis reed.

Wilt couldn't singlehandedly defeat the Celtics' dynasty, that's true. He did have his limits. Still, he outplayed Russell (who could concentrate mostly on defense, and had help even with that) as well as Lew Alcindor (Kareem A-J).

 

[billybudd]

This guy isn't an athlete, per se, but I'll take any chance I can to plug Simo Hayha. In the realm of military sharpshooters, he can be argued to have the same sort of separation from his peers that Gretzky did. Plus, his life story is awesome.

 

[Cruor]

Ingemar Stenmark really dominated slalom/giant slalom in the 1970s/early 1980s. But should he be 'penalized' because he wasn't so called all-rounder?

Well it depends on what you mean with penalizing? Yes he wasn't so comfortable with greater speeds but he was one of the main reasons for the implementation of Super-G. I mean he was locking down some WC seasons half-way through. Once winning every slalom event, in his career going 86 wins and 69 podium placements for a total of 155. Hermann Maier has what, some 50-odd wins?

Dominant is a good word when describing Stenmark (and one of the few solo athletes that literally would grind Sweden to a halt when he was competing).

This guy isn't an athlete, per se, but I'll take any chance I can to plug Simo Hayha. In the realm of military sharpshooters, he can be argued to have the same sort of separation from his peers that Gretzky did. Plus, his life story is awesome.

What are the odds he wakes up from his coma on the day the peace agreement is signed A general rule of thumb is to take WWII ace records with a pinch (sometimes a large) of salt, not sure if it applies to Häyhä though.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Wait, are you saying that Wilt didn't play the game above the rim?

not to say wilt didn't have unprecedented athleticism to go with his unprecedented size advantage, but the fluid, slashing direction that the NBA took, i'd credit baylor with that. now i can't pretend i've seen a ton of 1960s basketball, but how often did wilt come charging down the lane after beating his man off the dribble or on a fast break, relative to him out-jumping someone for a rebound or have the ball pounded in down low to him?

to take the passage i quoted less literally, and by the way i tend to think that that was a fairly elegant way of describing how modern basketball came to be, i think there's a distinction between being able to go higher than anyone else, as wilt could and did, and playing the game in the air, as elgin and to a lesser degree russell did. i think basketball people call that "hang time."

Wilt couldn't singlehandedly defeat the Celtics' dynasty, that's true. He did have his limits. Still, he outplayed Russell (who could concentrate mostly on defense, and had help even with that) as well as Lew Alcindor (Kareem A-J).

as for wilt, he played with super-duperstars like arizin on the warriors, and west and baylor on the lakers; top 50 all-time superstars cunningham and greer on the 76ers; and then you also give him "run-of-the-mill" hall of famers tom gola, guy rodgers, a young nate thurmond, chet walker, and gail goodrich.

there are 5 players on the court in basketball. in his entire career, wilt never played with less than two other hall of famers on the court with him (so 3/5 of the guys on the court would be hall of famers), and in 8 seasons of his 14 year career he played with three other hall of famers. yes, 4/5 guys on the court were hall of famers for more than half of his career. poor wilt.

bill simmons actually devoted a section of his book to going through every wilt team and russell team that overlapped and the final tally was 5-4-1 in favour of russell, but noted that 6 of those seasons were close enough to a wash that the better player should have been able to take the title if he really was the better player. wilt won zero out of those six.

i guess it ultimately depends what you mean by "outplayed" and "dominated" though. if you dominate a team sport, i think the most reasonable definition would be that you impose your will on the game. presumably, that will wants to win, not just score a crapload of points. yes, wilt almost always outscored russell, but did he really outplay him?

i just find it hard to agree that wilt was THE most dominant basketball player ever when there was one man who routinely stopped him from winning.