Karelin and Sergey Bubka

im suprised people are not really talking about Tiger Woods...hes only 30 and has dominated the sport of golf in a way noone else can...and he still has like 10-20yrs left on the PGA tour and is like five shy of the biggest accomplishment in golf...hes truely a legend....Federer is great tooo...even though Nadal is coming along to challenge him....

federer dominates his field more than tiger woods he only lost to 2 people last year and won 92 out of 97 matches now thats what i call dominating thats like 96% of wins in a year who can say they dominate more than that

Tiger Woods, I can't think of another athlete whose dominated there sport as completely as Woods. Add to that the fact that he still has many more years on him and hes definetly got a very strong case.

would have to agree with you...ive watched this guy play and hes toooooooooo good...but i do think Nadal is coming though....

Why hasn't Wilt Chamberlain got any love around here? He dominated a sport for a generation. He scored 100 points in a game, only player to have a 20+/20+/20+ (thats when blocks weren't stats so it could have been 20/20/20/20) and the only player to have a 50/40. Wilt was the man, and dominated basketball.

Armstrong for me, 7 tour de Frances straight after he had cancer.

I was reading an article in the newspaper a few weeks back and they had this topic and a guy had done a statistical study and found that don bradman was the most dominant athlete ever. I think to compare to his average of 99.94 (i think) a tennis player would have to win 4 grand slams every 5 years, a basketballer would have to score on average 30 or 40 odd points a game and similar acheivements in other sports. Ill try find the article and post it up

when they say dominating athlete i tend to lean towards an individual athlete in an individual sport because there they do it by themselves compared to sports like football, basketball and what not where its a team game....tennis, cycling, golf...those are all individual sports....

Hehe watching Fed take care of Roddick in Aus open semi final was amazing... absolute domination. This guys meant to be in form aswell.

I'll say Michael Jordan as well. But you have to admit that he had pretty good supporting cast along the way. But the way he dominated both ends of court, like no one ever did, while leading his team to the championship was absolutely phenominal to watch. He hit game winners/buzzers like a normal shot and helped his teammates when there was trouble. Pure entertainment to watch



He played in the league where the bigs were around 6'8-6'9. If he was in the league today, I wouldn't say he would dominate the league like he did back then but still average around 30/10/4?
And most importantly, how many rings has he won? Only 2.

Federer taking out an in-form Andy Roddick last night at the Aus Open was pure domination. However, I have not seen enough of the above sportsmen to vote with unbiasedness (I voted for Fed)

Wilt was ahead of his time in height and inside dominance. You can't take that away from him because other players weren't as tall, and there have been good centers 6'9 or so. Wilt was triple teamed. And hacked ruthlessly. The man still did everything, led the league in assist one season, led the league in scoring and rebounding almost every season and probably would have averaged 10 blocks a game, meaning over his career he would have averaged a triple double.
Granted only two rings is a knock on his campaign, but he was affected by bad coaching for half his career. He is still a more dominant figure than most of the guys up there. 100 points in a game. 41 rebounds in a playoff game. Wilt was incredible, and thats not even bringing up his off the court activities

I guess Jordan it is.

Armstrong. The other guys just had to wait until Lance retired to have a shot.

Jordan was killing it before Armstrong came onto the scene...i think Jordan already had like 6 NBA Championships, like 6 MVP's and like 8 scoring titles...incredible....

Hard to see anyone touching Ali. He dominated in the toughest sport of all bar none. He not only dominated a sport but he changed the veiws of a generation in the process.

He beat a monster in Sonny Liston (at age 22) when virtually every sports writer not only thought he would lose but feared that Liston might seriously hurt him.

He won 2/3 against Smokin Joe Frazier (the Thrilla in Manilla one of the most gruelling in history). Beat the then thought of 'unbeatable' Foreman when everyone again thought he was going to get killed. Won the title for a then unprecedented third time against Spinks.

Sugar Ray Robinson should have been on this list. The greatest pound for pound boxer who ever lived... I haven't got time now to explain how good this guy was but maybe I'll knock up a boxing thread later to give you some idea

I remember in the 90s after the Chicago Bulls finally defeated the Detroit Pistons, they took off. So my vote has to go for Michael Jordan. Look at all those guys he prevented from getting rings, Barkley, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Chris Mullin, Ewing, Dominique Wilkins.

Could you please explain the part in bold, as in, why you feel that it is the toughest sport of all bar none?

These are the guys that for me have truely dominated a sport.
Pre-media explosion era:
Muhammed Ali
Wilt Chamberlain
Don Bradman

Post media explosion era:
Michael Schumacher (When a sports governing body changes its rules to make things more competitive because of your dominance, that is the ultimate in dominance)
Michael Jordan
Gary Kasperov

For a lot of the guys on your list, its really hard to say that they were the best ever in their respective sports. Like Sampras and Federer. You can only say Federer has dominated at the end of his career and if his record at the end of it all far surpasses Petes. Also, how can you truely discern between what Feds doing now and what Sampras and guys like Rod Laver or Bjorn Bjorg did in their time. It's the same with womens tennis.

Its also kinda hard for me to equate Lance Armstrongs achievements against these 6 people because of one thing. While I don't doubt his excellence, records, or dominance in the Tour de France, its the lack of people involved with the sport at a competitive level that does it for me. I don't mean any disrespect to the people involved with cycling or who follow cycling, but its just hard for me to equate him to a Michael Schumacher. The same for Kelly Slater. But this thread is a good medium for people to discover stuff or hear a name they otherwise normally wouldn't have, so I'm glad whoever mentioned Slater did so. P.S. to the uninformed, Google and Youtube are your friends

MotoGP is another hard one to pick. Rossi has proved a champion in every one of the 3 categories. Doohan was the man before Rossi came along and simply outclassed the rest. And Mad Max was King of the 250 class at one point in time. And I'm pretty darn sure that in every form of racing (bar F1), there have been champs who dominated the rest till they got older and the next big thing came along. So its pretty nigh on impossible to say that Rossi has 'dominated'.

Football? its really hard to classify players in this way and Im sure you'll know what I mean. I'll give it a stab though, these are players that have dominated in the teams they've been part of (in terms of play, fan following generated, impact on the sport and media acclaim) and in their chosen positions, well, since I've been watching anyway.

Ronaldo
Maradona/Zidane
Maldini

I bet the guy who made the list was from America. What about Don Bradman, that snooker guy(can't remember his name), Steffi Graf, Carl Lewis, Shane Warne, Sir Viv Richards, Navratalova, Diego Maradona(can't remember if his name is on the list), Ian Thorpe, the whole Kenyan Athletics team, that Moroccan long distance runner, Tony Lockett(for all of those Aussies) etc...

Whoever made the list missed out on a lot

I wasn't thinking of every sport, but I thought I covered the main ones in terms of popularity.

wtf...since when is snooker a sport??

The answer is truely simple if you think about it, has to be Michael Jordan. No other man single-handedly shut the haters and the media up like Michael Jordan (other than Martin Luther in 1519). He had an incredible work ethic and is my role model for that. When he didn't even make his JV basketball team in High school, he worked every morning and was then offered a spot on varsity.

Went onto University of North Carolina, was benched as a freshman. Refused to sit the whole season so he worked like a bull (no pun), eventually earning himself a spot as a starter. He saved the Tarheels from losses sooooo many times. This is the kid who didn't even make the JV squad. But the real magic comes at the Bulls.

He was drafted 3rd overall to the Bulls. Led the Bulls to 7 titles consecutively; but it's what he did in detail which made him dominant. At first, the critics said all he could do was dunk. He setup his own practicing program for early mornings, practicing hours at a time on his shooting. He became the highest leading field goal scorer. Next, the critics said he was only an offensive player. So Mike hit the gym again and worked on his D. He totaled 9 All-Time Defensive First Teams and was the Defensive Player of the Year in 1988. Mike also totaled 2,514 steals which is second of all-time behind John Stockton. Also, he set the record for most blocked shot as a guard; impressive.

Then the critics went on to say he was a ball-hog. That very season, he managed 5.3 assists, totaling a 5633 assists in his career.

In short, Jordan was an all-around player. He often decided many games; most famously "The Shot" against the Cleveland Cavaliers and then also the Fade-away against the Utah Jazz. Jordan did not use any performance enhancing drugs, he only used human will-power. And for that, he is the most dominant athelete ever.

i would've gone for Rod Laver if he was an option because imo hes the GOAT, but from that list i voted for Sampras.

Jordan?Armstrong?Federer?

Pfft...behold....the complete athlete

I think it's between Federer and Armstrong... and for me Lance just edges it. He is (was) amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradma...d_sport_context

i know its only from wikipedia but i did read the whole article in the newspaper a while ago listing the top 10, but i cant find it anywhere

Sugar Ray.




Willie Pep.

How about Joe Louis? Heavyweight champ for 11 years, a record 25 title defences, was undefeated as champion, and emphatically avenged his only defeat in his prime.

Bit of an old thread but I couldn't go past Tiger Woods.

Well on his way to being the greatest ever golfer!

Wayne Gretzky, no doubt.

Michael Jordan it's indescriable for what he can do.

Jordan wins, with Lance And Rodger tied and Ali coming in 4th, Pele at 5th.

Where's Bradman?

Exactly, this poll was basically designed for who was the best athlete who the Americans heard about a lot. There are so many guys who were just incredible who aren't on this list, and Bradman is just one of them.

It's not just for who Americans have heard of....

You can put "bradman" on there or whatever, but he wasn't as dominant as MJ or w/e.

If i knew what that word meant then i might half heartedly believe you..


Dont be so ignorant, even as a non-cricket fan i appreciate Bradmans contribution and acknowledge he was massive, he was what MJ was in basketball, in cricket..

Well I'm totally ignorant of all things involving cricket but here's my say...

Sports like Baseball and Cricket can't really be "dominated." Maybe I'm reading too much into the title of the thread but w/e. When batting or fielding in cricket you play such a limited roll in each play. You bat only a handful of times each game, and are involved in field play only once every few innings, rounds, etc. This is why it's much easier to argue that a tennis player, basketball player, or cyclist can totally dominate a sport, because their role plays a more significant part in EVERY action of the game or event.

Bradman, nope, never heard of him. But I doubt many would've have voted for him.



Baseball can be dominated. Roger Clemens , Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver all dominated. Shit even batters can dominate Jeter use to a be a force on offense often going 5 for 5 and being a beast on the defense.

It's true. You are ignorant of all things cricket It's kind of hard for me to point out the flaws in what you said because it's stated in an American sporting kind of fashion. But anyway, of course one players role isn't absolutely massive because it's a team sport. It's not like Jordan scored every single point in every single game. But cricket can be dominated even though one players role might not involved with everything. Bradman dominated the game in which he was a scoring machine. He had an average of 99.94, the next closest is about 60. This is incredible. He is regarded as the greatest player because he was so dominant over everyone. Another person is Shane Warne. He was dominant because no-one could truly play his deliveries every time. He had fantastic control and could spin the ball a shitload and he dominated the game because of that. Do you see what I'm getting at, they dominated the sport because they were so good.

Almost everybody from a cricket playing country would have voted for him. He was the Michael Jordan of cricket.

Bradman's batting average at the end of his career was 99.94. That is absolutely insane. I've never seen him play, it was before my time. But the best batsman I have ever seen play is Jacques Kallis, and his average is about 50. So Bradman must have been out of this world.

I don't mean to turn this into a thread about who is the better batsman but there are players who you probably have seen who are better. Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Waugh etc...