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

[Brainiac]

Sorry but, Bradman's level of dominance is nowhere close to Ruth. The man hit 54 home runs when #2 hit 19. Bradman wasn't even close to that level of difference.

Well, you look only at #2. That's not dominating his sport, that's dominating the guy who finishes second.

As I said, if you look at the top X players, the picture is different.

In 1920, Babe Ruth with his 54 HR was about 14 standard deviations from the average of the other guys in the top 10. That's cherry picking one season where he was clearly dominating. But still, very impressive outlier.

Problem is, Bradman is much farther from the mean for his whole career.

 

[goawaygary*]

Donald Bradman for the sport of cricket, and I don't think it's remotely close.

 

[shazariahl]

Actually, that's not true at all. If you look at career batting averages he was 64% ahead of Pollock. Excellent but, not the best margin in sports.


1 D. G. Bradman 99.94
2 R. G. Pollock 60.97
3 G. A. Headley 60.83
4 H. Sutcliffe 60.73
5 E. Paynter 59.23


Gretzky 1987 had a 69% margin over Jari Kurri in the NHL. In 1920, Babe Ruth won the home run crown by 184% and by 145% in 1921. Wilt Chamberlain won the NBA scoring title by 59% in 1962.

Babe Ruth is #1 - by far. Gretzky is #2, Bradman #3 and Chamberlain #4.

Ruth was awesome. But my only complaint about him was that he played in an era when blacks weren't allowed to play, there was no foreign influence (no players from Japan, Cuba, etc), and baseball was mostly just a game for wealthy white kids. His competition levels were no where near the same as someone like Gretzky, who competed internationally in Canada Cups and in an NHL that had increasing numbers of top-tier players coming over from Europe.

I still don't know if that's enough to dethrone Ruth though, all that being said. His level of dominance was unthinkable almost. Still, I don't think it's very controversial to say that he faced much weaker opposition than Gretzky did.

 

[shazariahl]

We realize the world doesn't end at North America's borders. We may not ever care to know a thing about cricket, but we certainly know more about foreign aid than we ever wanted too.

 

[Boxscore]

Ruth was awesome. But my only complaint about him was that he played in an era when blacks weren't allowed to play, there was no foreign influence (no players from Japan, Cuba, etc), and baseball was mostly just a game for wealthy white kids. His competition levels were no where near the same as someone like Gretzky, who competed internationally in Canada Cups and in an NHL that had increasing numbers of top-tier players coming over from Europe.

I still don't know if that's enough to dethrone Ruth though, all that being said. His level of dominance was unthinkable almost. Still, I don't think it's very controversial to say that he faced much weaker opposition than Gretzky did.

Not enough to dethrone Ruth. His level of dominance was unthinkable. And let's not forget that he was less athletic, partied harder than (and over-ate) most of his peers as well. He was a beer bellied freak of nature. Ruth matched up against the only competition that was available to him and he slaughtered them. And even the best black players at the time were more comparable to Speaker, Cobb, etc. in terms of style. Nobody could touch Ruth. He was an elite pitcher and slugger. He was also a larger-than-life figure and was more popular than the President of the United States. Nobody will ever match Ruth from a domination and cultural perspective. Gretzky was the closest because he was a Canadian icon.

 

[Thenameless]

Not enough to dethrone Ruth. His level of dominance was unthinkable. And let's not forget that he was less athletic, partied harder than (and over-ate) most of his peers as well. He was a beer bellied freak of nature. Ruth matched up against the only competition that was available to him and he slaughtered them. And even the best black players at the time were more comparable to Speaker, Cobb, etc. in terms of style. Nobody could touch Ruth. He was an elite pitcher and slugger. He was also a larger-than-life figure and was more popular than the President of the United States. Nobody will ever match Ruth from a domination and cultural perspective. Gretzky was the closest because he was a Canadian icon.

I'd have to agree with this sentiment. When I think of legendary athlete, the first name that comes to mind is Babe Ruth. This coming from a man that particularly dislikes the Yankees.

 

[Sadekuuro]

I'm not a baseball guy, but is home run dominance in an era where players tended not to swing for the fences really the best measure of a baseball player? (I'm aware of Ruth's pitching success and otherwise great play, but I don't see home run totals, especially from that era, as a good comparison to career batting averages in cricket. Wouldn't, say, career batting average be a more analogous comparison?)

 

[shazariahl]

I'm not a baseball guy, but is home run dominance in an era where players tended not to swing for the fences really the best measure of a baseball player? (I'm aware of Ruth's pitching success and otherwise great play, but I don't see home run totals, especially from that era, as a good comparison to career batting averages in cricket. Wouldn't, say, career batting average be a more analogous comparison?)

I've thought about that too. But it's still hard to take too much from Ruth - he was one of the reasons teams started swinging for the fences.

It's really hard to say - in some ways I feel Ruth is the best. In others, I feel like he's the Rocky Marciano of baseball - unblemished record but suspect competition. Ruth's records also haven't stood the test of time as well as Gretzky's, but that's partly due to changes in both sports (especially hockey where scoring has gone down dramatically and Gretzky's records will likely never be broken no matter how good someone is). And that's not really a fair comparison for Ruth either, since his records have had to stand a lot longer.

I really feel it's between those 2, and probably too tough for me to call.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

I am fairly certain that more people consider Maradona the best player of all time in soccer than consider anyone besides Gretzky being the best of all time in hockey.

does that sentence even make any sense?

and neither Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo or Messi have dominated their peers like Gretzky did and as for basketball there are few players that have a solid cases for being the GOAT and none of them dominated their sport like Gretzky did.

Say what?? I have talked to many soccer fans over the years and Pele is considered fthe greatest soccer player worldwide and not Maradona.

I agree with Gretzky being the greatest team sport athlete ever and it's not really close. In 2nd place would probably be Kareem in basketball because he's the all time NBA points leader and like Gretzky it likely won't be touched.

 

[bobholly39]

Say what?? I have talked to many soccer fans over the years and Pele is considered fthe greatest soccer player worldwide and not Maradona.

I agree with Gretzky being the greatest team sport athlete ever and it's not really close. In 2nd place would probably be Kareem in basketball because he's the all time NBA points leader and like Gretzky it likely won't be touched.

seriously? Michael Jordan? You're the first person i hear say Kareem was the best player

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Not saying he is the best, but Cy Young definitely deserves some mention for baseball. His 511 wins will NEVER be reached by anyone

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

seriously? Michael Jordan? You're the first person i hear say Kareem was the best player

He scored over 6000 points more than Jordan. His sky hook was unstoppable. He won 6 titles like Jordan. It's likely Kareem ' s 38000+ career points won't be touched.

He is not as far ahead of his peers as Gretzky is so that's why I said he's #2 next to Gretzky. A distant #2. Gretzky's single season records will never be touched and his career points total likely won't either.

 

[canucks4ever]

Say what?? I have talked to many soccer fans over the years and Pele is considered fthe greatest soccer player worldwide and not Maradona.

I agree with Gretzky being the greatest team sport athlete ever and it's not really close. In 2nd place would probably be Kareem in basketball because he's the all time NBA points leader and like Gretzky it likely won't be touched.

Maradona won the internet poll for the greatest soccer player by a wide margin. BBC named him the greatest worldcup player of all times. Most soccer forums are also starting to lean in his direction.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Maradona won the internet poll for the greatest soccer player by a wide margin. BBC named him the greatest worldcup player of all times. Most soccer forums are also starting to lean in his direction.

Demographics at work!

 

[MXD]

It wasnt for his whole career... But Pedro Martinez had a 5 year stretch that was completely obscene. Leading pretty much every stat he could lead, often by ridiculous margins, and there was LOTS of stats he could lead.

 

[Boxscore]

seriously? Michael Jordan? You're the first person i hear say Kareem was the best player

Wilt was more dominant than Jordan.

 

[frontsfan2005]

It wasnt for his whole career... But Pedro Martinez had a 5 year stretch that was completely obscene. Leading pretty much every stat he could lead, often by ridiculous margins, and there was LOTS of stats he could lead.

Pedro should have won four Cy Youngs in a row from 1997-2000, only lost out to Clemens in 98 (wasn't that the year he started doing steroids after a bad start to the year?) Anyways, what Kershaw is going through now is very similar, except, he's doing it in a much lower offensive era and pitching at Dodger Stadium half the time, one of the best pitchers ballparks in the league.

In 2000, when Pedro led the AL with a 1.74 ERA, Clemens finished in second with a 3.70 ERA. His stretch from 1997-2003 is one of the best pitching performances you will ever see. He put up Koufax like numbers in the steroid era.

 

[canucks4ever]

Demographics at work!

Ali will always win a global poll for greatest heavyweight boxer. Jordan will always win a global poll for greatest basketball player. Gretzky will always win a global poll for greatest ice hockey player. Make any excuse, it doesnt change the fact that pele is not percieved as some unanimous goat.

Coaches and many great players also view maradona as above pele. The bbc arent kids and they picked maradona as the greatest worldcup player. 55 players were eligible for fifa player of the century and diego wins it in an overwhelming vote, yeah demographics caused the whole world to vote for him. Even though by 2000 he had been 12-15 years removed from his prime.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Ali will always win a global poll for greatest heavyweight boxer. Jordan will always win a global poll for greatest basketball player. Gretzky will always win a global poll for greatest ice hockey player. Make any excuse, it doesnt change the fact that pele is not percieved as some unanimous goat.

This doesn't mean anything.

And of course it can change. Who was the best before Jordan and Gretzky?

What about Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe? What about Chamberlain?

Coaches and many great players also view maradona as above pele. The bbc arent kids and they picked maradona as the greatest worldcup player. 55 players were eligible for fifa player of the century and diego wins it in an overwhelming vote, yeah demographics caused the whole world to vote for him. Even though by 2000 he had been 12-15 years removed from his prime.

Good for them.

The BBC isn't a person, btw. The BBC's opinion will reflect the opinion of the people working for the BBC.

And yes, demographics have a LOT to do with an internet poll. Are you kidding me?

 

[canucks4ever]

This doesn't mean anything.

And of course it can change. Who was the best before Jordan and Gretzky?

What about Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe? What about Chamberlain?



Good for them.

The BBC isn't a person, btw. The BBC's opinion will reflect the opinion of the people working for the BBC.

And yes, demographics have a LOT to do with an internet poll. Are you kidding me?

And FIFA continues to market pele as thier goldenboy because he supports them financially and in many other ways, your point? What i say doesnt mean anything, but you saying that the people you talk to have pele above holds significantly more value, um no it doesnt.

So asking the fans all over the world who is the greatest out of an option of 55 different players and they all overwhelmingly vote for 1 specific player means nothing, but you suggesting that the people you talk to holds value?

If demographics have alot to do with an internet poll, then why didnt brazilian ronaldo or zidane get more votes, they were in the middle of thier prime. Or why didnt cryuff/zico/platini get more votes considering that they are from the exact same era and caucasian, while maradona is latino/mestizo. If demographics were significant, a european player would have won the poll.

 

[Sentinel]

Usvinder: we get it, you love Maradona. Fortunately, neither your love, nor internet voting can overcome a simple fact: Pele dominated his peers by far greater margins than Maradona. He also achieved greater far results than Maradona. Without cheating too. If you have any PROOF of the opposite, I'm waiting eagerly.

 

[canucks4ever]

Usvinder: we get it, you love Maradona. Fortunately, neither your love, nor internet voting can overcome a simple fact: Pele dominated his peers by far greater margins than Maradona. He also achieved greater far results than Maradona. Without cheating too. If you have any PROOF of the opposite, I'm waiting eagerly.

You do realize that in pele's era, every player had big numbers, right? Dont act like pele was torching every player from his era statistically. Last time i checked, the soccer section of this forum chose maradona ahead of pele in thier all time fantasy draft, doesnt seem like im the only one who loves maradona.

Gerd Muller and Eusebio were both putting up monstrous numbers, which peers of pele are you referring to?

During the 4 years from 1978 until mid 1982, Maradona completely obliberated the argentinian league in scoring and goals per game average. So whats your criteria, comparing maradona's numbers in italy to pele in regional state games? None of the top 10 goalscorers for italian league in the last 60 years have an average above .60 goals per game, italy has always been a defensive trap league.

As a matter of fact, Maradona spent 6 seasons from 1978 until mid 1984 with Argentinos Juniors/Boca/Barcelona. During these 6 seasons, he averaged .79 goals per game and a ridiculous amount of assists that are not recorded but all posted on youtube. During this 6 year stretch, no one from the argentinian/spain/german/france/italy/english league had better numbers than maradona. Only zico had a higher goals per game and it was in the brazilian regional domestic league.

I found this very interesting:
Zico's stats in the brazilian domestic league- 123 goals in 212 games
His stats in the brazilian regional/state domestic league- 239 goals in 273 games

Interesting, so in the domestic league hes barely averaging half a goal per game, but in the state/regional league he's putting up pele esque numbers. When zico went to italy, he played center forward. If maradona played center forward in italy, he would have put up big numbers too, that doesnt make him any better as a player.

Maradona was statistically dominant from 1978-1984, then he went to italy as an attacking midfielder. If he stayed in argentina/spain, he would have continued to put up monstrous numbers, that wouldnt make him any better as a player. Its all the trophies that he won with napoli that made him a legend.

From 1978 until mid 1984: Maradona averaged .79 goals per game, Platini averaged .59 goals per game and Karl Heinz Ruminegge averaged .65 goals per game. So your saying maradona didnt dominate his peers? Well he did dominate his peers during this 6 year stretch, then he went to italy as a midfielder and his stats dropped, but he won serie a twice with napoli. He would have continued to put up big numbers if he stayed in spain or argentina, it doesnt make him a better player.

Zico averaged .89 goals per game during that stretch, but as I posted above, his stats were padded because he was scoring alot more in the regional league instead of the domestic serie a league.

No player from 1978-1984 who played club football in argentina/spain/england/france/germany/italy had a higher goals per game average than maradona. Numbers from the brazilian state league are heavily padded as your essentially facing division 2 and division 3 competition half the time. So yes, from 1978 until 1984, Maradona dominated his peers statistically. Then he decided to go to italy and risk his stats to help turn them into a worldpower.

Then there's his career in italy from 1984-1991.

From 1984-1987: higher goals per game average than both karl heinz rumminegge and michel platini.
From 1988-1991: Higher stats than both ruud guulit & lothar matthaus. Marco Van Basten more goals, but way fewer assists and hes a pure center forward.

From 1984-1991, Maradona was the best player of a league that featured Platini, Ruminegge, Matthaus, Guulit, Van Basten, Roberto Baggio. These are all bonafide world class all time greats. Which peers was pele playing against in the brazil league from 1964-1971? Italian Serie A had the best soccer players from all over the world on a consistent basis. It was a much better league, not even close.

 

[Horvath Broncos]

Usvinder: we get it, you love Maradona. Fortunately, neither your love, nor internet voting can overcome a simple fact: Pele dominated his peers by far greater margins than Maradona. He also achieved greater far results than Maradona. Without cheating too. If you have any PROOF of the opposite, I'm waiting eagerly.

what kinda cheating did Maradona do? and what are these so called facts you are talking about? and don't just use goal scored cause that is not the way to judge players especially in soccer.

 

[Thenameless]

He scored over 6000 points more than Jordan. His sky hook was unstoppable. He won 6 titles like Jordan. It's likely Kareem ' s 38000+ career points won't be touched.

He is not as far ahead of his peers as Gretzky is so that's why I said he's #2 next to Gretzky. A distant #2. Gretzky's single season records will never be touched and his career points total likely won't either.

Wilt Chamberlain was far, far more dominant than Kareem as far as NBA basketball goes. Kareem never had years like Chamberlain did. An aged Chamberlain is one of two men ever to block Kareem's skyhook (while Kareem was in his prime). Kareem was also dominated by Moses Malone in the 82 and 83 seasons and in the 83 Finals. Kareem's career scoring is far more likely to fall before Gretzky's career scoring, but Wilt's 50 pt season will be more difficult than either of those to accomplish.

 

[blogofmike]

My thoughts on Ruth's HR numbers:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=30692679&postcount=154