Most dominant teams or athlete in history

I dunno' about "dominant".

But 5 US Opens and 2 Australain Opens, to go along with 7 Wimbledons plus 4 second place finishes, ain't exactly shabby, even if not necessarily equal to Martina Navratilova who bagged 59 career 'Slam' titles, including doubles (Sampras rarely played in doubles).

Ed

 

Maybe my initial statement was a bit "shabby," but when compared to Federer (have you seen him play? The guy is great!), who has picked up 3 slams every year for the last 3 years---and is now 2 behind Pistol Pete.

I don't think we can talk women tennis; it wouldn't be fair to the guys. :laugh:

Compare to Federer, the great Sampras needed more time to rack up 14slams. My guess is that Federer is either going to equal him or surpass him this year at age 26/27, 4yrs younger than when Sampras accomplished his feat.

 

I didn't say a great running attack was required to win a championship.

 

Some more dominance...

The '48 Browns were dominant too (only undefeated team in the pre-NFL AAFC). The Browns of the 50's and 60's were also in this class (while not undefeated, they were "the" dynasty in each decade).

Roger Federer was and is quite dominant (moreso than Sampras, IMO).

Pre-prison Mike Tyson was as dominant in boxing as you will ever see.

Tiger Woods is the most dominant golfer of all time.

LeBron James has a chance to be the most dominant player in NBA history if he can remain injury free, win some rings and get better each year. You have to remember that Jordan was only in his second year at this point in LBJ's NBA career. LBJ single handedly took a lottery team to the NBA Finals in his 4th year.

 

That is a good one too, I had not thought about him. But he was very dominant in those days.

I would agree he has a chance. They have got to get him some more talent around him.

Will he be the player to break the curse on Cleveland sports teams? Or will he have to get his titles in another city? Chicago perhaps?

 

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know what would happen if I had to witness "The Shot II" made by James in a Bulls jersey!

The Cavs have some big expiring contracts in the next 2 seasons, and they should at that time be able to surround him with some talent (at least you would think, but they thought that when they signed Damon Jones, Eric Snow and Ira Newble who they can't wait to get rid of). The key, IMO, is the '08 - '09 season, which James is signed through. If they aren't back at the doorstep of winning a title by then, I think he will join his buddy Jay Z in Brooklyn.

 

That would be a great, wouldn't it

I hope they do. If they Bulls cannot win a championship, I would actually like to see LeBron and the Cavs win.

If they do not surround him with some talent, then I would not blame him for leaving though. I do not see him waiting around like KG did with the Timberwolves.

 

No doubt!

Just ask Robin Givens, Monica Turner, Desiree Washington, or Evander Holyfield.

"Friends, wives, girlfriends, boxers! Lend me your ear!"

(Or did I accidentally leave out an "r", for some of those?) {Scowl!}


Ed

 

I don't think you have to worry about him going to the Knicks. Isaiah has screwed them up to the point where they won't have the money available to pay Lebron once he's a free agent.

 

Re:Most dominant team or player in sports history

I failed to see the Big Red Machine of the 1970's...unless I overlooked them.
Tony Perez 1st base (HOF)
Joe Morgan 2nd base (HOF)
Davey Concepcion SS
Pete Rose 3rd bas (should be HOF!!!)
Goerge Foster LF (HOF someday??)
Cesar Geronimo(sp?) CF
Ken Griffey Sr. RF
Johnny Bench C (HOF)

Sparky Anderson Manager (HOF)

The players I listed were from their 1975 and 1976 World Series championships.
In 1976 they swept the Yankees in 4 games...the following two years they(Yankees) won the World Series.

I think this makes them very comparable to the Yankees of the 1920's, IMHO.

Willis

 

I forget whether it's the '75 or '76 Reds, or both, but I think most people consider one of those teams to be the 2nd best team in the history of baseball, right behind the '27 Yankees.

Foster shouldn't be in the Hall, and, sorry, but Pete Rose shouldn't be in the Hall either. See Rule 21 (d) in regards to Rose.

 

Re: Most dominant player or teams

CC,

I will have to politely disagree with you in regards to Rose being in the HOF, but then again, it's just my opinion. The Red's front office single-handedly destroyed this team when they traded Tony Perez to Montreal for Woody Fryman, and some other flunkies, IMHO. He was the "peace-maker" between Rose and Bench in those days, because they both respected Tony(this according to what I saw on TV a few years ago). The 1979 Reds that won the western division was quite a bit different from the 75-76 teams. Dan Dreissen(sp?) was at first, Joe Morgan at second, Concepcion at SS, Ray Knight I think was at 3rd. The outfield was pretty much the same....Sparky was already fired, if I am thinking right...WHY?? John McNamara was their manager. Don Gullett was gone, Rawley Eastwick was outta baseball by then, I am thinking.

If Tony Perez was with them in 1977 and longer, they may have won two or three more WS, but they didn't. I still say they could beat the 1927 Yankees, or at least take them to seven ganes....but this is all speculation amd we will never know.

Willis


PS...I have to agree with you, CC, on George Foster. But he did have a great run from 1975-78, didn't he? In 1977 he had 52 HR, 149 RBI, and batted around .300 or so. In 1978 he had 40 HR and 120 RBI and batted around .300.

 

Re: Most dominant player or teams

1976 27 CIN NL 144 562 86 172 21 9 29 121 17 3 52 89 .306 .364 .530 150 298 0 9 4 4 11 MVP-2,AS
1977 28 CIN NL 158 615 124 197 31 2 52 149 6 4 61 107 .320 .382 .631 165 388 0 8 10 5 17 MVP-1,AS
1978 29 CIN NL 158 604 97 170 26 7 40 120 4 4 70 138 .281 .360 .546 151 330 0 6 16 7 18 MVP-6,AS


I hope these show up good. Here are some stats on George Foster in 1976, 1977, and 1978. In 1977 he also won the NL MVP award. A few more years like these and he would be HOF material!!

Willis

 

One player does not make the difference in getting 2 or 3 more WS titles.

:laugh: :laugh:

I agree as well, he does not belong.

 

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with in regards to Rose. Pete Rose bet on baseball, which led to him being banned, which led to him not being on the HoF ballot. If not for the gambling, his accomplishments are more than sufficient to get into the Hall.

 

My first thought when I saw the title of the thread was the UCLA BBall team of the Wooden era.

The Patriots record in the salary cap era of football is astonishing, especially with the way that they have refused to sign players they thought were too high priced, yet keep winning.

The Cowboys of the 90s, and they would have even been better if Jerry and Jimmy didnt have their personality conflict.

The Celtics of the Bill Russell era, followed by the showtime Lakers

Muhammad Ali - when you look back at him in his prime was the most amazing boxer that has ever lived.

I would list the Atlanta Braves baseball team, if they had won a few world series titles - they were amazing for a very long time, but just couldnt knock the door down

Jack and Tiger - but the great Byron Nelson with his incredible string of wins my most dominant golfer - for at least one season!

 

I also nominate

Wayne Gretzky's Edmonton Oilers of the 80s
Pele

 

Does Dan need a title to be considered great?

 

I would say Babe Ruth was the greatest. Won about a 100 or so games as a pitcher and what a hitter. He hit more home runs in some years than many teams did.
Rocco Francis Marchegiano, was the heavyweight champion of the world from 1952 to 1956. Better known as Rocky Marciano with forty-three knockouts to his credit,an 88.76% knockout rate,remains the only heavyweight champion in boxing history to retire having won every fight in his professional career. He wasn't bad either.