Topic #1, Group #1: Most Impressive Winning Streak in Sports

[Cena's Little Helper]

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).

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.

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.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

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.

 

[Big Sexy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CH David]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Big Sexy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.