WWE & TNA Forum
Wrestling News
Loading...


Go Back   WrestleZone Forums > The WrestleZone Forum Archives > Non-Wrestling Archives > Sports Debater's League
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Arcade vBookie

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-05-2011, 08:27 PM
CH David's Avatar
CH David CH David is offline
A Jock That Loves Pepsi
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: May 2009
Age: 27
Posts: 1,070
CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
This shows me that in a 47 game winning streak, Oklahoma only played 9 ranked teams. When Miami and USC had their 34 game winning streaks they played more ranked teams and did it in 13 less games. Miami played 12 ranked teams and USC 10 in their respective winning streaks. Let's also not forget the fact that back in the 50's there were only a handful of Bowl Games and even if you were a nationally recognized team and went undefeated, you weren't guaranteed a bowl game. Not only that, but there was no National Championship game so even if you were in a bowl game it wasn't necessarily against the 1st or 2nd best team in the country. Oklahoma played in the Orange Bowl in 1953 and 1955 during their streak, but in 1954 and 1956 they did not play in a bowl game. Miami and USC both lost their streaks in the National Championship game of their second full undefeated season. Oklahoma never had to face that type of competition because there just wasn't as much parody.
Okay, now it's getting annoying. Please spell it right. Parity is the equal playing field. Parody is a humorous imitation.

You seem to think that teams making the playoffs or finishing with a winning record helps prove the Lakers' streak. I'll do the same with winning records. 1953 saw Oklahoma faced 9 opponents at the start of the streak, and 7 of them were either ranked or finished with a winning record. 1954 was the same way. 1955 was against 3 ranked and 2 teams at .500. 1956 may have only had one, but I'll make my point for this season shortly. 1957 was 5 opponents ranked or finishing with a winning record in their last 7 wins before the streak was ended. So 25 out of 47 is a solid amount of at-worst .500 teams and at best the #1 team in the country.

Now the point that I am getting to, is that even if you don't want to look at the numbers I've just presented, the teams that were bad got killed. Oklahoma railed right on through the bad teams and did it to the better teams as well. Oklahoma was downright dominant during this period of college football.

Quote:
Once again, times are different in college football. Things like App State beating Michigan rarely happen now and back in the 50's they NEVER happened. It was a totally different game back then.
My point above. Oklahoma annihilated the under .500 teams like they should have done. 83% of the games they won during this streak were by more than 2 touchdowns and the games weren't exactly close. 8 of the 47 were decided by 14 or less points. Dominant.

Quote:
Actually it could happen in all of those sports it is just highly unlikely. However, it's also highly unlikely in the NBA and that is what makes this streak so impressive. The Lakers did something that seems impossible. They did something that no one before them ever did and no one since them has been able to repeat. You've given your personal opinion on the Lakers streak that you don't think it means much but you have backed up that opinion with absolutely no facts.
The Sooners did the same, being the only team to get a 40+ game win streak, and doing it in the '50s shouldn't make a difference if the Lakers doing it in the '71-'72 season doesn't. The game has changed just as much in the NBA as it has in NCAAF. There is much more talent out on the courts now than there was back then, and it is spread throughout the league. The Rockets had their 22 game streak 3 seasons ago, which isn't that much time past.

I should have multi-quoted as I just saw you say that 19 of their 33 games were against teams that made the playoffs or had winning records. That's all well and good. But!, 18 of the Lakers' games were against sub-.500 teams, including the two playoff teams in the Baltimore Bullets and the Atlanta Hawks. Both teams were promptly ousted in the playoffs by the way. Taking away those two teams (four games) and adding them to the 18 games against sub-.500 teams, we see that it's only 15 against quality opponents. So that impressive streak doesn't look as impressive to me since more than half of the games were against bottom feeders.
__________________
THEO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by klunderbunker View Post
I thought you were dead. Good to see you're not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great White Sam View Post
Go get me a fucking Pepsi, you wanker.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-05-2011, 09:51 PM
Big Sexy's Avatar
Big Sexy Big Sexy is offline
Deadly Rap Cannibal
King of the Ring
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 28
Posts: 3,212
Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH David View Post
You seem to think that teams making the playoffs or finishing with a winning record helps prove the Lakers' streak. I'll do the same with winning records. 1953 saw Oklahoma faced 9 opponents at the start of the streak, and 7 of them were either ranked or finished with a winning record. 1954 was the same way. 1955 was against 3 ranked and 2 teams at .500. 1956 may have only had one, but I'll make my point for this season shortly. 1957 was 5 opponents ranked or finishing with a winning record in their last 7 wins before the streak was ended. So 25 out of 47 is a solid amount of at-worst .500 teams and at best the #1 team in the country.
You were smart to just use the ranked opponents thing in your first response because you know as well as I do that a winning record in college football does not automatically make a team good. When a few of your games are against shit competition, like I'm sure a lot of Oklahoma's opponents games were, then them finishing at .500 or above isn't much of a feat. Shit, back in the 50's you'd sometimes play just 10 games and if 3 are against crap then you're 2 wins away from a .500 record.

Quote:
Now the point that I am getting to, is that even if you don't want to look at the numbers I've just presented, the teams that were bad got killed. Oklahoma railed right on through the bad teams and did it to the better teams as well. Oklahoma was downright dominant during this period of college football.
No one said they weren't. Every streak in this thread is impressive the key is finding the most impressive and that belongs to the 71-72 Lakers.

Quote:
My point above. Oklahoma annihilated the under .500 teams like they should have done. 83% of the games they won during this streak were by more than 2 touchdowns and the games weren't exactly close. 8 of the 47 were decided by 14 or less points. Dominant.
I sure as fuck hope they were dominating a lot of teams especially the under .500 ones. They were one of the dominant football programs back in the day and I go back to that word PARITY. There wasn't much of it back in the 50's in college football. Even ranked opponents weren't necessarily always great teams. If you think the college poll system is fucked up and corrupt now, fans from today would have been livid with all the bull shit and inconsistency that went on.

Quote:
The Sooners did the same, being the only team to get a 40+ game win streak, and doing it in the '50s shouldn't make a difference if the Lakers doing it in the '71-'72 season doesn't. The game has changed just as much in the NBA as it has in NCAAF. There is much more talent out on the courts now than there was back then, and it is spread throughout the league. The Rockets had their 22 game streak 3 seasons ago, which isn't that much time past.
That's where you're wrong. The parity in the NBA in the 70's was very good. There were tons of great hall of fame players and with only 17 teams in the league at the time it was able to be spread around more. People seem to be confusing the 1970's NBA with the 50's and most of the 60's. Gone were the days of Celtic domination and the talent pool being confined to a few select teams. I also don't understand bringing up the Rockets streak. Yes, that was a very impressive streak but there's two things I'd like to bring up. Number one, it was only the second NBA win streak to reach 20 games. Number two, they were still a full 11 games behind the Lakers. 22 is a big number but still not close to the Lakers 33.

Quote:
I should have multi-quoted as I just saw you say that 19 of their 33 games were against teams that made the playoffs or had winning records. That's all well and good. But!, 18 of the Lakers' games were against sub-.500 teams, including the two playoff teams in the Baltimore Bullets and the Atlanta Hawks. Both teams were promptly ousted in the playoffs by the way. Taking away those two teams (four games) and adding them to the 18 games against sub-.500 teams, we see that it's only 15 against quality opponents. So that impressive streak doesn't look as impressive to me since more than half of the games were against bottom feeders.
And what exactly to you is a quality opponent? Yes the Atlanta Hawks finished under .500 that year on their way to the playoffs but they still had a very good team led by two hall of fame players in Pete Maravich and Walt Bellamy. They also took the Eastern Conference's top team, the Boston Celtics, to 6 games in the playoffs. There were only 8 playoff teams and 3 rounds at this time so it was hard to not be eliminated right away especially when two of the leagues best, the Celtics and Knicks, are the top two teams in the Eastern Conference. When a league only has 17 teams around half of them are bound to have a winning record while the other half are bound to have a losing record. The NBA had 8 teams over .500 and 9 under .500 that year.

I'd also like to point out that the Lakers Western Conference was the tougher of the two conferences. Teams like the Pistons and Rockets had a lot of talent but when 6 of the 9 teams in the conference finish with 47+ wins it's hard for some other talented teams to go above .500 or make the playoffs. I guarantee that facing the Pistons led by two HOFers in Dave Bing and Bob Lanier wasn't easy. I guarantee that facing the Rockets led by two HOFers in Elvin Hayes and Calvin Murphy and a great young player in Rudy Tomjanovich wasn't easy. The Lakers were going on almost a nightly basis against teams that had 1-2 future HOF players or even more.

Once again, no other pro team has EVER had a winning streak that wasn't at least 10 games behind what the Lakers did. (The MLB's Giants had a tie in there 26 game streak).
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-05-2011, 10:18 PM
Cena's Little Helper's Avatar
Cena's Little Helper Cena's Little Helper is offline
Registered User
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The DMV
Posts: 1,889
Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noahconstrictor View Post
To Tdigs: Yes, he might have won 91 bouts, but how many of them were against opponents of his caliber? According to you, 9 times. Lord knows how many Hall of Famers has Brett Favre taken hits from, thrown to, or handed off to. Even doing a 3:1 ratio on the Hall of Famers, 3 NFL to 1 boxer, Favre would have interacted with more Hall of Famers than Sugar Ray ever would have.
This is probably one of the asinine rebuttals I've ever seen. In American football, NOAH, there's this thing called an offensive line that guards a QB. The last time I checked, Favre had a pretty damn good one almost all throughout his tenure in Green Bay. I know you don't want to compare how many hits Favre took in comparison to Robinson and I know you don't want to argue that a sack with protective gear on is more dangerous than multiple blows to the head with a lightly padded fist, so we won't even go there. Also, you're probably the only person that thinks Favre's more resilient and tougher than Robinson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH David View Post
Sugar Ray Robinson - So the guy went undefeated for 8 years. Definitely impressive and the guy is considered the best pound for pound boxer of all time. The one thing that doesn't impress me about this whole streak is he didn't defend his titles all that often. '47 He fought 10 times with two defenses. In 1948 he fought five times with only one defense. The following year he fought 16 times. How many for the belt? Once. Only one title defense (from what I read at theboxinghistorian.com) in 19 fights in 1950. And losing in his only Middleweight title defense in 1951.

When there is something on the line, people go harder for it. Pride in beating the champ in a non-title match is fine, but you'd have to think that some of those fighters were contenders for the belt before they fought him. If he defended the title more I'd say it's impressive, but I can't say it is.
This is grabbing at straws, man, plain and simple. Furthermore, given how many times Sugar Ray Robinson would fight in a year, I think it's safe to say that he didn't duck anyone. If he didn't defend his title enough, that's not on him, that's on promoters and boxing organizations.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-05-2011, 10:53 PM
CH David's Avatar
CH David CH David is offline
A Jock That Loves Pepsi
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: May 2009
Age: 27
Posts: 1,070
CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
You were smart to just use the ranked opponents thing in your first response because you know as well as I do that a winning record in college football does not automatically make a team good. When a few of your games are against shit competition, like I'm sure a lot of Oklahoma's opponents games were, then them finishing at .500 or above isn't much of a feat. Shit, back in the 50's you'd sometimes play just 10 games and if 3 are against crap then you're 2 wins away from a .500 record.
A winning team is a winning team each and every season. Just because college's poll systems are fucked, it doesn't mean the teams didn't play well in given seasons.

Quote:
That's where you're wrong. The parity in the NBA in the 70's was very good. There were tons of great hall of fame players and with only 17 teams in the league at the time it was able to be spread around more. People seem to be confusing the 1970's NBA with the 50's and most of the 60's. Gone were the days of Celtic domination and the talent pool being confined to a few select teams.
That's cool. Still doesn't mean that the talent out on the courts now isn't better. I never said that the parity wasn't there. All I said was that both the NBA and NCAAF have had their own shares of change. It doesn't change anything that I said in this part that you quoted. The Celtics domination was done, awesome. That and the new divisions were the keys to the early part of the decade. More change and more parity didn't come until roughly the mid-'70s.

Quote:
I also don't understand bringing up the Rockets streak. Yes, that was a very impressive streak but there's two things I'd like to bring up. Number one, it was only the second NBA win streak to reach 20 games. Number two, they were still a full 11 games behind the Lakers. 22 is a big number but still not close to the Lakers 33.
You brought up USC and Miami. Their 34 are still not close to Oklahoma's 47. That's a 13 game difference, the Rockets was 11. After the streak was established, only 4 teams had gotten to 30 wins, and overall only one team was within single digits, and that was Washington with 39 from 1908-1914 before Oklahoma set it.


Quote:
And what exactly to you is a quality opponent? Yes the Atlanta Hawks finished under .500 that year on their way to the playoffs but they still had a very good team led by two hall of fame players in Pete Maravich and Walt Bellamy. They also took the Eastern Conference's top team, the Boston Celtics, to 6 games in the playoffs. There were only 8 playoff teams and 3 rounds at this time so it was hard to not be eliminated right away especially when two of the leagues best, the Celtics and Knicks, are the top two teams in the Eastern Conference. When a league only has 17 teams around half of them are bound to have a winning record while the other half are bound to have a losing record. The NBA had 8 teams over .500 and 9 under .500 that year.
Very good? I'll give them decent to solid. But very good in the '71-'72 season is a stretch and you know that. Pistol Pete was an up and comer who had won Rookie of the Year the season before. I wouldn't exactly say he led them with Bellamy, but learning his role and what he would do in the future, I can see that. Bellamy had a solid season but was declining. Decent to solid, no way in hell were they very good. If they were they would have finished at least .500.

As far as what I would call quality teams, how about a team that doesn't finish more than 10 games under .500? Way to go, the Bullets could possibly be considered a quality team since they were only 6 games under. Still 38-44 is pretty poor for a playoff team. Here are the teams that the Lakers played for the win streak that were under .500.

Click for Spoiler:
Quote:
y-Baltimore Bullets 38 44 .463
x-Atlanta Hawks 36 46 .439
Philadelphia 76ers 30 52 .366
Buffalo Braves 22 60 .268
Cleveland Cavaliers 23 59 .280
Detroit Pistons 26 56 .317
Portland Trail Blazers 18 64 .220


Quote:
I'd also like to point out that the Lakers Western Conference was the tougher of the two conferences. Teams like the Pistons and Rockets had a lot of talent but when 6 of the 9 teams in the conference finish with 47+ wins it's hard for some other talented teams to go above .500 or make the playoffs. I guarantee that facing the Pistons led by two HOFers in Dave Bing and Bob Lanier wasn't easy. I guarantee that facing the Rockets led by two HOFers in Elvin Hayes and Calvin Murphy and a great young player in Rudy Tomjanovich wasn't easy. The Lakers were going on almost a nightly basis against teams that had 1-2 future HOF players or even more.
Hayes was the most senior member of the ones you named. Future Hall of Famers mean jack shit if they have just come into the league like Murphy and Tomjanovich did in 1970. Same thing with Lanier. Though the competition was good, don't give me the bullshit that being led by two HOFers. 3 of those 5 were in the league for a year when the streak started.
__________________
THEO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by klunderbunker View Post
I thought you were dead. Good to see you're not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great White Sam View Post
Go get me a fucking Pepsi, you wanker.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-05-2011, 11:31 PM
Big Sexy's Avatar
Big Sexy Big Sexy is offline
Deadly Rap Cannibal
King of the Ring
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 28
Posts: 3,212
Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH David View Post
A winning team is a winning team each and every season. Just because college's poll systems are fucked, it doesn't mean the teams didn't play well in given seasons.
No, but it does mean that they aren't necessarily as good as their ranking indicates.

Quote:
That's cool. Still doesn't mean that the talent out on the courts now isn't better. I never said that the parity wasn't there. All I said was that both the NBA and NCAAF have had their own shares of change. It doesn't change anything that I said in this part that you quoted. The Celtics domination was done, awesome. That and the new divisions were the keys to the early part of the decade. More change and more parity didn't come until roughly the mid-'70s.
Yes more change came a few years later and both the NBA and college football have had plenty of change since these respective streaks we're talking about took pace. However, the NBA was still a league full of parity and tons of talent in the 70's. There were multiple teams with the personnel capable of winning a Championship. That's why from 69-70 to 78-79, there were 8 different teams that won titles in that 10 year period. No other 10 year period has had that many different teams win the NBA Title and the Lakers streak was right in the heart of that period.

College football in the 50's was NOTHING like it is now. There were just a few dominant teams every year and college football was filled with dynasties. Oklahoma had the most impressive run no doubt but with how different the game was I can't say their streak was more impressive then the Lakers.

Quote:
You brought up USC and Miami. Their 34 are still not close to Oklahoma's 47. That's a 13 game difference, the Rockets was 11. After the streak was established, only 4 teams had gotten to 30 wins, and overall only one team was within single digits, and that was Washington with 39 from 1908-1914 before Oklahoma set it.
And I'll say it for the 1000'th time. The game is completely different now. teams play tougher schedules now and dynasties are few and far between and when they do happen it is usually just a few year run. I'll actually take Miami and USC's streaks over Oklahoma's as being more impressive. Remember both Miami and USC had their streaks ended in very close, and in Miami's case, controversial National Championship games. These games were against the very best competition college football had to offer them at the end of the year. Oklahoma didn't even play in a Bowl Game every year of their streak let alone one against the second best team in the country. You also have to consider players nowadays leaving school early to go the the NFL. Oklahoma in the 50's didn't have to worry about that and could keep their teams in tact for at least a full year longer.

Quote:
Very good? I'll give them decent to solid. But very good in the '71-'72 season is a stretch and you know that. Pistol Pete was an up and comer who had won Rookie of the Year the season before. I wouldn't exactly say he led them with Bellamy, but learning his role and what he would do in the future, I can see that. Bellamy had a solid season but was declining. Decent to solid, no way in hell were they very good. If they were they would have finished at least .500.
Very good may be a bit of a stretch for that particular year because they did struggle but the Hawks were a 46 win team the next year and even in the 71-72 season they took the C's to 6 games in the playoffs so the talent was obviously there and they certainly weren't an easy win for the Lakers.

Quote:
As far as what I would call quality teams, how about a team that doesn't finish more than 10 games under .500? Way to go, the Bullets could possibly be considered a quality team since they were only 6 games under. Still 38-44 is pretty poor for a playoff team. Here are the teams that the Lakers played for the win streak that were under .500.
Every team, in every sport, with every streak, is going to play multiple teams that finish under .500. Oklahoma in the 50's had there fair share as well.

Quote:
Hayes was the most senior member of the ones you named. Future Hall of Famers mean jack shit if they have just come into the league like Murphy and Tomjanovich did in 1970. Same thing with Lanier. Though the competition was good, don't give me the bullshit that being led by two HOFers. 3 of those 5 were in the league for a year when the streak started.
Once again, you are not thinking about where the league was at this time. In the 70's it wasn't like today where young players were coming right from high school, or now with the rule change, after one maybe two years of college. Basically all of these top players were staying in college for the full time period so when they came to the NBA the top guys were already developed and ready to play. The young guys were putting up some big numbers right away. One of the guys you mentioned, Bob Lanier, actually had his best ever statistical year in his second season which was the 71-72 season. Not everybody was at their full potential in year one or two but they were a lot further along then you think and were all playing at a high level.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-07-2011, 02:53 AM
Cena's Little Helper's Avatar
Cena's Little Helper Cena's Little Helper is offline
Registered User
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The DMV
Posts: 1,889
Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
His pro record has 6 draws on it. Two of them came during the streak and those two fights are not counted as wins on his official record.
Except, as I said before, Robinson's draws can also be considered as wins since he received the majority of points in both cases. Points in boxing are not proportional. If you have three judges and one of them scores a fight 100-0 in favor of one fighter while the others score the fight as a draw (i.e., 50-50), the fight would still be considered a draw even though the first fighter received 200 of the 300 available points.

None of Robinson's draws during his streak saw him evenly split or come out short on the available points. Technically then, his draws can be deemed as wins (and this why some people rightly regard his streak as one of the winning variety).


Quote:
The Lakers streak easily matches the quality. They went out every night for two months and didn't lose, often going up against great teams and teams with future HOFers on the roster.
Even if they did play for 58-62 games straight through a similar amount of days, the physical and mental determination necessary to do so pales in comparison to that required by Robinson to get through 91 fights in a little over 8 years. The amount of cardiovascular endurance needed by an MMA fighter or boxer to get through a whole fight without gassing is unthinkable in comparison to that needed by an athlete involved in a non-contact professional sport.

As for the quality of the teams, besides the fact that the Lakers primarily faced losing teams, there was relatively little variety in the NBA during this time. NBA teams now have to potentially worry about facing off against 29 other teams. During their streak, the Lakers only had to worry about 15 teams (Cincinnati Royals not included). Besides being easier than what NBA teams have to prepare for nowadays, it doesn't hold a candle to the 72 different fighters Robinson and his camp had to train and prepare for during his winning-streak.


Quote:
That's still two HOF boxers and a ton of former/current champions that he defeated in his streak. Looking at Robinson's 9 HOF opponent victories. 4 of them came against the same guy so it's obvious he had his number. Who knows where Chavez's HOF win total would be had there been more rematches with the top guys he faced
Camacho might get into the Boxing Hall of Fame. Besides Camacho, there are only two fighters from Chavez's streak who aren't yet eligible for induction: Silvio Walter Rojas and Juan Soberanes. These fighters respectively have records of 45-45-1 and 45-31-2 (that is to say, their chances of getting into the Hall of Fame when they're eligible are slim to none). So, as I said before, yes, I do think that this means two things:

1) In all probability, Camacho is the only other Chavez-streak-opponent that will be inducted into the IBHOF.

2) In terms of the quality of opponents, Chavez's streak is much, much less valuable than Robinson's.

As for LaMotta: 108 of Robinson's 173 wins were by knockout, but he never got more than a unanimous decision over LaMotta, a fighter notorious for his toughness and lack of a pain threshold (also, LaMotta did get one victory over Robinson). Robinson never had any problem acknowledging how tough LaMotta was, so, even if he did beat him almost every time they met, these victories shouldn't be discounted (this can't be stressed enough when you take into account LaMotta's own Hall of Fame status).

Finally, in regards to the hypothetical situation you presented, it's just that: a hypothetical situation. What-ifs add nothing of value to the world of sports, only results do.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-07-2011, 03:02 AM
Cena's Little Helper's Avatar
Cena's Little Helper Cena's Little Helper is offline
Registered User
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The DMV
Posts: 1,889
Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...Cena's Little Helper is an Intercontinental Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The People's Peep View Post
For me, the most impressive winning streak is the one that we just recently saw come to an end. That is the UConn Women's Basketball streak of 90 consecutive wins.

When looking at the competition that they faced, you have to agree that women's basketball is at its highest. It may not be at the same level as other competitive sports, but its a growing sport and it only going to keep getting better. On top of the overall competition high, the UConn women faced many of the countries best teams on numerous occasions. They faced 27 teams that were ranked in the top 25. On average, that means they faced at least one of the best teams in the country every three games.

Not only did they beat the best teams, they dominated and destroyed the best teams. The average margin of victory during the streak was over 32 points, including 28 wins by over 40 points. All but two victories, both against the #2 team, were by at least 10 points. Obviously, they were the #1 ranked team in the country, but even when they faced the #2 team, their domination showed. Their average margin of victory in those games was 14. Also, they never trailed for more than half the game. It was very rare for them to not dominate from beginning to end.

When you look at the game before the streak started and the game where the streak ended, they were both against Stanford, a team they beat three times during the streak. When two teams face each other so many times, both teams learn an enormous amount about the other team. The more they play, the more they learn and the more likely that the game will be closer. Even with a loss against a team that was pretty much bound to beat them eventually, they are still the most dominating team in the country and this incredible streak could still be going. And even though it is over, 90 games is one hell of a winning streak and I consider it the most impressive winning streak in sports.
I'm don't want to downplay what the UConn Women's Basketball team accomplished, but there are two simple facts that need to be faced here:

1) The pool of quality recruits for women's college basketball is extremely small relative to that of men's college basketball.

2) An overwhelming majority, if not all, of these women get snatched up by only a handful of schools, UConn being one of the most significant.

I think it's great that women are able to add something significant to the sporting world, but the heavy concentration of talent in women's college basketball is very troublesome for your argument, People's Peep.

CH David more or less implied the same thing I'm saying here in his rebuttal, so there's not much more to say on the matter.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-07-2011, 04:45 AM
Big Sexy's Avatar
Big Sexy Big Sexy is offline
Deadly Rap Cannibal
King of the Ring
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 28
Posts: 3,212
Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdigle View Post
Except, as I said before, Robinson's draws can also be considered as wins since he received the majority of points in both cases. Points in boxing are not proportional. If you have three judges and one of them scores a fight 100-0 in favor of one fighter while the others score the fight as a draw (i.e., 50-50), the fight would still be considered a draw even though the first fighter received 200 of the 300 available points.

None of Robinson's draws during his streak saw him evenly split or come out short on the available points. Technically then, his draws can be deemed as wins (and this why some people rightly regard his streak as one of the winning variety).
I know exactly how boxing is scored and I realize SOME consider his streak to be a winning streak including highly respected publications like Sports Illustrated. However, I will once again go to his official record. His official career record was 173-19-6-2. During his 91 fight streak his official record was credited with 89 wins and 2 draws. I just can't see how anyone can put a "most impressive winning streak" tag on a streak that isn't 100% recognized as a winning streak.

Quote:
Even if they did play for 58-62 games straight through a similar amount of days, the physical and mental determination necessary to do so pales in comparison to that required by Robinson to get through 91 fights in a little over 8 years. The amount of cardiovascular endurance needed by an MMA fighter or boxer to get through a whole fight without gassing is unthinkable in comparison to that needed by an athlete involved in a non-contact professional sport.
We are talking about two completely different sports here and the toll an NBA game takes compared to a fight can't really be compared. I'll admit a 10-15 round fight will take more endurance then an NBA game but Robinson also had his fair share of short fights that lasted 5 rounds or less, including many that only lasted 1 or 2 rounds. Those shorter fights certainly don't take as much of a toll as an NBA game.

Not only are we talking about two completely different sports but we are also talking about two completely different types of streaks. The Lakers obviously play an 82 game season so the streak they had was just over a couple months. Back when Robinson had his streak it was over an 8 year period which averages to a little under 1 fight a month. That's a lot of fights in a short period but you can't really compare the toll these streaks took when they were so different in length because of how different the sports are.

Quote:
Camacho might get into the Boxing Hall of Fame. Besides Camacho, there are only two fighters from Chavez's streak who aren't yet eligible for induction: Silvio Walter Rojas and Juan Soberanes. These fighters respectively have records of 45-45-1 and 45-31-2 (that is to say, their chances of getting into the Hall of Fame when they're eligible are slim to none). So, as I said before, yes, I do think that this means two things:
Camacho will almost certainly get into the Hall of Fame and Jose Luis Ramirez is another fighter that Chavez beat who should end up in the HOF. Ramirez went 102-9 in his career and was a 2 time WBC lightweight champion.

Quote:
2) In terms of the quality of opponents, Chavez's streak is much, much less valuable than Robinson's.
Yes the streak is a little less valuable but not nearly by as much as you seem to think. Chavez still defeated 11 world champions during his streak. Those guys careers may not have had great HOF endings but at the time they were great fighters. Chavez faced the best possible competition for his era. Robinson's streak is more impressive then that of Chavez but Chavez's streak was still very impressive in its own right and it shows that what Robinson did wasn't some impossible mark that no one could come close to.

Quote:
As for LaMotta: 108 of Robinson's 173 wins were by knockout, but he never got more than a unanimous decision over LaMotta, a fighter notorious for his toughness and lack of a pain threshold (also, LaMotta did get one victory over Robinson). Robinson never had any problem acknowledging how tough LaMotta was, so, even if he did beat him almost every time they met, these victories shouldn't be discounted (this can't be stressed enough when you take into account LaMotta's own Hall of Fame status).
LaMotta was a great fighter and I'm not saying those wins should be discounted, but when you fight a guy 5 times and win 80% of those fights, you obviously have his number.

Quote:
Finally, in regards to the hypothetical situation you presented, it's just that: a hypothetical situation. What-ifs add nothing of value to the world of sports, only results do.
I agree. And results show that the Lakers won 33 straight games, something that no team in professional team sports has ever really come close to doing. Robinson's streak, whether you count it as a winning streak or not, is something that another fighter has come very close to matching in the world of boxing.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-07-2011, 09:15 AM
CH David's Avatar
CH David CH David is offline
A Jock That Loves Pepsi
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: May 2009
Age: 27
Posts: 1,070
CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...CH David is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sexy View Post
Yes more change came a few years later and both the NBA and college football have had plenty of change since these respective streaks we're talking about took pace. However, the NBA was still a league full of parity and tons of talent in the 70's. There were multiple teams with the personnel capable of winning a Championship. That's why from 69-70 to 78-79, there were 8 different teams that won titles in that 10 year period. No other 10 year period has had that many different teams win the NBA Title and the Lakers streak was right in the heart of that period.
Okay when I look at the records for the five seasons surrounding the streak, '69-70 through '73-74, all I see are the same teams in the playoffs or finishing in the tops of the divisions. The parity on the court was better but it wasn't showing in the standings for a while. Oh just to reply to an early rebuttal about the Hawks, if we really have to get into it, the Atlanta Hawks may have finished with an above .500 record the next season, but they were under .500 for another 4 seasons after that.

Quote:
College football in the 50's was NOTHING like it is now. There were just a few dominant teams every year and college football was filled with dynasties. Oklahoma had the most impressive run no doubt but with how different the game was I can't say their streak was more impressive then the Lakers.
How many dynasties from this era of college football had a 47 game winning streak? Hell, how many dynasties had a winning streak of more than 30? Nobody. Texas got to 30, but like I said, no more than 30. So yeah, with the game being filled with dynasties at the time as you say, why aren't there more 30+ game winning streaks?

Quote:
And I'll say it for the 1000'th time. The game is completely different now. teams play tougher schedules now and dynasties are few and far between and when they do happen it is usually just a few year run. I'll actually take Miami and USC's streaks over Oklahoma's as being more impressive. Remember both Miami and USC had their streaks ended in very close, and in Miami's case, controversial National Championship games. These games were against the very best competition college football had to offer them at the end of the year. Oklahoma didn't even play in a Bowl Game every year of their streak let alone one against the second best team in the country. You also have to consider players nowadays leaving school early to go the the NFL. Oklahoma in the 50's didn't have to worry about that and could keep their teams in tact for at least a full year longer.
You can say it all you want. Miami and USC both lost their games. That's all there is too it. Oklahoma had a few games that were won by a touchdown or less. You still won't win this argument because you talked about dynasties above and still can't come up with a winning streak over 30 in the general time period. I'll give you the time frame, '40s-70s. How many teams other than Oklahoma had a winning streak over 30? Since I'm a nice guy I'll answer it for you. One! Toledo.

Quote:
Very good may be a bit of a stretch for that particular year because they did struggle but the Hawks were a 46 win team the next year and even in the 71-72 season they took the C's to 6 games in the playoffs so the talent was obviously there and they certainly weren't an easy win for the Lakers.
The Atlanta Hawks may have finished with an above .500 record the next season, but they were under .500 for another 4 seasons after that. Yeah, struggling in the '70s until the late portions of the decade.


Quote:
Every team, in every sport, with every streak, is going to play multiple teams that finish under .500. Oklahoma in the 50's had there fair share as well.
Exactly. You're trying to use it as a negative, so I flipped it onto you. Except Oklahoma played 25 games against .500 or better teams out of the 47. Lakers' played 15 out of 33. Do I need to do the math on this one? End results are what matter, not the talent that didn't get it done.

Quote:
Once again, you are not thinking about where the league was at this time. In the 70's it wasn't like today where young players were coming right from high school, or now with the rule change, after one maybe two years of college. Basically all of these top players were staying in college for the full time period so when they came to the NBA the top guys were already developed and ready to play. The young guys were putting up some big numbers right away. One of the guys you mentioned, Bob Lanier, actually had his best ever statistical year in his second season which was the 71-72 season. Not everybody was at their full potential in year one or two but they were a lot further along then you think and were all playing at a high level.
So if they were so good in these seasons, why couldn't they help their teams win more games? I mean the parity was just sooooo much better in the '70s we should have seen more teams over .500.
__________________
THEO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by klunderbunker View Post
I thought you were dead. Good to see you're not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great White Sam View Post
Go get me a fucking Pepsi, you wanker.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-07-2011, 11:12 AM
Big Sexy's Avatar
Big Sexy Big Sexy is offline
Deadly Rap Cannibal
King of the Ring
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Age: 28
Posts: 3,212
Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...Big Sexy is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CH David View Post
Okay when I look at the records for the five seasons surrounding the streak, '69-70 through '73-74, all I see are the same teams in the playoffs or finishing in the tops of the divisions. The parity on the court was better but it wasn't showing in the standings for a while. Oh just to reply to an early rebuttal about the Hawks, if we really have to get into it, the Atlanta Hawks may have finished with an above .500 record the next season, but they were under .500 for another 4 seasons after that.
1. You can go to any few year period in the NBA and there is going to be a similar group of teams at the top of the conferences for those years. There were still always some changes near the bottom of the playoffs showing that the competition was there and the other teams in the league were no slouches.

2. The fact that ATL lost Maravich and Walt Bellamy is the biggest reason they fell off after making the playoffs in 72-73. It's hard to win when your two best players are gone.
Quote:
How many dynasties from this era of college football had a 47 game winning streak? Hell, how many dynasties had a winning streak of more than 30? Nobody. Texas got to 30, but like I said, no more than 30. So yeah, with the game being filled with dynasties at the time as you say, why aren't there more 30+ game winning streaks?
Oklahoma's streak was impressive I'm not doubting that, and the dynasties were there just because you don't win 30+ straight doesn't mean you aren't a dynasty. Oklahoma hit a very impressive hot streak but in the grand scheme of things with everything they had going for them like less recruting competition and less competitive schedules, their win streak just isn't as impressive as the Lakers.


Quote:
You can say it all you want. Miami and USC both lost their games. That's all there is too it. Oklahoma had a few games that were won by a touchdown or less. You still won't win this argument because you talked about dynasties above and still can't come up with a winning streak over 30 in the general time period. I'll give you the time frame, '40s-70s. How many teams other than Oklahoma had a winning streak over 30? Since I'm a nice guy I'll answer it for you. One! Toledo.
And I've already explained to you that dynasties don't have to win every single game. Notre Dame from 1946-49 had no losses and just two draws. That was a dynasty. Army went 6 straight from 44-49 with juts 2 losses and 2 ties. Oklahoma obviously had the longest streak and again it's a very impressive streak no one will deny that but it isn't the most impressive in the history of sports.
Quote:
The Atlanta Hawks may have finished with an above .500 record the next season, but they were under .500 for another 4 seasons after that. Yeah, struggling in the '70s until the late portions of the decade.
Once again they lost Maravich and Bellamy and that's why they went back in the tank. In 71-72 they had a very talented and competitive team.
Quote:
Exactly. You're trying to use it as a negative, so I flipped it onto you. Except Oklahoma played 25 games against .500 or better teams out of the 47. Lakers' played 15 out of 33. Do I need to do the math on this one? End results are what matter, not the talent that didn't get it done.
You don't need to explain the math but I need to explain to you again that it is two completely different sports. With the number of college football teams and the often shit schedules they face it isn't very hard to have a .500 or better record and that record doesn't always make you a good team.
Quote:
So if they were so good in these seasons, why couldn't they help their teams win more games? I mean the parity was just sooooo much better in the '70s we should have seen more teams over .500.
There were 17 teams and 8 were over .500, 9 were under. You do realize in a league like the NBA, NHL, NFL, and MLB not everyone can have a winning record? It's impossible. Around half did and half didn't like it should be.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 AM.

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"
Contact Us - Clear Cookies - Lost Password - WrestleZone Forums - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Top - AdChoices