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

[Hammer Time]

I'm really impressed by some of you guys and gals who are extremely knowledgeable at more than one sport. Are their any hardcore fans of certain sports that can give me a quick rundown of maybe a top-ten for a sport that they feel comfortable representing? Like... I would imagine Babe Ruth is certainly top-ten material if not #1, but who else belongs up there? This is going to sound dumb, but is Derek Jeter a top-ten guy? Is Shaq? Is Tom Brady? Is Cobi Jones?

A basketball rundown by position:

PG - Magic Johnson is the consensus best. Only PG ever to get 3 MVPs, and he has the team success too. There's a bit of a drop after that: Oscar Robertson, Isiah Thomas, Stockton, Nash, and Kidd are usually the next five (and usually, either Oscar or Stockton gets #2).

SG - Michael Jordan is #1. Kobe is a close 2nd, and then there's a big dropoff. #3 is probably Jerry West, although Wade may have surpassed him.

SF - For many years, Larry Bird was the consensus #1, but Lebron has taken that crown after his extremely high peak the last few seasons. As with SG there's a gap after the top two. Julius Erving (Dr. J) might be the #3, or Pippen if you value team success, and Durant likely will surpass them in the near future.

PF - Tim Duncan, then there's a dropoff. #2 is debatable between Barkley and Malone, and Nowitzki is probably up there now too. Historically, PF has been the weakest of the five positions (in my understanding, in the pre-1980 NBA it was a defensive specialist position i.e. "the position you play if you're not good enough at shooting to play anything else").

C - The deepest position. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are the top three. Shaq could arguably be #4, although I also see Hakeem Olajuwon there. Moses Malone is in the conversation too.

A decade ago, there was a consensus top six: Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan. Among active players, Lebron James has probably joined them already, which would make him a top-7 player all time. Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe are the other active or recently retired players who have a top 10 case - where they go depends where you rank them against Hakeem, Moses Malone, Dr. J, Robertson etc.

 

[jdatb]

Dominant as he may be, chess is not a sport, and those that play it are not athletes, and as such are not relevant to this thread. Not all forms of competition are sports.

Chess is a sport. However you are correct in that it is not a physical one, and chess players are not athletes. This is why I don't think Kasparov would qualify as the most dominant "athlete".

 

[pld459666]

Joe Posniacki's analysis of Babe Ruth's career was incredibly eye-opening in terms of how much he dominated the sport of baseball once you go beyond the basic counting numbers.

Saw the topic, came here to post Babe Ruth.

Glad to see this was the first reply.

 

[Thenameless]

Then shouldn't we put Lance Armstrong in the conversation.

The Devil's in the Details. Armstrong may have more Tour de France wins, but he's nowhere near the greatest cyclist of them all - Eddy Merckx. He has the most Grand Tour wins, and the most Grand Tour stage wins of all time. He's also won more Tour de France stages than Lance Armstrong. Eddy Merckx had no weaknesses. He could win every race he entered, whether it was the "race of truth", a one day classic, or a crippling hors categorie mountain climb. He was not a specialist like Armstrong who "saved" himself just for the Tour de France. And Eddy did not have the powerful domestique support that Armstrong had from US Postal Service. Merckx also set the 1-hour record (something very prestigious in cycling circles) which stood for a long time, until better bikes came along.

Now if we do say that Armstrong was helped along with PED's, I would say that he isn't even the greatest American cyclist. That title would go to Greg LeMond pretty easily who had three Tour wins of his own (and would have had 6 or 7 if not for team orders and the hunting accident). Armstrong would still easily be the second best American rider though. I followed his career since he was about 15 years old, and he was already very, very dominant as a junior. By 16, Armstrong was already faster than mature men riding in the Grand Tour.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Absolutely not.

 

[Thenameless]

Ive only seen myself and one other person mention Jerry Rice on here. I've always paralleled the two.

Now that I really look at it though, I would place Rice ahead. At least with Gretzky, you could argue any one of Howe, Orr, or Lemieux. With Rice, there is no argument.

Still though, their careers are almost the same when summed up:

-Both played a team sport first of all (unlike some mentioned in here)
-Neither is typically credited with being the most "talented" at what they did, but rather worked the hardest in order to accomplish what they did
-Both hold/held most major records in their respective sport/position
-Both are multiple champions
-Both were the best for a good period of time and even in their twilight years remained excellent (unlike some mentioned in here)
-Both hold major records where the 2nd place guy can't even be seen in the rear view mirror
-Both have "woulda been"s and "coulda been"s brought up when it comes to all-time debates (Randy Moss & Mario Lemieux)
-Both typically get voted as the best ever in their sport whenever there's a serious list made

Although I would place Rice ahead, I'm very surprised there hasn't been more mentions of him. He's the best example when you sum it all up.

You don't see Rice mentioned because wide receiver is not considered as important as quarterback (for sure), and even running back. A lot of football aficionados would still place Jim Brown as the most dominant football player of all time.

 

[Thenameless]

Gretzky got to 200 goals, 300 goals, 400 goals, 500 goals all faster than Mike Bossy (or anyone else for that matter), and still managed to dwarf those totals with his assists - always scoring well over 100 assists a year during his prime. Even if you remove all those assists that Bossy wasn't coming close to, Gretzky was still scoring goals at a faster rate than Bossy anyways. And let's not forget, Gretzky destroyed Bossy's 50 goals in 50 games mark - not once, but twice.

You mean Maurice Richard's 50 goals in 50 games mark, right?

 

[Thenameless]

How is it a poor analogy? Before you respond, consider the fact that if you remove Gretzky from the equation, the single highest assist total EVER was 114 assists (Mario Lemieux), and at the time that Gretzky had those 163 assists in 1985-86, the highest total ever was 102 (Bobby Orr). 102 assists was thought to be unbeatable. Yet he beat Bobby Orr's total by 61 assists! That is absurd. Totally and utterly ridiculous. Not even Gretzky, himself, ever came close to that again. He scored 121 assists in 1991 with LA (the highest assist total ever if you remove his other top assist seasons). And even that paled in comparison to 163. It's the kind of total that nobody at the time would ever believe possible unless it actually happened. People still don't really believe it, making all kinds of excuses for it like it was a product of the time (then why couldn't anyone in the 80s, besides Mario, even crack 100 assists? ), or it was a product of his all star cast (where's Messier's or Coffey's 100+ assist season? )....Anyways, I think the case is pretty clear Gretzky's 163 assists was an anomaly, at a level not really found in any other team sport.

And this is why the Art Ross should go the leading point getter, the Rocket Richard should go to the leading goal getter, and the Wayne Gretzky should go to the leading assist getter. They should make an award to honour Gretzky, and this one would be very appropriate.

 

[jekoh]

Armstrong may have more Tour de France wins, but he's nowhere near the greatest cyclist of them all - Eddy Merckx.

In fact according to CyclingRanking he doesn't even crack the top 20 : http://www.cyclingranking.com/Rankings/Overall.aspx

Or even the top 30 in the yearly average ranking http://www.cyclingranking.com/Rankings/OverallAvg.aspx

Now if we do say that Armstrong was helped along with PED's, I would say that he isn't even the greatest American cyclist. That title would go to Greg LeMond pretty easily who had three Tour wins of his own (and would have had 6 or 7 if not for team orders and the hunting accident).

LeMond would have won the 85 Tour if not for team orders, but then he only missed 2 Tours due to his accident, so it's pretty unlikely he would have won 6.

In the 1990 world cup, he was box to box. In the 1990-91 season for fc internazionale, he was an attacking midfielder playing far up the field. I have seen the games. I also highly doubt he was a box to box midfielder when he scored 17 goals in 26 games for bayern munich in 1988. Soccer isnt simple like that, players switch positions based on formations all the time.

Regardless of the position, its how you are used on the team. For example, zico has alot of international goals because of the formation of Brazil. They had two wingers on the side, with no center forward playing in the middle. Thats why Zico was scoring lots of goals for his national team, he was spear heading the attacks up the middle, while socrates was the playmaker getting the assists.

Its not about the position on paper, its how you are used by your team. Zidane is an attacking midfielder, but he plays nothing like platini or maradona.

"Soccer isnt simple like that"? Well that's exactly my point. Call Matthäus "attacking" if you wish but the fact remains he didn't play anything like Maradona yet you compared their goal scoring totals, which I don't think makes a lot of sense.

 

[canucks4ever]

In fact according to CyclingRanking he doesn't even crack the top 20 : http://www.cyclingranking.com/Rankings/Overall.aspx

Or even the top 30 in the yearly average ranking http://www.cyclingranking.com/Rankings/OverallAvg.aspx


LeMond would have won the 85 Tour if not for team orders, but then he only missed 2 Tours due to his accident, so it's pretty unlikely he would have won 6.



"Soccer isnt simple like that"? Well that's exactly my point. Call Matthäus "attacking" if you wish but the fact remains he didn't play anything like Maradona yet you compared their goal scoring totals, which I don't think makes a lot of sense.

He played further up the field when he scored his goals, regardless thats irrelvant because mathaus says maradona is the best ever anyways.

Zidane played nothing like an attacking midfielder, his stats are worse than mathhaus's and yet zidane is always ranked higher than lothar based on every all time list i have seen.

As for the thread, Gretzky's dominance is heavily reliant on the fact that Gordie played in a lower scoring era and Mario was injured. He doesnt blow either of them away based on actual ability. Orr arguably peaked higher.

Bradman crushes his peers, he didnt have to rely on his peers being injured. His batting average will never be broken.

I also find it a bit awkward that there has never been a truly dominant american ice hockey player. When americans decide to start caring for the sport, i'm sure hockey will get their version of pete rose, roy halladay, peyton manning, aaron rodgers, larry bird, roger clemens, etc. Caucasian Americans want to be the next great pitcher or quarterback, when they decide to start taking ice hockey seriously, they will take over the sport.

 

[bobholly39]

He played further up the field when he scored his goals, regardless thats irrelvant because mathaus says maradona is the best ever anyways.

Zidane played nothing like an attacking midfielder, his stats are worse than mathhaus's and yet zidane is always ranked higher than lothar based on every all time list i have seen.

As for the thread, Gretzky's dominance is heavily reliant on the fact that Gordie played in a lower scoring era and Mario was injured. He doesnt blow either of them away based on actual ability. Orr arguably peaked higher.

Bradman crushes his peers, he didnt have to rely on his peers being injured. His batting average will never be broken.

Well. So just to be clear - when I made this thread i was thinking of which athlete dominated his sport the most.

Even if I were to agree that Mario and Orr were both somehow *better* than Gretzky - it has no baring on the thread per se. The thread is who dominated the sport the most, and there's no question that Gretzky dominated hockey way more than Orr or Lemieux did. Could Lemieux/Orr have been better without injuries, etc? Sure maybe, but when it comes to "dominating the sport the most", Gretzky is in a class so far apart everyone else it's not even funny.

Howe has a great career, but he didn't dominate to the level that Gretzky did, nor for as long.

So I think it's an absolute no-brainer that Wayne Gretzky has dominated the world of Hockey above any other Hockey player in history - and by quite a bit.

Was he *better* than everyone else by quite a bit? That's more debatable, since as you said Orr/Lemieux/Howe may all have been close to him at their best.

 

[Thenameless]

LeMond would have won the 85 Tour if not for team orders, but then he only missed 2 Tours due to his accident, so it's pretty unlikely he would have won 6.

He won in 86, 89, and 90. Team orders stopped him from winning in 85. The hunting accident prevented him from riding in 87 and 88. I doubt Roche or Delgado would have beaten him if he rode in 87 or 88. So why is it unlikely that he would have won 6?

 

[bobholly39]

And this is why the Art Ross should go the leading point getter, the Rocket Richard should go to the leading goal getter, and the Wayne Gretzky should go to the leading assist getter. They should make an award to honour Gretzky, and this one would be very appropriate.

Maybe.

An "assist" trophy somehow isn't all that sexy though. Goal-scoring is ok, since that's the point of it.

I'd be more for the NHL renaming some trophies instead. Rename Art Ross - to Gretzky. Rename Conn Smythe to Patrick Roy award maybe.

 

[jekoh]

He won in 86, 89, and 90. Team orders stopped him from winning in 85. The hunting accident prevented him from riding in 87 and 88. I doubt Roche or Delgado would have beaten him if he rode in 87 or 88. So why is it unlikely that he would have won 6?

It is unlikely that he would have won both 87 and 88.

Plenty of riders looked great in one Tour, only to get beaten the next one and then win again. It's not like he was head and shoulders above the opposition when he did win again in 89.

He played further up the field when he scored his goals, regardless thats irrelvant because mathaus says maradona is the best ever anyways.

Zidane played nothing like an attacking midfielder, his stats are worse than mathhaus's and yet zidane is always ranked higher than lothar based on every all time list i have seen.

I'm fine with that, but you were the one bringing up Matthäus' numbers and indeed they're not very relevant at all.