What about Joe Davis, the snooker player? He won the world championship every year from 1927 to 1940 and then again in 1946 (the WC wasn't held from 41-45).

theres two arguments going on in this thread thanks to the screwed up OP

either we are talking about people who hold a huge edge over everyone else in their sport, which woods does, or we are talking about people who are literally unbeatable, which woods isnt.

I generally agree with the Fischer comments for chess, although Capablanca is up there as far as dominance over peers is concerned. Although Fischer doesn't fall under "literally unbeatable" because he lost individual games, he was just pure dominance. If he wasn't insane, he probably could've held the title from the 60s until well into the Kasparov era. The guy won 20 straight games against the the other best players in the world. That doesn't sound like much compared to some of the other numbers being tossed around in this thread, but I guess you have to know about chess to know how freakish that is.

I forget who said it, but someone compared the 20 straight games to a pitcher throwing back-to-back no hitters in baseball.

Most people posting on this site were playing with stuffed animals in a crib the last time Mike Tyson won a fight against a top level opponent. If this is your idea of an edge, BBV4Life is <~~~~~~ that way.

Then the argument should be split into two threads. Woods would not be mathematically part of a "literally unbeatable discussion" because most of his events have 156 players, and the other great players in his sport don't even win 10% of their events. The people mentioned in track and field as being "unbeatable" face 7 or so others in the final, and many people in many eras of track and field go through a period of time where they win almost every race. Hicham El Guerrouj (sp?) won something like 57 of 59 1500m/mile races between 1995 and 2000, but was remembered mainly because the 2 losses were the 1996 and 2000 Olympic finals (he subsequently double golded the 2004 Olympics)

WTF does the first sentence have to do with anything or the second sentence even mean? You're just throwing out random put-downs that sorta sound like an argument but don't even apply.

For starters, it illustrates that someone you claim is an all time great athlete hasn't won a relevant fight in a really, really long time. You can't make a claim to having a huge edge in boxing when you never win major fights. In the time period you claim he had an edge, he barely beat anyone of note to begin with.

Second sentence was a half-cocked attempt at humor which apparently failed.


This is really bothering you bad, huh?

IMO you all are not answering the original question posed. having a huge edge over everyone else in your sport is not based on duration, that's just an indicator.

for example, usain bolt has a huge edge over everyone else. even if he never wins another race, right now, he has one of the hugest edges ever in his races. if tiger only played for 1 year then his leg got chopped off and he never played again, that doesn't mean he was less dominant during that year, though nobody would be mentioning him if that were the case.

ditka

Yes, your arguing style really bothers me. Congrats.

Walter Lindrum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lindrum

Forget their names. But isn't there and Indian, and a Russin wrestler that went unddeafted over their career?

13 1/2 years ago.

Anyone want to argue? The guy is a machine

The answer is Joey Chestnut.

Wrestlers Gable and Karelin, both with like one loss over a decade or more.

Justin Tucker?

Kipchoge

Fischer

Kelly Slater a week or so away from 50 on the round of 16 at pipeline against kids who weren't alive when he won his first world title.

The Undertaker at wrestlemania

Let's take a look at the Vander Meer thing. I think there have been 314 no-hitters in MLB. I wonder how many games/chances there have been in MLB history. First check looks a little over 220,000. Two chances for a no-no in each game. So how many games would be the breaking point for a 50% chance of a back-to-back no-no, kind of rotely, not so much as a function of utter dominance. Vander Meer was not a dominant pitcher. Maybe not in the top 500 or even way more than that dominant pitchers in MLB.

It's been an incredible point of reference over the years, the Vander Meer anomaly. Looking at the stats I don't think it was anything like, say, Mike Scott when he pitched a no-hitter and was like odds on to pitch a 3-hitter or less next time out. Maybe make that 4-hitter. Point being the stuff was near unhittable. Vander Meer wasn't at all. Yet the back-to-back. It's possible that Vander Meer hit a zone there maybe with a scuff ball or spitter that was briefly near unhittable. It's also possible it was pure chance. He did pitch six straight 5-hitters or less, all complete games of course, during that stretch. Also, the second one I just learned was the first ever night game at that field. If you've played at poorly lighted field you get that as a factor. Hard to even field the ball, let alone hit it.

I'll go to my grave saying Mike Scott was on deck with a no-hitter or near no-hitter in that was it '86 NLCS. And it wasn't about randomness. It was near unhittable.

I just read through this thread and was confused at the chess discussion and no mention at all of Magnus. Then I saw this was all before he had even breached the top 5 let alone dominated for a decade plus..

LOL at me.

People love to say the Mets had no chance in game 7 which is of course absurd
It's not the NBA with a Great team vs some scrub team
Scott probably would have been a -200 to -250 in game 7


No hitters obviously involve a tremendous amount of luck
The poor lighting probably helped and while no video exists surely some hard bit balls went right at people

Dave Steib (which is criminally underated) had back to back games where he lost a no hitter with 2 outs in the 9th inning

One of them was in a routine ground ball to second base on the shitty turf in Toronto that are the last second bounced 5 feet over the second basemens head